Isaiah 19:18-25

ג) EGYPT BY DEGREES CONVERTED WHOLLY TO THE LORD, AND THE THIRD IN THE CONFEDERATION WITH ASSYRIA AND ISRAEL

Isaiah 19:18-25

18     In that day 35shall five cities in the land of Egypt

36Speak 37the language of Canaan,

And 38swear to the Lord of hosts;

One shall be called, 39The city of 40destruction.

19     In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord

In the midst of the land of Egypt,And a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord.

20     And it shall be for a sign and for a witness

Unto the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt:For they shall cry unto the Lord because of the oppressors,And he shall send them a Saviour, and 41a great one,

42And he shall deliver them.

21     And the Lord shall be known to Egypt,

And 43the Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day,

And shall do sacrifice and oblation;

44Yea, they shall vow a vow unto the Lord, and perform it.

22     And the Lord shall smite Egypt: he shall smite and heal it:

And they shall return even to the Lord,

And he shall be intreated of them, and shall heal them.

23     In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria,

And 45the Assyrian shall come into Egypt,

And 46the Egyptian into Assyria,

And 47the Egyptians shall serve with 48the Assyrians.

24     In that day shall Israel be the third

With Egypt and Assyria.

25     Even a blessing in the midst of the 49land: 50whom the Lord of hosts 51shall bless, saying:

Blessed be Egypt my people,

And Assyria the work of my hands,And Israel mine inheritance.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Isaiah 19:18. The expression שְׂפַת כ׳ occurs only here.—נִשְׁבַּע with לְ must be distinguished from its use with בְּ. The latter is “to swear by one” (Isaiah 62:8; Amos 6:8; Amos 8:7, etc.); the former is “to swear, to oblige one’s self to another by oath,” (Zephaniah 1:5; Genesis 24:7; Genesis 50:24; Exodus 13:5; Psalms 132:2, etc.). הַהֶרֶם or הַחֶרֶם. Sixteen Codd. have the latter reading, also several editions. The LXX. indeed reads ἀσεδέκ, which is evidently a designed alteration resulting from the application of Isaiah 1:26 to the Egyptian city. But Symm., the Vulg. (civitas solis), Saadia, the Talmud (Menachot Fol. 110, A), also translate “city of the sun.” On the other hand the majority of codices and editions have הֶרֶם, and among the ancient versions at least the Syriac decidedly so reads (for Ἀρές, which Aqc. and Theod. read, could stand also for חֶרֶם). Thus critically the reading הֶרֶם is the best supported. The authority of the Masora is for it. But the reading חֶרֶם is, any way, very ancient Symmachus, Jerome, the Targumist met with it. And it must have enjoyed equal authority with the other reading. Else the Targumist would not have combined both readings when he writes: קַרְתָּא בֵית־שֶׁמֶשׁ דַּֽעֲתִידָא לְמֶֽחֱרַב, i.e., the city “Beth-Shemes quae futura est ad evertendum, i.e., quae evertetur.” And the fact that the treatise Menachot reads חֶרֶם is certainly proof that weighty authorities supported this reading. Add to this that הרם by no means affords a satisfactory sense. For the meaning “lion,” which some assume from the Arabic (haris “the render”) is very doubtful, first from the fact that it rests only on Arabic etymology. Yet more uncertain is the meaning liberatio, salus, amor, be it derived from the Syriac (which, as Gesen. in loc. demonstrates, rests on pure misunderstanding) or, with Maurer, from the Hebrew, by taking הֶרֶם = “tearing loose,” whereas it can only mean “rending in pieces, destroying.” And in this latter sense many expositors take the word. But how can a word of such mischievous import suit in a context so full of joy and comfort? Caspari (Zeitschr. für Luth. Theol. 1841, III.), whom Drechsler and Delitzsch follow, is therefore of the opinion that the Prophet, by a slight change wrote הרם instead of חרם, but will have this word הרם understood in the sense of “destroying the idolatry,” like Jeremiah 43:13 prophesies the “breaking in pieces of the obelisks in the temple of the sun in the land of Egypt.” But against this view is the fact that such twisting of words occurs always only in a bad sense. Thus Ezekiel 30:17 calls the city אוֹן by the name אָוֶן; Hosea 4:15; Hosea 5:8 (comp. Amos 5:5) calls בֵּית־אֵל by the name בֵּית־אָוֶן (for which moreover an actual and neighboring בֵּית־אָוֶן Joshua 7:2 gave the handle); Isaiah 7:6 changes the name טָֽבְאֵל into טָֽבְּאַל, although he uses it in pausa; and Isaiah 21:11 he introduces Edom under the name of דּוּמָה (“silence of the dead”) and, finally the Talmud in the treatise Aboda sara (Fol. 46 a, in the German translation of Ewald, Nuremberg, 1856, p. 324) gives the following examples as prescribing the rule for changing the names of cities that have an idolatrous meaning: “Has such a city had the name בֵּית גַּלְיָא, “house of revelation,” it should be called בֵּית כַּרְיָא “house of concealment” (or fossae, latrinae); has the city been called בֵּית מֶלֶךְ, “house of the king,” it should be called בֵּית כֶּלֶב “house of the dog;” instead of עֵין כֹּל “the all-seeing eye,” call it עֵין קוֹץ “the eye of thorns.”—Further examples of the kind see in Buxtorff, Lex., Chald., Talmud, et rabb., p. 1086 sq., s. v., כַּריָא——Thus we see that הרם as a twisting of חרם must either be opposed to the context or to the usus loquendi. I therefore hold חֶרֶם to be the original correct reading. But חרם means “the sun” (Judges 1:35, where it is remarkable that a little before, Isaiah 19:23, a בֵּית־שֶׁמֶשׁ is mentioned——, Isaiah 8:13; Isaiah 14:18; Job 9:7). I think, as older expositors (comp. Gesen. in loc.) and latterly Pressel (Herz. R. Encycl. X., p. 612) have conjectured, that it is not impossible that this name עיר־החרם in our verse was the occasion for seeking a locality near Heliopolis for the temple of Onias. The reason why it was not built immediately in or at Heliopolis was that a suitable site (ἐπιτηδειότατον τόπον) for building was found at Leontopolis, which was yet in the Nome of Heliopolis. That Onias in his petition to Philometor and Cleopatra evidently appealed in a special way to verse 19 proves nothing against the assumption that Isaiah 19:18 also had a significance for him. He even says expressly, after having quoted the contents of Isaiah 19:19 : “καὶ πολλὰ δὲ προεφήτευσεν ἄλλᾳ τοιαῦτα διὰ τὸν τόπον.” But if the Egyptian temple, which, according to Josephus (Bell. Judges 7:10, Judges 7:4), stood 343 years (it ought rather to say 243), was a great offence to the Hebrew Jews, it could easily happen that חרם of our verse was changed by them to הרם. There are in fact six MSS. that read expressly עִיר הַחֵרֶם “city of the curse;” and the Ἀσεδέκ of the LXX. is manifestly an intentional alteration in the opposite sense.——Therefore intentional changes pro et contra have undeniably been perpetrated. Thus is explained not only the duplicate reading in general, but especially, too, the tradition of הרם as the orthodox reading, and the fixing of the same by the Masorets.—Comp. moreover, Reinke in the Tüb. theol. Quart. Schrift. 1870, Heft I., on the imputed changes of the Masoretic text in Isaiah 19:18, and the remarks of the same writer in his Beiträgen zur Eklr. des A. T. Giesen 1872, Band VIII., p. 87 sqq.

Isaiah 19:20. The combination לאות ולער occurs only here. Of more frequent occurrence is אֹות וּמוֹכֶּת, Deuteronomy 13:2; Deuteronomy 28:46; Isaiah 20:3.——רָכ particip. = “contestant, champion,” comp. Isaiah 45:9; Jeremiah 51:36; not an uncommon use of the word in Judges 6:31; Judges 11:25; Judges 21:22.

Isaiah 19:21. עָכַר with latent transitive notion; Exodus 10:26; comp. Genesis 30:29.

Isaiah 19:22. The reason why Isaiah uses the word נָגַף is probably because this word is repeatedly used of the plagues of Egypt: Exod. 7:27; Exodus 12:13; Exodus 12:23; Exodus 12:27; Joshua 24:5—נעתר, audientem se praestitit alicui; only here in Isaiah; comp. Genesis 25:21; 2 Samuel 21:14; 2 Samuel 24:25.

Isaiah 19:23. מְסִלָּה see Isaiah 7:3.——עברו can only be understood as the abbreviation of the statement that occurs entire immediately before with application there to Egypt alone. The same service (עבר) shall Egypt perform in union with Assyria. The Prophet could so much the more readily express himself thus, in as much as עָבר is used also elsewhere (Job 36:11) in the same absolute way.

Isaiah 19:24. שׁלישׁיה is in itself tertia; yet not merely pars, but size, degree generally, designated by “three.” Compare עגלת שׁלישׁיה Isaiah 15:5. Here it is the third element, the third factor that must be added in order to make the harmony complete.

Isaiah 19:25. אשׁר cannot be construed as simple relative pronoun. For then the suffix in ברכו must be referred to הארץ which will hardly do. It is therefore construed = “so that,” or “since,” and the suffix named is referred to the individual that each of the three forms by itself (comp. Isaiah 17:10; Isaiah 17:13). Therefore אשׁר here is a conjunction (Green (Gr., § 239, 1).

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1. Egypt will gradually be altogether converted to the Lord. At first, indeed, only five cities will serve Him (Isaiah 19:18), but soon the Lord will have an altar in Egypt, and a pillar dedicated to Him on the border (Isaiah 19:19) will at once announce to the approaching traveller that Egypt is a land that pays worship to Jehovah. Then, when they cry to the Lord, He will deliver them from oppression as He did Israel of old in the days of the judges (Isaiah 19:20). He will reveal Himself to them, and they will know Him and offer Him divine service in due form (Isaiah 19:21). He will, indeed, smite them like His own people, but then He will heal them again: but they will turn to Him, and He will let Himself be entreated of them (Isaiah 19:22). But not only Egypt—Assyria too will then be converted to the Lord. And between Egypt and Assyria there will be busy intercourse, and they will no more be enemies of one another, but serve the Lord in common (Isaiah 19:23). And Israel will be the third in the confederation, and that will be a great blessing from the Lord for the whole earth (Isaiah 19:24), who then will call Egypt His people, Assyria the work of His hand, but Israel always still His special inheritance.

2. In that day——destruction.

Isaiah 19:18. The fifth is the half of ten. It appears to me to be neither a small nor a great number (Corn. a Lapide). But if in the ten there lies the idea of completeness, wholeness, then five is not any sort of fraction of the whole, but the half, which added to itself forms the whole. By the five the ten is assured. There does not, therefore, lie in the five the idea of the mustard seed, but rather the idea of being already half attained. From passages like Genesis 45:22; Exodus 22:1; Numbers 7:17; Numbers 7:23; Matthew 25:2; Matthew 25:20; 1 Corinthians 14:19, it is not erroneously concluded that the five has a certain symbolical meaning. Besides this, in respect to the division of the year into seven months (of freedom from water) and five months (of the overflow) the five was a sacred number to the Egyptians. Comp. Ebers, l. c., p. Isaiah 359: “Seven and five present themselves as especially sacred numbers.” To think, as Hitzig does, of five particular cities (Heliopolis, Leontopolis, Migdol, Daphne, Memphis), is opposed to the character of the prophecy. Five cities, therefore, shall speak the language of Canaan, the sacred language, the language of the law. That is, they shall found a place in the midst of them for the worship of Jehovah.

[“The construction of Calvin (who understands five out of six to be intended) is to be preferred, because the others arbitrarily assume a standard of comparison (twenty thousand, ten thousand, ten, etc.); whereas this hypothesis finds it in the verse itself, five professing the true religion to one rejecting it. Most of the other interpretations understand the one to be included in the five, as if he had said one of them. As לאחת admits either of these senses, or rather applications, the question must depend upon the meaning given to the rest of the clause. Even on Calvin’s hypothesis, however, the proportion indicated need not be taken with mathematical precision. What appears to be meant is that five-sixths, i.e., a very large proportion, shall profess the true religion, while the remaining sixth persists in unbelief.” “It shall be said to one, i.e., one shall be addressed as follows, or called by the following name. This periphrasis is common in Isaiah, but is never applied, as Gesenius observes, to the actual appellation, but always to a description or symbolical title (see Isaiah 4:3; Isaiah 61:6; Isaiah 62:4). This may be urged as an argument against the explanation of הַהֶרֶם as a proper name.” “All the interpretations which have now been mentioned [the one Dr. Naegelsbach favors being included in the number—Tr.] either depart from the common text or explain it by some forced or foreign analogy. If, however, we proceed upon the only safe principle of adhering to the common text, and to Hebrew usage, without the strongest reasons for abandoning either or both, no explanation of the name can be so satisfactory as that given by Calvin (civitas desolationis) and the Eng. Version (‘city of destruction’).” J. A. A.]

The city of destruction.—Isaiah often expresses the future existence of a person or matter by a name, of which he says it shall be applied to the person in question (Isaiah 1:26; Isaiah 4:3; Isaiah 61:6; Isaiah 62:4). Here there seems to be intended, not so much a characteristic of the nature, as a mark that shall serve as a means for recognizing the fulfilment. For why does the Prophet give the name of only one city? Why does he not give the five cities a name in common? It seems to me that the Prophet saw five points that shone forth out of the obscurity that concealed the future of Egypt from his eyes. They are the five cities in which the worship of Jehovah shall find a place. But only one of these cities, doubtless the greatest and most considerable, does he see so clearly that he even knows its name. This name he gives—and thus is given a mark whereby to identify the time of the fulfilment. For if in the future there comes about a condition of things in Egypt corresponding to our prophecy, and if a city under those circumstances bears the name the Prophet gives here, then it is a sure sign that said condition is the fulfilment of the present prophecy. Now, from the dispersion of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar on, Egypt became, to a great part of the Israelites, a second home; in fact it became the place of a second Jehovah-Temple; later it even became a wholly Christian land.

That Jehovah-Temple was built by Onias IV. (according to another calculation II.) under Ptolomæus Philometor (180–145) at Leontopolis in the Nome of Heliopolis (Josephus Antiq. 12, 9, 7; 13, 3, 1–3; 20, 10; Bell. Judges 7:10, Judges 7:2-4), or rather was a ruined Egyptian temple restored. Built upon a foundation sixty feet high, and constructed like a tower, this temple, of course, did not in its outward form resemble that at Jerusalem. But the altar was accurately patterned after the one in Jerusalem. Onias (and probably in opposition to his fellow-countrymen) appealed to our passage. For the building, strictly interpreted, was of course unlawful. And it was steadily opposed by the Hebrew Jews with greater or less determination. But the Egyptian Jews, as said, thought themselves authorized in the undertaking by our passage, especially Isaiah 19:19. It is not impossible that the choice of the locality was conditioned by the fact that our passage originally read עיר הַחֶרֶם (see under Text. and Gram.) which was translated “city of the sun” and was referred to Heliopolis, the ancient On, the celebrated priestly city (Genesis 41:45; Genesis 41:50; Genesis 46:20). [Would it not be a juster interpretation of the fulfilment of this prophecy in regard to the foregoing application to repeat, mutatis mutandis, Dr. Naegelsbach’s own remark in the exegetical comment on Isaiah 19:2-4 above, p. 224. “Nothing was less in Isaiah’s mind than to make those transactions the subject of a special prediction. Else how then is what follows to be applied, where it speaks of a Jehovah-altar in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar or obelisk dedicated to the Lord on the border of it? Can this be meant literally? If not, then neither can Isaiah 19:18 be understood literally.” Dr. Naegelsbach admits above that, “strictly interpreted,” the building of such a temple “was of course unlawful;” and the altar must be included in this statement. But in a matter appertaining to a legal and ceremonial worship a “strict interpretation,” which must mean “strictly legal,” is the only admissible interpretation. Deeds of formal worship that are unlawful by that interpretation cannot be right by any other interpretation, seeing that no other applies to them. How could Isaiah refer prophetically to such a matter as the mimic temple of Jehovah at Leontopolis in such language as we have in our verses 18, 19?—Tr.]

3. In that day——heal them.

Isaiah 19:19-22. What was only hinted in Isaiah 19:18, is in Isaiah 19:19 expressly affirmed: The Lord shall have an altar in Egypt. How this was fulfilled we have indicated already above. Egypt became not only a second home to the people of Israel. [But it must be remembered that this never received the token of God’s approval, who said Hosea 11:5, “He shall not return into the land of Egypt.”—Tr.]. It became also the birth-place of a most significant form of development of the Jewish spirit. It became moreover a Christian land, and as such had played a prominent part in the history of the Christian church. Call to mind only Origen and Athanasius. If thus the prophecy of the altar of Jehovah in Egypt was literally fulfilled, so the prophecy of the מַצֵּבָה, “pillar,” was fulfilled in a way not so literally, but not therefore in a less real sense. The word means statua, “standing image,” cippus, “monument.” Jer. 43:14 so designates the numerous obelisks that were in Heliopolis. Often idol pillars are so designated (1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 3:2; 2 Kings 10:27, etc.), the raising of which was expressly forbidden in the law (Leviticus 26:1; Deuteronomy 16:22). When it is announced here that a מצבה dedicated to Jehovah would be raised up, it is not meant that this would be for the purpose of divine service. Rather we see from “at the border” and also from Isaiah 19:20 that the pillar (the obelisk) should serve merely for a sign and mark by which any one crossing the border could know at once that he treads a land that is exclusively consecrated to the service of Jehovah. Altar and pillar, each in its place,—the pillar first and preparatory, the altar afterwards in the midst of the land and definitive—shall be sign and witness of it.

When we said above that this word was fulfilled not literally, yet not therefore less really, we mean it thus: that Egypt, when it ceased to be a heathen land certainly presented just as plainly to the eye of every one entering it the traces of its confession to the true religion, as we now a days observe more or less distinctly on entering a land, how it is with religion and religiousness there. [J. A. A., on verse 19. “A just view of this passage is that it predicts the prevalence of the true religion, and the practice of its rites in language borrowed from the Mosaic or rather from the patriarchal institutions. As we might now speak of a missionary pitching his tent at Hebron—without intending to describe the precise form of his habitation, so the Prophet represents the converts to the true faith as erecting an altar and a pillar to the Lord in Egypt, as Abraham and Jacob did of old in Canaan. [So for substance also Barnes.—Tr.]. Those explanations of the verse which suppose the altar and the pillar, or the centre and the border of the land to be contrasted, are equally at variance with good taste and the usage of the language, which continually separates in parallel clauses, words and things which the reader is expected to combine. See an example of this usage Isaiah 18:6. As the wintering of the beasts, and the summering of the birds are there intended to denote the presence of both beasts and birds throughout the year, so here the altar in the midst of the land, and the pillar at its border denote altars and pillars through its whole extent.”].

In what follows we observe the effort to show that the Lord will treat Egypt just like Israel. There will be therefore a certain reciprocity: Egypt conducts itself toward the Lord like Israel, therefore will the Lord conduct Himself toward Egypt as He has done toward Israel. Thus the second half of Isaiah 19:20 reminds one of that “crying of the children of Israel to Jehovah” that is so often mentioned in the book of Judges (Isaiah 3:9; Isaiah 3:15; Isaiah 4:3; Isaiah 6:6, etc.). In that survey of the times of the judges contained in Judges 2:11 sqq. (at Isaiah 19:18 comp. Judges 1:34; Judges 6:9) the oppressors of Israel are called לֹחֲצִים just as here, and Judges 2:16; Judges 2:18 the performance of the judges whom God sent to the people, is designated הוֹשִׁיעַ, and the judges are on that account expressly called מוֹשִׁיעַ “deliverers, saviours,” (Judges 3:9; Judges 3:15; Judges 6:36; Judges 12:3). הִצִּל, too, occurs in this sense in Judges 6:9; Judges 8:34; Judges 9:17, etc.—In consequence of these manifold mutual relations Jehovah shall become known to the Egyptians. The expression “shall be known,” etc., recalls the celebrated passage Exodus 6:3. “But by my name Jehovah, was I not known to them.” There the Lord reveals Himself to those that were held in bondage by the Egyptians; here is seen the remarkable advance that the Lord reveals Himself to the Egyptians themselves as Jehovah, that they, too, really know Him as such; serving Him in accordance with His law, they present sacrifice and oblation, i.e., bloody and unbloody offerings, and make vows to Him which they scrupulously perform as recognition of His divine majesty and grace (comp. Leviticus 27:0; Numbers 30:0; Deuteronomy 12:6; Deuteronomy 23:21 sqq.; Jeremiah 44:25; Ps. 61:9; Psalms 66:13; Psalms 116:14; Psalms 116:18, etc.). Egypt is like Israel moreover in this, that the Lord now and then chastises it as not yet sinless, but still heals again. The second half of Isaiah 19:22 is related to the first as particularizing the latter. In the first half it is merely said: Jehovah will smite and heal Egypt. But in the second half it is put as the condition of healing after the smiting that “they shall return,” etc. Thereby is affirmed that the Egyptians shall find grace only on this condition; and also that they will fulfil this condition. The contrast of smiting and healing reminds one of Deuteronomy 32:39, comp. Job 5:18; Hosea 6:1 sqq.

4. In that day——mine inheritance.

Isaiah 19:23-25. It is observed in verses 19–22, that the climax of the discourse is not quite attained, for Egypt alone is spoken of, and an Egypt that needed to be disciplined. But now the Prophet rises to the contemplation of a glorious picture of the future that is extensively and intensively complete. Israel’s situation between the northern and southern world-powers had ever been to it the source of the greatest distress inwardly and outwardly. But precisely this middle position had also its advantage. Israel breaks forth on the right hand and on the left. The spirit of Israel penetrates gradually Egypt and Assyria, and thus binds together these two opponents into one, and that something higher. This the Prophet expresses by saying there will be a laid out road, a highway, leading from Egypt to Assyria and from Assyria to Egypt. Such a road must, naturally, traverse the land of Israel, in fact, according to all that precedes, we must assume that this road properly goes out from Israel in both directions. For it is the Lord that makes Himself known to Assyria as well as to Egypt (Isaiah 19:21), and both these unite in the service of the Lord. For it is clear that the concluding clause of Isaiah 19:23, does not mean that Egypt shall be subject to Assyria (see עברו in Text. and Gram.). Then Israel will no longer be the unfortunate sacrifice to the enmity of its two mighty neighbors, but their peer and the third member of their union. Thus a harmony will be established, and the threefold accord will be a blessing in the midst of the whole earth and for them, because the Lord will bless them. For Israel as the earthly home of the kingdom of God, and Assyria and Egypt as the natural world-powers represent the entire earth. From them the blessing must come forth upon all. But they must be so blest that the predicates, that hitherto Israel had alone, will be applied to all three. Egypt is called עַמִּי “my people” (comp. Isaiah 3:12; Isaiah 10:2; Isaiah 10:24, and often), Assyria מעשׂה ירי “work of my hands,” (comp. Isaiah 60:21; Isaiah 64:7 and often), but Israel retains the name of honor נחלתי, “mine inheritance,” for thereby it is characterized as the actual son of the house and head of the family.

Footnotes:

[33]From before the lifting of the hand, etc., which He lifteth against it.

[34]recall it

[35]Shall be.

[36]Speaking.

[37]Heb. the lip.

[38]swearing.

[39]Ir Ha-heres.

[40]Or, Heres, or the sun.

[41]champion.

[42]And shall, etc.

[43]Egypt.

[44]And.

[45]Assyria.

[46]Egypt

[47]Egypt.

[48]Assyria.

[49]earth.

[50]since.

[51]blesses them.