Isaiah 30:6-14

2. THE PROPHET AS HE OUGHT TO BE, AND AS HE OUGHT NOT TO BE

Isaiah 30:6-14

6          The burden of the beasts of the south:

4Into the land of trouble and anguish,

From whence come 5the young and old lion,

The viper and fiery flying serpent,They will carry their riches upon the shoulders of young asses,And their treasures upon the bunches of camels,To a people that shall not profit them.

7     For the Egyptians shall help in vain, and to no purpose;

Therefore 6have I cried 7concerning this, Their strength is to sit still.

8     Now go, write it before them in a table,

And note it in a book,That it may be for 8the time to come for ever and ever:

9     That this is a rebellious people,

Lying children, children that will not hear the law of the Lord:

10     Which say to the Seers, See not;

And to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things,Speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:

11     Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path,

Cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.

12     Wherefore thus saith the Holy One of Israel,

Because ye despise this word,And trust in 9oppression and perverseness,

And stay thereon:

13     Therefore this iniquity shall be to you as a breach ready to fall,

Swelling out in a high wall,Whose breaking cometh suddenly at an instant.

14     And he shall break it as the breaking of 10the potters’ vessel,

That is broken in pieces; he shall not spare;So that there shall not be found in the bursting of it a sherdTo take fire from the hearth,Or to take water withal out of the pit.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

Isaiah 30:11, The form מִנֵּי is found only here. The Masoretic note under the text is to be read “Two Nuns with Tseri.” מִנֵּי is formed after the analogy of the forms &אַחֲרֵי עֲלֵי, etc., and has the same meaning as the more common מִנִּי (Isaiah 46:3).

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1. In order to set forth right vividly the certainty of his prophecy, Isaiah tells the people that he has been commanded to mark his utterance concerning the Egyptian help as a particular massa, to which he now gives an emblematic title similar to what we find in chapters 21, 22. The purport of this massa is this: The Jewish ambassadors drag rich treasures laboriously through the perilous wilderness to Egypt, in order to purchase the assistance of the Egyptians which will prove to be empty vapor; wherefore Jehovah Himself gives Egypt the name “Boaster, sitting still” (Isaiah 30:6-7). This massa is to be preserved till the remotest future, as a witness for the truth of what was said by the Prophet (Isaiah 30:8). In this way it must be made possible to establish objectively the truth of the prophetic testimony, as all sense for the truth is wanting in the people of Israel, for they are a lying race, that will not hear the law of Jehovah (Isaiah 30:9). They show this by actually demanding of the prophets that they should not tell them the truth, but only what is agreeable, even when it is pure falsehood (verse 10); and, further, by requiring that they (the prophets) should depart from the right way, and remove from their (the people’s) eyes the Holy One of Israel (Isaiah 30:11). Because then they despise the word of the Lord, and rely only on violence at home and a perverse foreign policy (Isaiah 30:12), this their sin shall be to them as a rent wall which bulges out and threatens every moment to fall (Isaiah 30:13). And it will also fall, and its remains will through the violence of the fall become reduced to small pieces such as the sherds of a pot, none of which is large enough for one to carry in it fire from the hearth or water from the pit (Isaiah 30:14).

2. The burden——and ever.

Isaiah 30:6-8. Very unjustly is the spuriousness of the inscription משׂא בהמות נגב maintained. In Isaiah 30:8 the Prophet is commanded to record it, i.e., the preceding brief, sharply marked saying in a particular tablet to serve as documentary evidence in the future. I understand this saying to be verses 6 and 7. For they are essentially of the same import as verses 1–5. But they reproduce this import in a quite peculiar, emblematic, mystical form. They bear, we might say, a decidedly prophetical character. Their purport is designedly set forth in this peculiar form for the purpose of being specially recorded. If now this brief saying is manifestly designed to have an independent existence, why should it not also have its own name, its particular inscription? The Prophet has recorded from 13–23. a series of prophecies against foreign nations, to each of which he gives the title מַשָּׂא. He has, in particular, in chapter 21 brought together some rather short utterances under the title משׂא with an emblematical addition (Isaiah 21:1; Isaiah 21:11; Isaiah 21:13). Might he not designedly insert here in the text such a brief emblematic משּׂא, as he was led to do so by the peculiar circumstances attending its origin? As he states, Isaiah 30:8, he received, after having orally delivered the words, the command also to make a particular record of them in writing. As now this recording formed an interlude to his oral teaching, and as he committed to writing all his oral teaching, why should he not record this interlude also? It could not possibly be passed over. Nor could he place it as an independent משׂא among the rest, for it would have been unintelligible in that connection. It is a rash conclusion to declare that the very expression משׂא is an evidence that the inscription did not proceed from Isaiah, because he never used the word. It is only in such prophecies as immediately refer to the theocracy that Isaiah does not use the word. It is with him a standing designation of prophecies concerning foreign nations. On this very account the word is here entirely appropriate. This only may be admitted, that when Isaiah orally delivered the prophecy contained in Isaiah 30:6-7, he did not then employ the words משׂא בה׳ נ׳. Possibly they may have been put as an inscription only to the writing mentioned in Isaiah 30:8. The purport of the massa is denoted by the words בהמות נגב. I believe that these words are ambiguous, and are purposely used in their ambiguity. The emblematic inscriptions Isaiah 21:1; Isaiah 21:11; Isaiah 21:13; Isaiah 22:1 are ambiguous. נגב is the south generally (Joshua 15:4; Joshua 18:15; Joshua 18:19, et saepe), but also specially the south of Judah (comp. on Isaiah 21:1). It is clear that the word cannot be taken here in the latter sense. For although the ambassadors on the way to Egypt crossed the south of Judah, they went also far beyond it. They made a journey into the south, into southern lands in general, and to these Egypt, the end of their journey, belongs. The בחמות נגב are therefore beasts which belong to the south generally. As then the Prophet above all means to warn against Egypt, must not also an Egyptian beast belong to these בְּהֵּמוֹת נגב? In fact בהמות recalls to mind the בְּהֵּמוֹתJob 40:15, the hippopotamus, in Egyptian probably p-ehe-mou, from which there is formed in Hebrew בְּהֵמוֹת resembling the plural of בְּהֵמָה (Comp. Lepsius in Herz.R.-Enc, I., p. 141), which could the more easily happen, since the Egyptian word signifies bos aquae, as the animal is called among the Arabians gamûs el-bahr, the river buffalo, and among the Italians bomarino. Comp. Herod. II. 71. But the Prophet does not think of the behemoth only. He has certainly also in his eye the beasts going to the south, bearing the treasures of Judah. Yea, I believe that the editors of Drechsler’sIsaiah (II. p. 65, note) are perfectly right, when they say that we are to regard also as a subject of the oracle “the Magnates of Judah sent to Egypt, who more devoid of knowledge than ox and ass, belong to the beasts of burden.” This kind of irony corresponds to the manner of Isaiah, and suits the context well. For not the innocent beasts, but those fools and untrustworthy Egypt must be regarded as the objects of the divine massa. [The beasts of the south are simply the asses and camels that bear the treasures to Egypt—D. M.]. בארץ צ׳ וצ׳ is to be connected with &לביא ישׂאן to מעופף is parenthetical. The expressions צָדָה (angustiae) and צוּקָה (coarctatio) occur also in the verse, Isaiah 8:22; yet they are found combined as here only in Proverbs 1:27.—לביא comp. on Isaiah 5:29. לַיִשׁ is found combined with לביא only here, and occurs besides only in two other places: Job 4:22; Proverbs 30:30. מֵהֶם refers to ארץ, there being substituted for this term in the singular the idea of the many separate localities from which such beasts may come. We, who are more accustomed to mark the place where, than the place whence anything appears (comp. e.g.מֵעַל and מִתַּחַת לָרָקִיעַGen 1:7), can fitly render “wherein are lioness and lion.” אֶפְעֶהvipera, regulus, besides here Isaiah 59:5; Job 20:16. שׂרף מעופף comp. on Isaiah 14:29. Observe the irony: through so dangerous a country the grandees of Judah drag their treasures, in order to purchase a help which will leave them in the lurch. עירים (Kethibh עֲוָרִים) comp. Isaiah 30:24; Genesis 32:16; Judges 10:4; Judges 12:14. The plural of חַיִל occurs besides only in the signification “forces, bands of warriors,” and is mostly preceded by גִבֹּרֵי or שָׂרֵי (1 Chronicles 7:5; 1Ch 7:7; 1 Chronicles 7:11; 1 Chronicles 7:40; Jeremiah 40:7; Jeremiah 40:13; Jeremiah 41:11, et saepe). Only in Ecclesiastes 10:10 does the word stand in the general signification “vires.” דַּבֶּשֶׁת hump, bunch, is ἄπ. λεγ. But Egypt will help vapor and emptiness (הבל וריק only here) i.e., the result of its assistance will be nothing but empty vapor, הבל וריק are therefore not to be taken as adverbs (which they can indeed be, comp. Psalms 73:13; Job 21:34; Job 35:16, et saepe), but as accusatives of the object depending on an idea of making, effecting latent in עזר (comp. Isaiah 19:21; Exodus 10:26; Job 6:4; Zechariah 7:5). The Lord gives Egypt also a characteristic name, as it were, to serve as a warning that no one may rely on this deceitful help to his own detriment. He names Egypt רהב הם שׁבת. Here, first of all, it appears to me that the Prophet chose this expression with reference to a place in Job. We read, Job 9:13, in a context which treats of the might and majesty of the supreme God: “Eloah turns not His anger, under Him bow themselves עֹזְרֵי רַהַב.” Whatever the author of the book of Job may have understood by these עזרי רהב, at all events in view of Isaiah’s unquestionable acquaintance with the book of Job, and of his frequent references to it, it is certainly not to be regarded as accidental that he applies to Egypt the two words עזר and רהב which stand together in that remarkable passage in Job which we own to be for us very obscure—רהב (from רָהַבtumultuari, strepere3:5; Proverbs 6:3; Psalms 138:3; Song of Solomon 6:5) is ferocia, superbia, and is used poetically to designate a huge aquatic animal (Job 26:12; Isaiah 51:9) which is conceived of as symbol of Egypt; hence רַהַב occurs simply as symbolical name of Egypt: Psalms 87:4; Psalms 89:11. רהב is then also here a designation of Egypt in the sense of ferocia, superbia, haughtiness, boasting. The words הם שׁבת are a closer specification, involving at the same time an antithesis. We best fill up the ellipsis by supplying אֲשֶׁר before הֵם, as hereby the abruptness of the construction is avoided. Cases such as &עֵמֶם הַשִּׂדּים הוּא יָם הֵמֶּלַח בֶּלע הִיא־צֹעַרGen 14:2-3 are not analogous; as in them an unknown name is explained by one that is known. But in our passage a new essential antithetic element is to be added to the first name; the whole name is to be marked as consisting of two parts in contrast to one another: Boasting that is at the same time sitting still. This thought is best expressed in German [and English] by the total omission of the pronoun, Boasting—sitting still.

[“Those who approve of our common rendering, Their strength is to sit still, consider the words as designed to teach that the true strength and security of the Jews consisted in the exercise of quiet and patient confidence in God, assured that He would deliver them in His own way. To justify such rendering, however, the first two words must be joined, רָהְבִהֶם. But against this construction there lie two objections. First, the pronominal suffix could not with propriety be referred to any antecedent but Egypt at the beginning of the verse. Secondly, the noun רַהַב never occurs with the acceptation strength, but always signifies pride, insolence, rage.” Henderson. If we only keep in mind, as a Hebrew would do, the significance of the name Rahab as meaning arrogance, we shall hardly find a happier translation of this expression than that given by Lowth,Rahab the Inactive.—D. M.]. The same explanation is to be given of the plural הֵם as of מֵהֻם in Isaiah 30:6. Drechsler is disposed, after the example of Cocceius and Vitringa, to derive שֶבֶת from שָׁבַתdesinere. But. not to mention that such a derivative שֶׁבֶת does not occur (for in Genesis 21:19; Proverbs 20:0:3שֶׁבֶת is certainly the infin. of יָשַׁב), the notion of ceasing, of doing nothing more is here quite unsuitable. The context requires the idea of inability to do anything, not withstanding great noise with words and gestures. The Prophet, after having hitherto delivered his prophecy orally, received the command also to write it down immediately. And this should be done אִתָּםi.e., before their (the people’s) eyes (Isaiah 59:12; Job 12:3 et saepe). For it was to be established that the Prophet had predicted the fruitlessness of the effort to obtain aid from Egypt, in order that, when this should be demonstrated by fact, the omniscience of Jehovah, and the trustworthiness of His servant as a Prophet, might appear indubitable. It appears to me that בּוֹא intimates that the Prophet could not do the writing on the spot where he was speaking, but must repair to a place where he would find the materials necessary for writing. לוּחַ and סֵפֶר differ only rhetorically in the parallelism. For, in fact, the word was to be not twice, but only once, written down. It is not necessary to read לְעֵד for לָעַד Observe the climax in the three specifications of time.

3. That this is a——of the pit.

Isaiah 30:9-14. The writing down which was commanded would not be needful, if there were alive in the people a mind for the truth and for what was really conducive to their welfare. But as they now refuse to hear the warning voice of truth, so they would also hereafter deny that they had been warned, if it could not be proved to them, as we say, on black and white. The Prophet, therefore, gives a reason for what he had said, Isaiah 30:6-8, by the words כי עם מרי וגו׳ Isaiah 30:9 sqq. The expression עַם מְרִי is found only here in Isaiah. He had, perhaps, Numb. 17:25 [E. V. Numbers 17:10] in view, where the command is given that the rod of Aaron should be kept כֶּחָשׁ ·לְאיֹת לִבְנֵי־מֶרִֽי is found only here. So corrupt are the people that they actually dare to attempt to prescribe to the Prophets what they ought, and what they ought not to prophesy, as if the true Prophet could see anything else than what Jehovah shows him (comp. the demand made upon the Prophet Micaiah, the son of Imlah, and his answer to it, 1 Kings 22:13-14, also the answer of Balaam Numbers 22:38, sqq.). The distinction between וֹאִים and חֹזִים has merely a rhetorical significance; for there is no real difference between them (comp. Isaiah 29:10 and 1 Samuel 9:9). וֹאֶה occurs in this signification in Isaiah only here. These people would have best liked entirely to forbid the Prophets of Jehovah to see anything as Prophets. But where this failed, they tried to induce them at least to accommodate their visions to the wishes of the public. They said to them: see not right things (the truth Isaiah 26:10; Isaiah 59:14) for us (dat. commodi), speak unto us what is agreeable (properly smooth, going smoothly on, Psalms 12:3-4, only here in Isaiah), and see deceptions (מהתלותἄπ. λεγ., comp. הֲתֻלִּיםJob 17:3 and Hiph. הֵתֵלGen 31:7; Judges 16:10 et saepe). Yea, they proceed quite consistently still further; they call upon the Prophets to turn aside altogether from the right way, that is, to forsake the Lord Himself, and to remove Him, the Holy One of Israel (on Isaiah 29:19) entirely from the face of the people. They thus require that the Prophets should not only apostatize to idolatry, but even take up an offensive attitude against the Lord.הִשְׁבִּית (Isaiah 13:11; Isaiah 16:10; Isaiah 21:2) is used of the abolition of idolatrous institutions, e.g., 2 Kings 23:5. This wicked conduct cannot remain unpunished. Because they thus contemptuously reject (מאם with בְּ comp. Isaiah 7:15 sq.; Isaiah 33:15; comp. Amos 2:4) the warning word of the Lord, which Isaiah announced to them respecting their Egyptian policy, and hope for their deliverance by exacting by violence the money needed to purchase the aid of Egypt (Isaiah 30:6, comp. 2 Kings 15:20), and by sinful reliance on the help of the heathen (נָלוֹז part. Niph., perversum, pravum, only here in Isaiah, besides only in the Proverbs of Solomon Proverbs 2:14; Proverbs 3:32;Proverbs 14:2 comp. Proverbs 3:21; Proverbs 4:21), this godless procedure of theirs shall be to them the precursor of certain destruction. As the breach in a wall and its bulging out is the sure precursor of its fall, (comp. Psalms 62:4), so this Egyptian alliance shall be a symptom, not of the deliverance, but of the ruin of Judah. פֶּרֶץ (besides only Isaiah 58:2) is manifestly not simply the mere rent, but that which is rent or burst in pieces. A פּרץ נפל is a part of a wall that has burst asunder, which is falling, i.e., about to fall. It is also נִבְעֶה (tumescens, בָּעָה to swell up, boil up, Isaiah 64:1, to desire eagerly Isaiah 21:12; except in Isaiah the word occurs only Obadiah 1:6) in a high wall, the higher the wall, the more dangerous the breach. פתאם לפתע comp. Isaiah 29:5. The suffix in שִׁבְרָהּ refers to חוֹמָה. When we read in the next verse וּשְׁבָרָהּ, Jehovah is evidently the subject, and the object is the wall, by which Judah is to be understood—a rapid transition from the image to the thing signified, which is here the less surprising as another image is immediately employed in what follows. That the subject of שְׁבָרָהּ must be a person, clearly appears from the nature of the figure, as it is more closely defined by the following words כתות לא יחמל. For it is not a potter’s vessel that breaks of itself that is spoken of, but. One which is intentionally (לא יחמל) broken in pieces (כתות is therefore the nearer specification of שֵׁבֶר: the transition from the infinitive to the finite verb in לא יחמל occurs frequently, and is here rendered necessary especially by the negation). מְכִתָּהcontusio, then as the abstract for the concrete, that which is broken in pieces, the fragments, חָתָהcapere, to fetch, besides here only Psalms 52:7; Proverbs 4:27; Proverbs 17:10; Proverbs 25:22. יָקוּד (the verb יָקַד in Isaiah only Isaiah 10:16; Isaiah 65:5 and here), is that which is kindled, burning, the glowing fire. חָשַׂף is properly nudare, retegere. But while we take off the surface, we, as it were, uncover the fluid. עֵרָה, nudavit, is likewise used of pouring out, because the bottom of the vessel is thereby uncovered—(Genesis 24:20; 2 Chronicles 24:11; Isaiah 53:12). חָשַׂף occurs further in Isaiah 20:4; Isaiah 47:2; Isaiah 52:10. גֶּבֶא is a cavity, a deep place in the earth, only here in Isaiah (comp. Ezekiel 47:11). That the Prophet alludes here to the exile is evident. But the passage did not receive its complete fulfilment till the second, or Roman exile.

Footnotes:

[4]through a land of trouble.

[5]lioness and lion.

[6]I call it; Boaster that sits still.

[7]Or, to her.

[8]Heb. the latter day.

[9]Or, fraud.

[10]Heb. the bottle of potters.