In the year that Tartan came to Ashdod, when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him, and he fought against Ashdod and took it;
Parallel Translations
-
In the year that Tartan came to Ashdod, when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him, and he fought against Ashdod and took it;
-
In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him,) and fought against Ashdod, and took it;
-
In the year that Tartan came into Ashdod, when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him, and he fought against Ashdod and took it;
Cross-references (6)
Passages linked to Isaiah 20:1 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- 2 Kings 18:17 The king of Assyria sent Tartan and Rabsaris and Rabshakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah with a great army to Jerusalem. They went up and came to Jerusalem. When they had come up, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is in the highway of the fuller’s field.
- 1 Samuel 5:1 Now the Philistines had taken God’s ark, and they brought it from Ebenezer to Ashdod.
- 1 Samuel 6:17 These are the golden tumors which the Philistines returned for a trespass offering to Yahweh: for Ashdod one, for Gaza one, for Ashkelon one, for Gath one, for Ekron one;
- Jeremiah 25:20 and all the mixed people, and all the kings of the land of Uz, all the kings of the Philistines, Ashkelon, Gaza, Ekron, and the remnant of Ashdod;
- Jeremiah 25:29-30 For, behold, I begin to work evil at the city which is called by my name; and should you be utterly unpunished? You will not be unpunished; for I will call for a sword on all the inhabitants of the earth, says Yahweh of Armies.” ’ “Therefore prophesy against them all these words, and tell them, “ ‘Yahweh will roar from on high, and utter his voice from his holy habitation. He will mightily roar against his fold. He will give a shout, as those who tread grapes, against all the inhabitants of the earth.
- Amos 1:8 I will cut off the inhabitant from Ashdod, and him who holds the scepter from Ashkelon; and I will turn my hand against Ekron; and the remnant of the Philistines will perish,” says the Lord Yahweh.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (21 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain Who was captain of Sennacherib, 2 Kings 18:17.
Who was captain of Sennacherib, 2 Kings 18:17.
The Hebrews write that Sennacherib was so called.
Read full note →
A city of the Philistines.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain Isa 20:1 In the year that Tartan came unto…
Isa 20:1 In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him,) and fought against Ashdod, and took it;
Ver. 1. In the year that Tartan.] A certain commander under Sennacherib, {2Ki 18:17} who came against Ashdod, among other cities of Judah, about the twelfth year of king Hezekiah.
Read full note →
Came to Ashdod.] Called also Azotus, {Act 8:40} and much praised by Herodotus in Euterpe.
When Sargon.] That is, Sennacherib most likely, who had seven names, saith Jerome, eight, say some Rabbis. Commodus, the Roman emperor, took unto himself as many names as there are months in the year, which also he changed ever and anon, but constantly-kept that of Exuperans, because he would have been thought to excel all men. {a} The like might be true of Sargon.
And fought against Ashdod, and took it.] Psammeticus, king of Egypt, had before taken it after a very long siege; now it is taken again from the Egyptian by the Assyrian, to teach them and others not to trust to forts and fenced cities. {b}
{a} Dion.
{b} Herod., lib. ii.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain Tartan; a great commander in Sennacherib’s army, 2Ki 18:17.
Tartan; a great commander in Sennacherib’s army, 2Ki 18:17.
Ashdod; an eminent and strong city of the Philistines, Jos 13:3; 1Sa 5:1, in the utmost part of the land of Canaan, towards Egypt.
Read full note →
Sargon: what king of Assyria this was is much disputed. It is well known, and confessed, that one and the same person hath frequently several names, both in Scripture, as hath been observed again and again, and in other authors. And therefore this may be either,
1. Shalmaneser, who, when he took Samaria, might also by Tartan take this place. Or,
2. Sennacherib, who, before he came to Jerusalem, came up against and took all the fenced cities of Judah, 2Ki 18:13, of which Ashdod might be reckoned one, as being in the tribe of Judah, Jos 13:3; 15:47, and taken by Hezekiah from the Philistines, as it seems very probable from that passage, 2Ki 18:8, He smote the Philistines, even unto Gaza, and the borders thereof, from the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city. Or,
3. Esarhaddon, Sennacherib’s son, who, by cutting off the first letter, is called Sarchedon, Tob 1:21, and thence possibly, by abbreviation, Sargon; who might do this thing in Hezekiah’s time, some years after his father’s death, and his coming to the empire, although it be not recorded in Scripture; for no man doubts that there were many great actions in those times which are wholly omitted in the sacred writings.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain God here, as King of nations, brings a sore…
God here, as King of nations, brings a sore calamity upon Egypt and Ethiopia, but, as King of saints, brings good to his people out of it. Observe,
I. The date of this prophecy. It was in the year that Ashdod, a strong city of the Philistines (but which some think was lately recovered from them by Hezekiah, when he smote the Philistines even unto Gaza, Kg2 18:8), was besieged and taken by an army of the Assyrians. It is uncertain what year of Hezekiah that was, but the event was so remarkable that those who lived then could by that token fix the time to a year. He that was now king of Assyria is called Sargon, which some take to be the same with Sennacherib; others think he was his immediate predecessor, and succeeded Shalmaneser. Tartan, who was general, or commander-in-chief, in this expedition, was one of Sennacherib's officers, sent by him to bid defiance to Hezekiah, in concurrence with Rabshakeh, Kg2 18:17.
Read full note →
II. The making of Isaiah a sign, by his unusual dress when he walked abroad. He had been a sign to his own people of the melancholy times that had come and were coming upon them, by the sackcloth which for some time he had worn, of which he had a gown made, which he girt about him. Some think he put himself into that habit of a mourner upon occasion of the captivity of the ten tribes. Others think sackcloth was what he commonly wore as a prophet, to show himself mortified to the world, and that he might learn to endure hardness; soft clothing better becomes those that attend in king's palaces (Mat 11:8) than those that go on God's errands. Elijah wore hair-cloth (Kg2 1:8), and John Baptist (Mat 3:4) and those that pretended to be prophets supported their pretension by wearing rough garments (Zac 13:4); but Isaiah has orders given him to loose his sackcloth from his loins, not to exchange it for better clothing, but for none at all - no upper garment, no mantle, cloak, or coat, but only that which was next to him, we may suppose his shirt, waistcoat, and drawers; and he must put off his shoes, and go barefoot; so that compared with the dress of others, and what he himself usually wore, he might be said to go naked. This was a great hardship upon the prophet; it was a blemish to his reputation, and would expose him to contempt and ridicule; the boys in the streets would hoot at him, and those who sought occasion against him would say, The prophet is indeed a fool, and the spiritual man is mad, Hos 9:7. It might likewise be a prejudice to his health; he was in danger of catching a cold, which might throw him into a fever, and cost him his life; but God bade him do it, that he might give a proof of his obedience to God in a most difficult command, and so shame the disobedience of his people to the most easy and reasonable precepts. When we are in the way of our duty we may trust God both with our credit and with our safety. The hearts of that people were strangely stupid, and would not be affected with what they only heard, but must be taught by signs, and therefore Isaiah must do this for their edification. If the dress was scandalous, yet the design was glorious, and what a prophet of the Lord needed not to be ashamed of.
III. The exposition of this sign, Isa 20:3, Isa 20:4. It was intended to signify that the Egyptians and the Ethiopians should be led away captive by the king of Assyria, thus stripped, or in rags, and very shabby clothing, as Isaiah was. God calls him his servant Isaiah, because in this matter particularly he had approved himself God's willing, faithful, obedient servant; and for this very thing, which perhaps others laughed at him for, God gloried in him. To obey is better than sacrifice; it pleases God and praises him more, and shall be more praised by him. Isaiah is said to have walked naked and barefoot three years, whenever in that time he appeared as a prophet. But some refer the three years, not to the sign, but to the thing signified: He has walked naked and barefoot; there is a stop in the original; provided he did so once that was enough to give occasion to all about him to enquire what was the meaning of his doing so; or, as some think, he did it three days, a day for a year; and this for a three years' sign and wonder, for a sign of that which should be done three years afterwards or which should be three years in the doing. Three campaigns successively shall the Assyrian army make, in spoiling the Egyptians and Ethiopians, and carrying them away captive in this barbarous manner, not only the soldiers taken in the field of battle, but the inhabitants, young and old; and it being a very piteous sight, and such as must needs move compassion in those that had the least degree of tenderness left them to see those who had gone all their days well dressed now stripped, and scarcely having rags to cover their nakedness, that circumstance of their captivity is particularly taken notice of, and foretold, the more to affect those to whom this prophecy was delivered. It is particularly said to be to the shame of Egypt (v. 4), because the Egyptians were a proud people, and therefore when they did fall into disgrace it was the more shameful to them; and the higher they had lifted up themselves the lower was their fall, both in their own eyes and in the eyes of others.
IV. The use and application of this, Isa 20:5, Isa 20:6. 1. All that had any dependence upon, or correspondence with, Egypt and Ethiopia, should now be ashamed of them, and afraid of having any thing to do with them. Those countries that were in danger of being overrun by the Assyrians expected that Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia, with his numerous forces, would put a stop to the progress of their victorious arms, and be a barrier to his neighbours; and with yet more assurance they gloried that Egypt, a kingdom so famous for policy and prowess, would do their business, would oblige them to raise the siege of Ashdod and retire with precipitation. But, instead of this, by attempting to oppose the king of Assyria they did but expose themselves and make their country a prey to him. Hereupon all about them were ashamed that ever they promised themselves any advantage from two such weak and cowardly nations, and were more afraid now than ever they were of the growing greatness of the king of Assyria, before whom Egypt and Ethiopia proved but as briers and thorns put to stop a consuming fire, which do but make it burn the more strongly. Note, Those who make any creature their expectation and glory, and so put it in the place of God, will sooner or later be ashamed of it, and their disappointment in it will but increase their fear. See Eze 29:6, Eze 29:7. 2. The Jews in particular should be convinced of their folly in resting upon such broken reeds, and should despair of any relief from them (Isa 20:6): The inhabitants of this isle (the land of Judah, situated upon the sea, though not surrounded by it), of this country (so the margin); every one shall now have his eyes opened, and shall say, "Behold, such is our expectation, so vain, so foolish, and this is that which it will come to. We have fled for help to the Egyptians and Ethiopians, and have hoped by them to be delivered from the king of Assyria; but, now that they are broken thus, how shall we escape, that are not able to bring such armies into the field as they did?" Note, (1.) Those that confide in creatures will be disappointed, and will be made ashamed of their confidence; for vain is the help of man, and in vain is salvation hoped for from the hills or the height and multitude of the mountains. (2.) Disappointment in creature confidences, instead of driving us to despair, as here (how shall we escape?), should drive us to God; for, if we flee to him for help, our expectation shall not be frustrated.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod,.... Or…
In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod,.... Or Azotus, as the Septuagint here call it; and which is its name in the New Testament; see Gill on Act 8:40. This Tartan, or whom the Septuagint names Tanathan, and the Arabic version Tathan, was one of Sennacherib's generals, Kg2 18:17,
(when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him); to the above place to besiege it. This Sargon is generally thought to be the same with Sennacherib, since Tartan was one of his generals, who might have more names than one. Jerom says he had seven; the Jewish Rabbins (h) eight; though some think a predecessor of his is meant, Shalmaneser; and others his son Esarhaddon, who in the Apocrypha:
Read full note →
"And there passed not five and fifty days, before two of his sons killed him, and they fled into the mountains of Ararath; and Sarchedonus his son reigned in his stead; who appointed over his father's accounts, and over all his affairs, Achiacharus my brother Anael's son.'' (Tobit 1:21)
is called Sarchedon, which might easily pass by pronunciation into Sargon:
and fought against Ashdod, and took it; which was held by the Assyrians till the time of Psammiticus, and was so strong a city, and so well fortified, that it held out a siege of twenty nine years before he could be master of it (i); how long Tartan lay against it, before he took it, is not said; nor is it certain what year he came against it; those who take Sargon to be Shalmaneser place it in the fourth year of Hezekiah's reign, who sent Tartan to Ashdod at the same time that he went against Samaria, Kg2 18:9 but others, who think Sennacherib is Sargon, fix it to the fourteenth year of Hezekiah's reign, as Kimchi; who, hearing of Tirhakah king of Ethiopia and Egypt coming against him, went forth to meet him, and subdued him; and at the same time sent Tartan against Ashdod; or rather this was done when he took the fenced cities of Judah, of which this was one, having been taken a little before by Hezekiah from the Philistines; see Kg2 18:8 though, if Esarhaddon is Sargon, this must be in the times of Manasseh, perhaps about the twenty second year of his reign, by whom he was taken, and carried captive; but it is most likely to have been in Hezekiah's time.
(h) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 94. 1. (i) Herodot. l. 2. c. 157.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain The captivity of Egypt and Ethiopia represented, to take…
The captivity of Egypt and Ethiopia represented, to take off the Jews from seeking to them for help, ver. 1-6
Sargon - Sennacherib, who, before he came to Jerusalem, came up against and took all the walled cities of Judah, of which Ashdod might be reckoned one, as being in the tribe of Judah.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain The Prophet Isaiah a sign to Egypt and Cush…
CHAPTER XX
The Prophet Isaiah a sign to Egypt and Cush or Ethiopia, that
Read full note →
the captives and exiles of these countries shall be indignantly
treated by the king of Assyria, 1-6.
NOTES ON CHAP. XX
Tartan besieged Ashdod or Azotus, which probably belonged at this time to Hezekiah's dominions; see 2Kg 18:8. The people expected to be relieved by the Cushites of Arabia and by the Egyptians. Isaiah was ordered to go uncovered, that is, without his upper garment, the rough mantle commonly worn by the prophets, (see Zec 13:4,) probably three days to show that within three years the town should be taken, after the defeat of the Cushites and Egyptians by the king of Assyria, which event should make their case desperate, and induce them to surrender. Azotus was a strong place; it afterwards held out twenty-nine years against Psammitichus, king of Egypt, Herod. ii. 157. Tartan was one of Sennacherib's generals, 2Kg 18:17, and Tirhakah, king of the Cushites, was in alliance with the king of Egypt against Sennacherib. These circumstances make it probable that by Sargon is meant Sennacherib. It might be one of the seven names by which Jerome, on this place, says he was called. He is called Sacherdonus and Sacherdan in the book of Tobit. The taking of Azotus must have happened before Sennacherib's attempt on Jerusalem; when he boasted of his late conquests, Isa 37:25. And the warning of the prophet had a principal respect to the Jews also, who were too much inclined to depend upon the assistance of Egypt. As to the rest history and chronology affording us no light, it may be impossible to clear either this or any other hypothesis, which takes Sargon to be Shalmaneser or Asarhaddon, &c., from all difficulties.-L. Kimchi says, this happened in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain Isa 20:1. In the year that Tartan came to…
Isa 20:1. In the year that Tartan came to Ashdod — Namely, to besiege it. Tartan is mentioned (2Ki 18:17) as one of the generals of Sennacherib, who is generally supposed to be here meant by Sargon, which was probably one of the seven names by which Jerome, on this place, says he was called. Ashdod, or Azotus, was an eminent and strong city, formerly belonging to the Philistines, in the utmost part of the land of Canaan toward Egypt. Afterward, according to Herodotus, it held out twenty-nine years against Psammitichus, king of Egypt. It is likely that at this time it belonged to Hezekiah’s dominions, and that its inhabitants expected to be relieved during the siege by the Egyptians and Cushites, or Ethiopians. The taking of it, Bishop Lowth thinks, must have happened before Sennacherib’s attempt on Jerusalem; when he boasted of his late conquests, Isa 37:25 : and the warning of the prophet had a principal respect to the Jews also, who were too much inclined to depend on the assistance of Egypt.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod -…
In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod - Tartan was one of the generals of Sennacherib. Ashdod, called by the Greeks Azotus, was a seaport on the Mediterranean, between Askelon and Ekron, and not far from Gaza (Reland’s “Palestine,” iii.) It was one of the five cities of the Philistines, assigned to the tribe of Judah, but never conquered by them Jos 13:8; Jos 15:46-47. The temple of Dagon stood here; and here the ark of God was brought after the fatal battle of Eben-ezer (1Sa 5:1, following.) It sustained many sieges, and was regarded as an important place in respect to Palestine, and also to Egypt. It was taken by Tartan, and remained in the possession of the Assyrians until it was besieged by Psammetichus, the Egyptian king, who took it after a siege of twenty-nine years (Herod. ii. 157). It was about thirty miles from Gaza. It is now a small village, and is called “Esdud.” It was besieged and taken by Tartan as preparatory to the conquest of Egypt; and if the king who is here called “Sargon” was Sennacherib, it probable that it was taken before he threatened Jerusalem.
Sargon the king of Assyria - Who this “Sargon” was is not certainly known. Some have supposed that it was Sennacherib; others that it was Shalmaneser the father of Sennacherib, and others that it was Esar-haddon the successor of Sennacherib - (Michaelis). Rosenmuller and Gesenius suppose that it was a king who reigned “between” Sbalmaneser and Sennacherib. Tartan is known to have been a general of Sennacherib 2Ki 18:17, and it is natural to suppose that he is here intended. Jerome says that Senacherib had seven names, and Kimchi says that he had eight; and it is not improbable that “Sargon” was one of those names. Oriental princes often had several names; and hence, the difficulty of identifying them. See Vitringa on this place.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain Year. Eighteen after the preceding predictions. (Calmet) --- Sargon.…
Year. Eighteen after the preceding predictions. (Calmet) --- Sargon. Sennacherib, (St. Jerome) Salmanasar, (Sanctius) or Assaradon, who intended to revenge Sennacherib, and sent his "collector of taxes" to take Azotus from Ezechias, and then to proceed farther. (Calmet) --- Psammitichus having obtained the sole dominion of Egypt, besieged Azotus for 29 years. (Herodotus ii. 157.) (Amos i. 8.)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain Isaiah 20
β) THE ASSYRIAN CAPTIVITY OF EGYPT
Isaiah 20
Read full note →
This chapter, whose date is exactly determined by the historical notices of Isa_20:1 in connection with Isa_20:3 (comp. the introduction to chapters 17–20), is related to chap. 19, with which it is manifestly contemporaneous, as a completion. Thus chap. 19 speaks chiefly of the visitations that shall overtake Egypt, by means of catastrophes of its inward political and natural life. But to that conversion of Egypt spoken of Isa_19:18 sqq., outward distresses also must contribute. These, according to the political relations that prevailed in the period when chapters Isa_19:20 originated, can proceed only from Assyria. At the same time this weighty lesson resulted from these things, that Judah in its then relation to Assyria and Egypt must not rely on Egypt for protection against Assyria.
____________________
1 In the year that 1Tartan came unto Ashdod, (2when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him), and 3fought against Ashdod, and took it; 2at the same time spake the Lord by 4Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot, And he did so, walking naked and 3barefoot. And the Lord said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder 5 upon Egypt and dupon Ethiopia; 4so shall the king of Assyria lead away 6the Egyptians prisoners, and 7the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, 8to the 9shame of Egypt. 5And they shall be afraid and ashamed of Ethiopia their expectation, and of Egypt their glory. 6And the inhabitant of this 10 11isle shall say in that day, Behold, such is our expectation, whither we flee for help to be delivered from the king of Assyria: and how shall we escape?
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Isa_20:2. One must carefully note that what follows immediately on the formula of announcement, דבר י׳ ביד־ישׁ׳ לאמר is not something that Jehovah spake by Isaiah, but something that He spake to him (לֵךְ וגו). For בְּירַ never has the meaning “in conspcctu,” as some would assume in order to obviate the incongruity between ביר and לֵךְ; it has not this meaning even in 1Sa_21:14, and Job_15:23. לֵאמֹר, therefore, as to form connects primarily with the לֵךְ immediately following, but in regard to matter it relates to all that follows. ויאמר י׳ in the beginning of Isa_20:3 like לאמר, is subordinate to the more intensive רִּבֶּר, and introduces the second stage of the revelation announced by רִּבֶּר וגו. The expression בְּירַ for the human organ of the divine revelation occurs in Isaiah only here. In Jeremiah, too, it occurs only Isa_37:2; Isa_50:1.——Note the constr. praegn. in פתחת חשׂק מעל ו׳where the preposition must be connected with a verb understood. Compare Green., § 273, 3.
Isa_20:3. שׁלשׁ שׁנימ occasions difficulty. The interpretation is altogether ungrammatical that takes these words in the sense: “in three years shall be fulfilled what this symbolical act signifies.” The words can only be made to relate to הלך, or, according to the accents, to what follows; but in either case must be taken in the sense “for three years.” Regarding the words only grammatically, the nearest meaning that offers is: “like my servant Isaiah has gone three years.” etc. For were it said: “like my servant goes for three years,” why then does it not read הֹלֵךְ? Or if the meaning were: “like my servant will go,” why then does it not read יֵלֵךְ? Although the Hebrew perfect indicates directly only that something actually occurs objectively without reference to the time, still the fact must belong to some time; and if neither an internal nor external sign points to the present nor future, then we are obliged to take the verbal form that designates facta just in the sense of factum, i.e., in the sense of come to pass, done, in respect to time. However some construe הָלַךְ as perfect, but refer שׁלשׁ שׁנים to אות ומפת, so that the sense is: “like my servant has gone naked and barefoot for a type of three years long” (tribus annis completis in exilium ducta erit Aegyptus atque Aethiopia; usque ad illud tempus, quod Isajas semel nudus et discalceatus incessit, typus est,” Stade, l. c. p. 67; thus, too, the Masorets, Jerome, Hitzig, Hendewerk, Knobel). But to this there is a twofold objection [for the second see under the following Exeg. and Crit. in loc.). First: If it were to be expressly said that Isaiah did not for three years go naked, but only that he was to be a sign for three years by once (Stade) or several times repeated going naked, or more exactly, if the typical transaction itself did not last through three years, but was only to obtain as the sign for the continuance of three years, if therefore שׁלשׁ שׁנים is to depend not on הלר but on אות ומופּת, then must the dependence be indicated corresponding to the sense. The mere Accusative then durst not be used. If Isaiah was for three years long a type, then must he three years long go naked. But did he go naked only once or a few times, and were only the typical significance of this going naked to extend to three years, then it must read לְשָׁלשׁ שָׁנִים or אוֹת וּמוֹפֵת שָׁלשׁ שָׁנִים. The latter construction would not be incorrect, as Stade (p. 68) seems to assume, in as much as אות ומופת, as to sense, form only one notion (comp. Eze_31:16).
Isa_20:4. חֲשׂוּפַי is held by Ewald (§ 211, c, Anm. Isaiah 2 : [comp. Green, § 199 c] to be a change from חֲשׂוּפֵּי fixed by the Masorets. Thus, too, שָׂרַי Jdg_5:15. Others (Delitzsch, Dietrich) hold this form, like (חוֹרַי Isa_19:8), חַלּוֹנַי (Jer_22:14), גוֹבַי (Amo_7:1; Nah_3:17), שַׁרַּי (Exo_6:3), for a singular form with a collective signification. Hitzig and Stade regard our word as an archaic ending of the Construct State, of which the punctuators had availed themselves “in order to avoid the disagreeable sound that would be occasioned by the following שֵׁת.” But then they would often have had to resort to this change. It appears to me of course probable that the pointing ־ַי is to be charged to the Masorets. But שֵׁת did not prompt them to this; it was the foregoing singulars עָרוֹם וְיָחֵף. They supposed they must punctuate חשׂופי as singular to correspond with these. Therefore I believe that חשׂופי is to be regarded as a singular like the הֹרַי, etc., named above, but that it is set in the place of the original חֲשׂוּפֵי by tradition only. But ערם ויחף is partly conditioned by Isa_20:3, partly it is to be treated as an ideal number (Isa_24:22).——ערות מ׳ is in apposition with חשׂופי שׁ׳.
Isa_20:5-6. מַבָּט, that to which one looks (hoping and trusting) occurs in Isaiah only in these two verses. Beside this in Zec_9:5.——לעזרה comp. Isa_10:3; Isa_31:1.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. In the year when the Tartan, i.e. commander-in-chief of king Sargon of Assyria, came against Ashdod to besiege the city—which he also took after a comparatively short siege,—Isaiah received commandment from the Lord to take off his garment made of bad sack linen and his sandals, and to go about naked and barefoot (Isa_20:1-2). For the incredible thing shall happen that the Egyptians and Ethiopians, shall be compelled to go into captivity naked and barefoot, like Isaiah goes about, (Isa_20:3-4). Thereupon all inhabitants of the sea-board of Palestine, will, with terror and shame, be sensible how wrong they were to confide in the power and glory of Ethiopia and Egypt (Isa_20:5). They will say: Thus it has gone with the power from whom we expected protection; how now shall it go with us? (Isa_20:6).
2. In the year——barefoot.
Isa_20:1-2. According to the testimony of Assyrian monuments, Tartan is not a proper name, but an appellative. It is the “Assyrian official name for the commander-in-chief.” In Assyrian the word sounds tur-ta-nu, and is, to the present, of unknown derivation. On the Assyrian list of regents that is communicated by Schrader (Die Keilinschriften u. das A. T., Giessen, 1872, p. 323 sqq.) it reads (obverse 9): “Murdukiluya, Tartan, to the city Gozan (obv. 38); Samsulu, Tartan, to Armenia (obv. 48); Samsulu, Tartan, to the city Surat (overse 19); Samsulu, Tartan, in the land (Rev. 32); Nabudaninanni, Tartan, to the city Arpad.” Thus the ordering of these high officers to their various posts of administration is designated. The word “Tartan” occurs again in the Old Testament, only 2Ki_18:17.——As regards Sargon, it is now settled by documentary proof that Salmanassar and Sargon are not one person. The Assyrian canon of regents, which the great work of inscriptions by Rawlinson, Vol. III., communicates in amended form (comp. Schrader, l. c., p. 317) contains as fifth Eponyme of that administration that followed Tuklat-habal-asar, i.e., Tiglath-Pileser, the name Sal-ma-nu-âsir (another form Sal-man-âsir): and Rawlinson (Athenaeum, 1867, No. 2080, p. 304, comp. Schrader in Stud. and Krit., 1872, IV. p. 737) remarks on this: “Salmanassar IV., (for there were three older Salmanassars) ascended the throne in the year 727 B. C., for which year there was already an Eponyme established, so that he could only enter on his Archonship in 723.” But Sargon came to the administration in the course of the year 722 B. C. He is mentioned in the Old Testament only in our passage—whereas the monuments offer just about his reign the richest results. His name in Assyrian is Sarrukin, which by the Assyrians themselves, is construed partly as Sarrukin, i.e. “mighty the king,” or “the right king,” partly as Sarruakin, i.e. “He (God) appointed the king” (comp. יְהוֹיָבִין). Sargon is the builder of North Nineveh or Dur-Sarrukin, now Khorsabad, whose monuments, with their inscriptions of the most various sorts, are a most valuable source of historical information (comp. Schrader, Keilinschriften, p. 256 sqq.). The following is the account of the conquest of Ashdod as the Khorsabad inscription gives it according to Schrader’s (l. c., p. 259 sqq.) translation. “Azuri, king of Ashdod, hardened his heart to pay no tribute and sent demands to the princes of his neighborhood to revolt from Assyria. Accordingly I did vengeance and changed his government over the inhabitants of his territory. Achimit, his brother, I set over them in the government in his place. The Syrians, that meditated revolt, despised his dominion and raised up Iaman over themselves, who had no claim to the throne, and who, like those, refused to own the dominion. In the burning wrath of my heart I did not assemble my whole power, took no concern for baggage. With my men of war, who separated not themselves from me behind the raising of my arms, I advanced on Ashdod. That Iaman, when he perceived the approach of my army from far, fled to a region (?) of Egypt, which lay on the borders of Meroe; not a trace of him was to be seen. Ashdod, Gimt-Asdudim (?) I besieged, took it; his gods, his wife, his sons, the treasures, possessions, valuables of his palace, along with the inhabitants of his land I appointed to captivity. Those cities I restored; I colonized there the inhabitants of the lands that my hands had conquered, that are in the midst of the East; I made them like the Assyrians; they rendered obedience. The king of Meroe, who in the midst. … of a desert region, on a path. … whose fathers since remote times down to (this time) had not sent their ambassadors to my royal ancestors, to entreat peace for himself: the might of Merodach (overpowered him), a mighty fear came over him, fear seized him. In bonds … iron chains he laid him (Iaman); he directed his steps toward Assyria and appeared before me.” If we compare the annals of Sargon, which register year by year the deeds of this king, we find that in the year of his beginning to reign (722), which is not reckoned as his first year, he conquered Samaria; in the second year (720) he conquered king Sevech of Egypt in the battle of Raphia and took prisoner king Hanno of Gaza; in the eleventh year (711) he made war on Azuri of Ashdod and conquered the city, after which the king of Ethiopia sued for peace (Schrader, l. c., p. 264 sq.). In all, Sargon reigned seventeen years (until 705). The monuments and the Prophet mutually complete one another. If from the former we see the occasion, the nearer circumstances and the time of the expedition against Ashdod, the Prophet, on the other hand, informs us that it was not Sargon himself that conducted the undertaking, as might appear from the monuments. It was the constant usage of those Asiatic potentates, to which there are only a few exceptions, to register the deeds of the leaders of their armies as their own on the monuments. Comp. Schrader, Stud. u. Krit, 1872, IV. p. 743. Moreover from the contents of the Khorsabad inscription it is seen that Ashdod was not at that time visited for the first by the Assyrians, as also on the other hand it appears that Egypt had already experienced emphatically the might of the Assyrian arm. For without any campaign, merely out of fear of that arm, the Egyptian-Ethiopian king surrendered the fugitive Iaman. As regards the time, our prophecy, according to the inscription, falls in the year 711, thus in the eleventh year of king Sargon’s reign. The siege of Ashdod, for which later Psammetichus required twenty-five years (Herod. 2, 157), appears not to have lasted long at that time. The capture followed, according to the inscriptions (see above), in the same year. Perhaps the divided state of the inhabitants of Ashdod was to blame for this speedy capture. That there was an Assyrian party among them appears from the inscription communicated above.
The phrase וַיִּלָּֽחֶם וגו, and he fought against, etc., is parenthetical. As to the sense, it is in so far an historical anticipation that the taking did not follow after what is related in Isa_20:2. But in relation to Isa_20:3, that phrase is no anticipation. For the meaning of the typical action, if my interpretation of “three years” is correct, can only have been signified three years later. Consequently the entire chapter can not have been written earlier than three years after the “coming of the Tartan” mentioned in Isa_20:1. In as much as this “coming of the Tartan” is taken as the point of departure for the course of events, while the conquest is only mentioned in parenthesis, as a side affair, the Prophet likely received the command of Isa_20:2, about the time of that “coming,” therefore before the capture. By implication, therefore, there lay in the command at the same time a prediction of that conquest of Ashdod. For the conquest of Egypt presupposes the taking of the outworks. Therefore the point of the prophecy also is directed against Egypt.
At the same time is related to “In the year that the Tartan came” as a wider sphere, as certainly as the notion עֵת is more comprehensive than the notion שָׁנָה. The following contains indeed, information concerning two facts: first concerning the command to go naked, and second, concerning the interpretation that followed after three years. To these refer those two dates, the narrower and the broader, as a matter of course, the first date corresponding to the first fact and the second to the second fact. Therewith is closely connected that the sentence “spake the Lord … saying,” introduces the entire revelation contained in what follows. (See under Text. and Gram.).
It is not accidental that Isaiah is called here by his complete name, Isaiah the son of Amoz. For this happens, beside the present, only Isa_1:1 and Isa_2:1, therefore only in the first and second introduction; then Isa_13:1 (in the beginning of the prophecies against the nations) and Isa_37:21, where is related the comforting reply that Isaiah was the means of giving to Hezekiah after the threatening of Sennacherib. By the designation of the Prophet as “the son of Amoz” is signified, as appears to me, that there exists a contrast between this name and what is related of Isaiah in this chapter. It is likely no error to assume that a “son of Amoz” was a man of importance. And this man of noble descent must for three years, when he let himself be seen publicly, go about like a wretched prisoner in the utmost scanty clothing. For that Isaiah went wholly naked is not conceivable. Anciently, indeed, one was regarded as naked who took off the upper garment (comp. nudus ara, sere nudus in Virgil, Georg. I. 299; Petron. 92; Joh_21:7; Herz. R. Ency. VII., p. 725). We observe from this passage that Isaiah constantly wore a sack, as chief and upper garment, i.e. a sack-like garment and made of sackcloth. The sack-garment was sign of deep mourning and repentance generally (Isa_3:24; Isa_15:3; Gen_37:34; Dan_9:3; Mat_11:21, and often. It was variously worn: partly next to the skin (1Ki_21:27), partly over the under-garment, the כְּתֹנֶת “tunic,” as was the case, e.g. with Isaiah, and as appears generally to have been a prophet’s costume. For, according to 2Ki_1:8, Elijah wore a hairy garment with a leather girdle, which clothing, Zec_13:4, is described as a prophet’s costume generally. John the Baptist, too, wore it, certainly in special imitation of Elijah (Mat_3:4; comp. Heb_11:37; Rev_11:3). Now when Isaiah received command to take off the sack garment and his sandals, it was that he should make himself a living symbol of the extremest ignominy, and of the deepest misery. Not to Judah, however, but to Egypt is this sorrowful fate announced. Judah is only to draw from it the lesson that it must not lean on Egypt for support. For this was the great and ruinous error of the time of Hezekiah, that men supposed they could only find protection against Assyria in Egypt. Against this the Prophet strives earnestly in chapters 28–32.
3. And the LORD said——we escape.
Isa_20:3-6. [On the construction of “three years,” see under Text. and Gram.; also for a grammatical objection to the sense: “like my servant has gone naked and barefoot as a three years sign,” etc. A further objection is as follows.—Tr.] If the typical meaning of the sign was to remain in force only three years, then, too, the fulfilment must actually follow after three years, or the prophecy prove to be false. For what can this mean: the going naked of the Prophet shall be three years long a sign? Only this: after three years the type ceases to be type, and becomes fulfilment. If that does not come to pass, then the sign was an erroneous one and misleading. It is no use here to regard the number three as a round number that is only to be understood “summatim” (Stade, p. 67). For the measures of time of fulfilment, in consequence of the imperfection of our human knowledge about the real length of historical periods, or because of the difficulty of knowing the points of beginning and ending, may very well be represented as only an approximation. But a measure of time which is named as an earnest pledge of a future transaction, must not prove to be incorrect, if the earnest itself is not to be found treacherous. But Egypt was not conquered by the Assyrians three years after the siege of Ashdod, but much later, as will be seen immediately. Therefore the Prophet cannot have proposed a three years validity of that sign. But he went three years naked and barefoot, in order to set before the eyes of his people very emphatically and impressively the image of how wretched Egypt had become. And only after three years followed the interpretation for the same reason. For three years the men of Judah and Jerusalem were to meditate and inquire: why does the Prophet go about in scanty and wretched garb? When at length after three years they learned: this happened for the purpose of parading before your eyes the misery of Egypt conquered by Assyria,—then they could measure the worth and importance of the warning that the Prophet gave them by what it cost him to give it. For the Egyptian policy was the fundamental error of the reign of Hezekiah through its whole extent (comp. the Introduction to chapters 28–33). The siege of Ashdod, that key to the land of Egypt, was assuredly a fitting event, for letting this warning sign begin. And if about the year 708 the interpretation followed, that was the time, too, when Sargon’s rule drew near its end and that of Sennacherib drew near. It was the time when the alliance with Egypt more and more ripened, and when the warning of the Prophet must become ever more pressing.
Sign and wonder is a sort of Hendiadys, in as much as to the first notion a second is co-ordinated, that properly is only something subordinate to that first: sign and portent for portentous sign. In as far as the nakedness of the Prophet represented the misery of the Egyptians generally, it is a sign of it; but in as far as it represented this misery in advance as something future it is a portentous sign.
To the present, nothing definite is known of any invasion of Egypt by the Assyrians. The Assyrian monuments, however, tell us that the kings Esarhaddon and Asurbanipal (Sardanapalus) conquered Egypt. The first on a brick inscription (Schrader, l. c. p. 210) calls himself: “king of the kings” of Egypt; and his son Asurbanipal says in his cylinder inscription (Schrader l. c. 212) “Esarhaddon—my progenitor went down and penetrated into the midst of Egypt. He gave Tirhaka king of Ethiopia a defeat, destroyed his military power. Egypt and Ethiopia he conquered; countless prisoners he led forth,” etc. Asurbanipal himself seems to have prepared a still worse fate for the Egyptians under Tirhaka’s successor, Rud-Amon. For he relates the following in one of his inscriptions (Schrader, l. c. 288): “Trusting in Asur, Sin and the great gods, my lords, they (my troops) brought on him in a broad plain a defeat and smote his troop forces. Undamana (Rud-Amon) fled alone, and went to No, his royal city (Thebes). In a march of a month and ten days they moved after him over pathless ways, took that city in its entire circuit, purged it away like chaff. Gold, silver, the dust of their land, drawn off metal, precious stones, the treasure of his palace, garments of Berom (?) and Kum, great horses, men and women, … pagi and ukupi the yield of their mountains in countless quantity, they bore forth out of it, appointed them to captivity; to Nineveh, my seat of dominion they brought them in peace, and they kissed my feet.” Comp. too, ibid. p. 290. As, according to the Apisstelen Tirhaka died in the year 664, Schrader fixes the date of this conquest of Thebes about the year 663 b. c. This monumental notice is of great importance for the understanding of Nah_3:8-11, and partly, too, for Isaiah 19 and for our passage. From this, as also from the other Assyrian communications cited above, we learn that our prophecy, given in the year 708 received a double fulfilment: one in the time of Asarhaddon, who reigned from 681 to 668, the other by means of Asurbanipal about the year 663. Therefore, not after three years, but in the course of the fourth and fifth decade after its publication was it fulfilled
Egypt’s shame [see under Text. and Gram.). Did not the Prophet, who for his own person assuredly wore only the lightest Israelitish costume, have here in mind, perhaps, those costumes of the common Egyptians, that allowed the form to appear prominent, which, seen in foreign lands, were well fitted to provoke scorn for Egypt? Comp. e.g. the illustrations in Wilkinson’s, The ancient Egyptians.
It is plain that in Isa_20:6 the Prophet means the Israelites and their neighbors. It is a sign of displeasure and discontent when one addresses a person that is present in the third person. The expression הָאִי “the isle” in Isa_20:6 is to be noted. The expression (comp. the singular Isa_23:2; Isa_23:6) is nowhere else used of the Holy land. But the Prophet also means, not merely this, but the entire coast of Palestine, which, because אִי is not a proper name, but appellative, he can very well call אִי. For, as the conquest of Ashdod itself and the preceding events (comp. the Sargon Inscription, Schrader, p. 76) testify, the Phœnicians also, and the Philistines, who shared with Israel in the possession of the coast, were become a prey to the Assyrian power.
When the strong power of Egypt and Ethiopia had proved too weak to bear the onset of Assyria, then, indeed, might the anxious thought arise in the hearts of the smaller nations that had joined themselves to Egypt: how is it now possible that we can be saved? Stade is of the opinion that אִי, “the isle, or coast” means merely the city Ashdod, and that Isa_20:6 contains the words of the fugitive inhabitants of Ashdod, especially of Iaman. After the overthrow of Egypt the exclamation is put in the mouth of these: “quomodo nos effugere poteramus,” (p. 43). But the assumption that the conquered inhabitants of the אִי could not say: “how shall we be saved” is erroneous. They were indeed conquered; but as long as, still dwelling in their land, they saw trains of captives led past them, they are still in possession of their land, and can hope for a favorable turn of fortune, and the shaking off of the foreign yoke. Only the captive carried into exile is finally without hope. Only this final and greatest degree of misfortune do the inhabitants of the אִי have in mind when they exclaim, “how shall we escape?”
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. On Isa_17:1-3. “There are no makers of breaches in city and wall stronger than the sins of the inhabitants. When these strengthen and multiply themselves, then entire cities, well built fall over them, and become heaps of stones; as is to be seen in the case of Jericho, Nineveh, Babylon and Jerusalem itself. Therefore let no one put his trust in fortifications.”—Cramer.
2. On Isa_17:7-8. “Potuit hic,” etc. “It may be objected here, are not the ark of the covenant and the temple in Jerusalem also work of men’s hands? But the theological canon here is, that in every work regard must be had whether there is a word of God for it or not. Therefore such works as are done by God’s command, those God does by means of us as by instruments. Thus those are called works of the law that are done by the law’s command. But such works as are done by no command of God are works of our own hands, and because they are without the word of God, they are impious and condemned, especially if the notion of righteousness attaches to them, on which account, also, they are reproved here.”—Luther.
3. On Isa_17:8 (האשׁרים); Vitringa proposes the conjecture that Osiris is to be derived from אשׁר, which the Egyptians may have pronounced Oser or Osir. And indeed he would have us take as the fundamental meaning of the word, either “beatus,” (אָשֵׁר), or combine it with שׁוּר “to look,” so that Osiris would be as Sun-god, the all seeing, sharp looking (πολυόφδαλμος). אשׁרה then, as feminine of אשׁר, would be Isis!
4. On Isa_17:10. “Si hanc,” etc. “If so fearful a punishment followed this fault, thou seest what we have to hope for Germany, which not only forgets God, but despises, provokes, persecutes and abominates Him.”—Luther.
5. On Isa_17:14. “Although the evening is long for us, we must still have patience, and believe assuredly, sorrow is a forerunner of joy, disgust a forerunner of delight, death a forerunner of life.” Cramer.
6. On 18 Boettcher (Neue exegetische kritische Aehrenl. II., p. 129) calls this chapter, “exceeding difficult, perhaps the most difficult in the entire Old Testament.” And in fact from the earliest to the most recent times expositors go asunder in the most remarkable manner in regard to the object and sense of the prophecy. Jerome and Cyril referred the prophecy to Egypt. Others, but in different senses, referred it to Judea. Eusebius of Cesarea held the view that, as Jerome says on our passage, “prophecy in the present chapter is directed against the Jews and Jerusalem, because in the beginning of Christian faith they sent letters to all nations lest they might accept the sufferings of Christ.” “Cocceius teaches that Judah is that land shadowed with wings, which (for he refers אשׁר to wings) are beyond the rivers of Ethiopia” (Vitringa). Raschi and Kimchi, likewise, refer the prophecy to the Jews, but they see in Isa_20:6 the overthrow of Gog and Magog, and understand the promised deliverance to refer to that greatest of all that would take place by means of the Messiah. Also Von Hofmann (Schriftbew. II., 2 p. 215 sqq.) explains the passage to refer to “the return of the departed Israel from the remotest regions and by the service of nations of the world themselves, after that they shall have learned that great act of Jehovah and therewith the worth of His people and of His holy places.” Others like Pellican think of the Roman Empire. Arius Montanus even casts his eyes over “to the new world converted to Christ by the preaching of the gospel and by the arms of Spain” (Vitringa).
7. On Isa_19:1 b. “The passage recalls the myth concerning Typhon, which represents the Hyksos, who formerly coming from Asia subdued Egypt. The Egyptian gods were afraid (according to a later Greek tradition, which explained the Egyptian heads of beasts as masks, comp. Diestel in the Zeitschrift f. histor. Theol., 1860, 2, p. 178) of Typhon and hid themselves (Plut. De Isid. et Osir., cap. 72); they resigned the wreaths when Typhon had received the kingdom (Athen. 15:25, p 680); they assumed animal forms (Apollos I. 6, 3; Ovid Metam. V. 325 sqq.; Hygin. Fab. 196). According to Manetho in Josephus (c. Apion I. 26) king Amenophis, who was threatened by Palestinians, carefully concealed the gods.
Other prophets, just as Isaiah does, announce destruction against the Egyptian idols from Jahve (Jer_43:13; Jer_46:25; Eze_30:13; comp. Exo_12:12; Num_33:4)” Knobel.
8. On Isa_19:5 sqq. If nature and history have one Lord, who turns hearts like water courses (Pro_21:1) and the water courses like hearts (Psalms 33), then we need not wonder if both act in harmony, if, therefore, nature accompanies history as, so to speak, a musical instrument accompanies a song.
9. On Isa_19:11. “This was the first argument of the impious in the world against the pious, and will be also the last: for the minds of the ungodly are inflated with these two things, the notion of wisdom and the glory of antiquity. So the diatribe of Erasmus is nothing else than what is written here: I am the son of the ancients. For he names the authority of the Fathers. The prophets contended against this pride, and we to-day protest against it.” Luther.
10. On Isa_19:13 sqq. “Where one will not let the outward judgments of God tend to his improvement, there is added the judgment of reprobation, in such a way that even natural prudence and boldness are taken away from those that are the most prudent and courageous. All this does the anger of the Lord of Hosts bring about.”—Tübingen Bibel bei Starke.
11. On Isa_19:16-17. The servile fear of those that have hitherto not at all known God may become a bridge to that fear which is child-like. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” Psa_111:10.
12. On Isa_19:19-22. The Prophet here casts a penetrating and clear look into the future of Egypt. Although the several forms that he depicts make the impression of those forms which, standing in the midst of a sea of mist, rise on an elevated site above the mist, whose absolute distance cannot be exactly made out, still particular traits are remarkably fitting and exact.
13. On Isa_19:23-25. One sees here plainly that the Prophet regards Egypt, Israel and Assyria as the chief lands of the earth, whose precedence is so unconditionally the measure of all the rest that they do not even need to be mentioned. Such is in general the prophetic manner of contemplating history. It sees only the prominent and decisive points, so as to overleap great regions of territory and periods of time. Comp. Daniel’s Weltreiche ii. 31 sqq.; Isa_7:3 sqq.
14. On 20 The office of prophet was hard and severe. Such a servant of God must renounce every thing, yield himself to every thing, put up with every thing, let any thing be done with him. He must spare himself no indignity, no pain, no trouble. He must fear nothing, hope nothing, have and enjoy nothing. With all that he was and had he must be at the service of the Lord, unconcerned as to what men might think or approve. Comp. Jer_15:19 sqq.; Jer_16:2; Jer_20:7 sqq.; Ezek. 4:24, 15 sqq.
Footnotes:
[1]of the Tartans coming.
[2]in Sargon’s, etc., sending him.
[3]he fought.
[4]Heb. by the hand of Isaiah.
[5]concerning.
[6]Heb. the captivity of Egypt.
[7]the exiles of Ethiopia.
[8]omit to.
[9]Heb. nakedness.
[10]Or, country.
[11]coast or sea board.
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain 1. In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod…
1. In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod — There is uncertainty as to date, but it lay probably between B.C. 727 and 720. “Tartan” is an official name, like captain-general. Of the Assyrian kings mentioned in the Bible, Sargon’s name occurs only here. According to the present state of decipherments of the Assyrian texts, it is probable that Sargon was a usurper of the throne during the three years’ siege of Samaria by Shalmaneser. 2Ki_18:9-12. It is likewise probable that he completed that siege and himself took Samaria; that he was the father and predecessor of Sennacherib; that his reign began in the same year (B.C.
721) with that of Merodach-Baladan in the then subordinate province of Babylon, and that his reign was long and prosperous. “Ashdod” was the key to Egypt, and when laid waste only Lachish lay much in the way of unhindered passage into that country; hence Sennacherib afterward laid siege to and took that city. See these facts stated more fully at chapters xxxvi-xxxix.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain 1. Tartan] In Assyrian Turtanu, the official title of…
1. Tartan] In Assyrian Turtanu, the official title of the “chief of the staff.” Cf. 2Ki_18:17.
Sargon] (Assyr. Sarrukin) the only mention of this now familiar name in the O.T. For long it was supposed to be a second name of either Shalmaneser or Sennacherib (see Tob_1:15), but the conjecture of a few scholars that he would prove to be an intermediate king has been amply verified by the progress of Assyriology; and Sargon is now one of the best known, as he was one of the most vigorous, of Assyrian monarchs. He reigned from 722–705.
Read full note →
1, 2. A narrative introduction.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (1) In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod.—Better,…
XX.
(1) In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod.—Better, the Tartan. The word was an official title borne by the generalissimo of the Assyrian armies, who was next in authority to the king. He may, or may not, have been the same with the officer of the same rank who appears in 2Ki_18:17 as sent by Sennacherib to Jerusalem.
Read full note →
When Sargon the king of Assyria sent him.—Much light has been thrown by the Assyrian inscriptions on the events connected with this king. Prior to that discovery, there was no trace of his name to be found elsewhere than in this passage, and his very existence had been called in question. As it is, he comes before us as one of the greatest of Assyrian monarchs. He succeeded Shalmaneser VI,, the conqueror of Israel, in B.C. 721, at first as guardian and co-regent of his son Samdan-Malik, and afterwards in his own name. His reign lasted till B.C. 704, when he was succeeded by Sennacherib. Long inscriptions, giving the annals of his reign, were found by M. Botta at Khorsabad, and have been interpreted by M. Oppert (Records of the Past, vii. 21, 9:1, 11:17, 27, 33) and others.
And fought against Ashdod.—The occasion of the campaign is related by Sargon in the annals just mentioned as happening in his eleventh year. Azuri, the king of Ashdod, refused to pay tribute, and revolted. Sargon deposed him, and placed his brother Akhismit, on the throne. The people, in their turn, rose against Akhismit, and chose Yaman as their king. Sargon then marched against the city, took it, and carried off its gods and its treasures as booty (Records of the Past, vii. 40). These events naturally excited the minds of Hezekiah and his counsellors, and led them to look to an alliance with Egypt as their best protection.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain Vers. 1-6. A PROPHECY AGAINST EGYPT AND ETHIOPIA. The…
Vers. 1-6. A PROPHECY AGAINST EGYPT AND ETHIOPIA. The Assyrian inscriptions enable us to date this prophecy with a near approach to exactness. Ashdod was besieged by an Assyrian army twice in the reign of Sargon in his ninth year (B.C. 713) and in his eleventh year (B.C. 711). On the former occasion it is probable that the arms of a general (Tartan) were employed; on the latter it is nearly certain that Sargon made the expedition in person. The capture of Ashdod, here mentioned, is consequently the first capture. Egypt and Ethiopia were at the time united under one head, Shabak, or Shabatok; and the inhabitants of Ashdod looked to this quarter for deliverance from the Assyrian power. Shortly after the first capture, they revolted, deposed the king whom Sargon had set over them, appointed another, and then proceeded, in conjunction with Philistia, Judah, Edom, and Moab, to call in the aid of the Egyptians and Ethiopians. Isaiah"s mission on this occasion was to discourage Judaea from joining Ashdod and her allies in this appeal. He was instructed to prophesy that Assyria would shortly inflict a severe defeat on the two African powers, and carry into captivity large numbers of both nations. The prophecy seems to have had its accomplishment about twelve years later, when Sennacherib defeated the combined forces of Egypt and Ethiopia at Eltekeh, near Ekron (G. Smith, "Eponym Canon," p. 133).
In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod; rather, a tartan. The word was not a proper name, but a title of office, equivalent to surena among the Parthians, and signifying "commander-in-chief." The tartan held the second position in the empire. Isaiah has been accused of having confounded together the two sieges of Ashdod (Cheyne); but if one was conducted by the tartan, and the other by Sargon in person, his words would distinguish as perfectly as possible which siege he meant. When Sargon the King of Assyria sent him. The present passage furnished almost the sole trace of the existence of this monarch one of the greatest of Assyria"s sovereigns until about the middle of the present century, when the exploration of the Assyrian ruins, and the decipherment of the Assyrian inscriptions, presented him to us in the most distinct and vivid way, as king, conqueror, and builder. He was the founder of the last and greatest of the Assyrian dynasties, the successor of the biblical Shalmaneser, and the father of Sennacherib. He reigned from B.C. 722 to B.C. 705. He was the captor of Samaria; he defeated the forces of Egypt; he warred on Susiana, Media, Armenia, Asia Minor, Cyprus; and he conquered and held in subjection Babylon. He built the great city explored by M. Botta, near Khorsabad, which is sometimes called "the French Nineveh." It is now found that Ptolemy"s "Canon" contains his name under the form of Arkeanus, and that Yacut"s "Geography" mentions his great city under the form of Sarghun. But these facts were unsuspected until the recent explorations in Mesopotamia, and Isaiah"s mention of him alone gave him a place in history. And fought against Ashdod, and took it. Ashdod was the strongest of the Philistine cities, and one of the most ancient. (Jos_15:47) Its name is probably derived from a root meaning "strength." We hear of its having stood on one occasion a siege of twenty-nine years (Herod., 2:157). It is now known as Esdud. When Ashdod is first mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions it is tributary to Sargon, having probably submitted to him in s c. 720, alter the battle of Raphia. It soon, however, revolts and reclaims its independence. In B.C. 713 the Assyrians proceed against it; and its capture is implied by the facts that the Assyrians depose its king, and install, one of his brothers as monarch in his room. (comp. 2Ki_23:34)
Read full note →
Vers. 1-4. Foolish trust rebuked by a strange sign.
Few things are so difficult as to bring men to rely wholly and solely upon God. The circumstances of the time were these. Humanly speaking, Judaea lay absolutely at the mercy of Assyria. There was no existing power or combination of powers that could successfully contend at the time against the vast bodies of well-armed and well-disciplined soldiers which a king of Assyria could bring into the field. Nothing could prolong Jewish independence for more than a few years but some miraculous interposition of God on behalf of the Jewish people. But for God to interpose miraculously, it was necessary that implicit trust should be placed in him. (Mar_6:5 9:23, etc.) The Jews, however, could not bring themselves to believe that they had no help but Jehovah. They thought Egypt, or Egypt and Ethiopia combined, might well prove a match for Assyria, and were bent on l, lacing themselves under the protection of the combined powers. The lesson of the destruction of the kingdom of Israel, which had trusted in Egypt, (2Ki_17:4) and then been destroyed by Assyria, was lost on them. In connection with Ashdod, they had actually sent ambassadors to Egypt to entreat assistance. (Isa_30:1-4) Then it was that Isaiah received the special mission which was to warn his countrymen of the utter folly of trusting to human aid. For three years he was to wear the scant clothing that Assyrian captives ordinarily wore, announcing that he did so in token that ere long the warriors of Egypt and Ethiopia would be seen thus clad, on their way from Egypt to captivity at Nineveh. The unusual attire of the prophet could not but create a great sensation. It probably made a considerable impression on Hezekiah and his counselors. It was not forgotten; and if it did not at once cause the negotiations with Egypt to be broken off, it produced the result that, when Isaiah"s prediction was fulfilled after the battle of Eltekeh, the Jewish monarch and people did in their trouble turn to God. At the crisis of his danger, Hezekiah made appeal to the Almighty; (Isa_37:4) and his appeal was followed by that destruction of the Assyrian host (Isa_37:36) which caused the Assyrians to respect and fear the Jews thenceforward, and to allow them to retain their independence. Thus the life of the Jewish monarchy was extended for above a century.
HOMILIES BY E. JOHNSON Vers. 1-6. The prophet as a sign.
I THE HISTORICAL CIRCUMSTANCES. The illusion of Egyptian unity had passed away again. The country was broken up under the rule of a number of petty kings, of whom Shabak, or So, or Seve, (2Ki_17:4) was one. Negotiations seem to have been begun between Judah and Egypt, probably as a resource against the Assyrian. Ashdod was laid siege to by the Assyrians about B.C. 713-711, and the inhabitants carried off captives. And Judah"s name appears in the Assyrian inscriptions among the nations guilty of treason to Assyria. Isaiah, both as the prophet and the politician, is seen to be opposed to the Egyptian alliance. And his policy seems to have been justified by the event, for Judah was subsequently invaded and subdued. When the tartan, or Assyrian general, came to Ashdod, sent by King Sargon, the spirit of Isaiah was stirred within him.
II THE SYMBOLIC ACT OF THE PROPHET. He takes his distinctive dress of haircloth from his loins, and is "bare," in that sense in which the Roman soldier was said to be nudus without his armour. So the Prophet Micah says he will wail and howl, and go stripped and naked, because of the desolation of the land. The reader will be reminded of George Fox at Lichfield, and of Solomon Eagle preaching repentance to the people amidst the horrors of the Plague of London (1665), of which scene there was an affecting picture by Poole in the Royal Academy winter exhibition of 1884. The act is:
1. Expressive of strong feeling; suited to Oriental effusiveness, though not to our colder habits. The mind needs, in moments of strong feeling, to see itself reflected in some outward form. We all acknowledge this in connection with the great epochs of life the funeral, the wedding, The great heart of the prophet throbbing in sympathy with his nation, must signify his grief at its condition by some change in his attire. And then:
2. It is a means of impressing others. We speak, not only by our words, but by our appearance, our apparel, our manners. Though we are not called upon in our time to adopt a peculiar dress, that dress should betoken a serious mind. Inconspicuousness may serve as good an end as conspicuousness in this matter. Let us at least, without straining a point, learn this lesson, that life should be significant. It should mean something; not be neutral, utterly without emphasis; or dubious to the eye and ear, like heathen oracles and heathen symbols. Without affectation and folly, we can find a way to make others feel that we feel and think and have a purpose in existence. But this way of self-manifestation must be adapted to our own constitution, to the taste of others, to the condition of our times.
III THE APPLICATION OF THE SYMBOLISM. Egypt and Ethiopia will fall into humiliation and captivity. There will be every sign of disgrace. And Judah will see the fallacy of having put her trust in Egyptian alliances. It is a deeply painful picture of a nation"s shame that rises before us in these verses. Shameless sins bring shameful punishment. "Conquest and captivity are perhaps the bitterest cup that vengeance can put into the hands of a sinful people." This general lesson, then, may be drawn: The effect not only points to the cause, but the nature of the effect to the nature of the cause. "Of all the curses which can possibly befall a sinner, there is none comparable to this, that he should add iniquity to iniquity, and sin to sin, which the shameless person cannot but do, till he falls by it too; his recovery, while under that character, being utterly impossible. For where there is no place for shame, there can be none for repentance. God of his infinite goodness work better minds in us!" (South). J.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON Vers. 1-3. Unpleasant service.
It may always remain uncertain whether Isaiah went stripped and barefoot for three whole years or for a shorter period. Two things, however, are quite certain, viz. that for some time, longer or shorter, this servant of Jehovah (ver. 3) went about Jerusalem in that humiliating condition, and that he would have unhesitatingly done this all the time if God had required him to do so. Many suggestions have been made on the subject, but it does not occur to any one to entertain the idea that Isaiah would decline to render such an unpleasant service, however long the period of service might be.
I THAT GOD SOMETIMES DEMANDS OF US SERVICE WHICH WE FIND IT HARD TO RENDER. It may be:
1. To incur the hostility of those whose honor and affection we would fain enjoy. Isaiah had to pronounce against an alliance with Egypt and Ethiopia, thus stirring up the active dislike of those politicians who advised that course. We may often have to take a course which is regarded and denounced as unpatriotic or disloyal.
2. To endure privation as the consequence of fidelity. Isaiah, in the fulfillment of his prophetic mission, went half-clad through all changes of temperature. In order to speak the true and faithful word which God has put into our mind, or to take the right course which he opens before us, we may have to do that which will lessen our resources and lead to straitened means and even to serious embarrassment.
3. To expose ourselves to the derision of the skeptic or the scoffing. Doubtless the partisans of Egypt sneered and the idle multitude mocked as the unclothed prophet passed by. It is hard to have to utter that truth or to identify ourselves with that course which entails the bitter raillery of the opponent and the heartless jest of the ribald crowd. But "my servant Isaiah walked naked and barefoot" as long as he was charged to do so. And we conclude
II THAT WE CANNOT HESITATE TO RENDER INSTANT AND FULL COMPLIANCE, For:
1. God"s demand is absolute and authoritative. If the filial son hastens to do the behest of his father, the loyal subject that of his king, the brave soldier that of his commander, however uninviting or even perilous it may be, how much more shall we render instant and hearty obedience to the "Do this" of our heavenly Father, of our Divine Redeemer.
2. God asks us to do that which is small and slight indeed in comparison with the service which, in Jesus Christ, he has rendered us. What are the privations, the insults, the humiliations we may be summoned to endure for Christ when compared with the poverty and the shame and the sorrow to which he stooped for us?
3. Our unpleasant work is prior, and perhaps preparatory, to nobler and more congenial service further on. Faithful in the "few things" now and here, we shall have rule given us over "many things" in the coming years, and still more truly in the better land. C.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod
Isa_20:1
In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod
Read full note →
The purpose of the chapter
Judah, alarmed by the capture of Samaria, and the rapid extension of the Assyrian invasion, looked for assistance from Egypt.
And the aim of this brief chapter is to recall king and people from any such reliance, by the announcement that the King of Assyria would shortly prevail against Egypt, and lead into captivity multitudes of prisoners. (F. B. Meyer, B. A.)
The date of the prophecy
The date of the prophecy is assured. The expedition mentioned took place in 711 B.C., and is minutely related in two of Sargons own inscriptions.
See Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions, vol. 2. (Cambridge Bible for Schools.)
The Tartan,
The Tartan, Assyrian, turtanu, i.e., Commander-in-chief. (A. B.Davidson, LL. D.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain Egypt's Captivity symbolised
Egypt's Captivity symbolised
This chapter is assigned in the title to the time when Sargon besieged Ashdod (711 b.c.). The Philistine city was at that time the centre of revolt. Sargon interposed and set up a new king, but the people were dissatisfied and substituted another; the siege and capture of Ashdod by the Assyrians followed. It seems that the Palestinian peoples who revolted against Assyria relied upon the support of Egypt. Isaiah, by putting on captive's garb, and walking the streets of Jerusalem for three years, indicates in a striking manner the vanity of their expectations.
Read full note →
2-6. Isaiah's striking action intended to symbolise the captivity of Egypt and Ethiopia, which would confound those who looked to them for aid.
1. Tartan] rather, 'the Tartan': the official title of the Assyrian commander-in-chief (2Ki_18:17). Sargon] The only known mention of this monarch until modern times. Inscriptions have now thrown much light on his reign. He followed Shalmaneser (2Ki_18:9) 722 b.c. and reigned till 705, when he was succeeded by Sennacherib.
2. Sackcloth] such as prophets sometimes wore (2Ki_1:8; Zec_13:4). Naked, etc.] i.e. in the guise of a captive. Not only by word, but by action calculated to arrest attention, Isaiah strove to impress his message. Such symbolic actions were frequently performed by the prophets (1Ki_11:30; Jer_19:1.; Jer_27:2).
4. The prophet's strange action explained.
6. Isle] RV 'coast-land,' referring especially to Philistia, which had been foremost in the revolt against Assyria. Flee] RV 'fled.'
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain The Near-Punishment of Egypt by Assyria
CHAPTER 20
The Near-Punishment of Egypt by Assyria
Read full note →
1. Isaiah walks naked and barefooted (Isa 20:1-2) 2. The meaning of his action (Isa 20:3) 3. Egypt punished by Assyria (Isa 20:4-6) A strong party in Jerusalem looked to Egypt for help from the threatening Assyrian invasion. This prophecy shows the utter hopelessness of expecting help from Egypt. The victory of Assyria over Egypt is predicted.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain The Symbol of Egypt’s and Ethiopia’s Fall.
The Symbol of Egypt’s and Ethiopia’s Fall.
v. 1. In the year that Tartan, the commander-in-chief of the Assyrian armies, 2Ki 18:17, came unto Ashdod, one of the cities of Philistia which had revolted against the Assyrian supremacy (when Sargon, the king of Assyria, who succeeded Shalmaneser at just about the time when Samaria was taken by the Assyrians, sent him), and fought against Ashdod, and took it, in the second last decade of the eighth century before Christ (in 711 B. C. according to the Assyrian annals),
Read full note →
v. 2. at the same time spake the Lord by Isaiah, the son of Amoz, in the year when the siege of Ashdod began, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth, the loose outer garment of coarse cloth which Isaiah wore, from off thy loins and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked, that is, with only his tunic or shirtlike garment, and barefoot, presenting the appearance of one who bad been robbed or spoiled, stripped of his possessions, like a beggar or captive of war. The very dress of Isaiah called attention to his message of repentance.
v. 3. And the Lord said, Like as My servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years, to bring home with great emphasis the lesson which the Lord wished to convey, for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia, for a portentous type against the double kingdom,
v. 4. so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, as foretold by the symbolic act of Isaiah, even with their buttocks uncovered, as a sign of extreme disgrace, 2Sa 10:4-5, to the shame of Egypt.
v. 5. And they, the inhabitants of Palestine, also the Jews, who looked to Egypt as a possible ally against Assyria, shall be afraid and ashamed of Ethiopia, their expectation, finding themselves disappointed in their hopes of help from this quarter, and of Egypt, their glory, of whose power they had boasted and on whose strength they had relied.
v. 6. And the inhabitants of this isle, of the coastal country along the Mediterranean, including Philistia, Phenicia, and the kingdom of Judah, shall say in that day, Behold, such is our expectation, whither we flee for help to be delivered from the king of Assyria, that is, such was the lot of those to whom they looked for help and deliverance from the power of Assyria; and how shall we escape? The nation which they considered strong and mighty had proved itself powerless against the common enemy; how, then, could the weaker states hope to escape? It is but another instance of the folly of men in placing their trust in the power of flesh and believing that they can escape the Lord.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 the name of the chief commander of the armies…
Tartan
the name of the chief commander of the armies of Assyria (See: How to Translate Names)
Read full note →
Sargon
the name of the king of Assyria
he fought against Ashdod and took it
Ashdod refers to the army of Ashdod. AT: "he fought against the army of Ashdod and defeated it" (See: Metonymy)
walking naked and barefoot
"walking around without clothes and without sandals." Here the word "naked" probably refers to wearing only his undergarments.
translationWords
Ashdod
king
Assyria
Yahweh
Isaiah
sackcloth
sandal
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 20:1-5 Ashdod’s reliance on Egypt and Ethiopia was useless.…
20:1-5 Ashdod’s reliance on Egypt and Ethiopia was useless. As a complement to his words, Isaiah walked about exposed and barefoot, a symbolic action for what God would do.
20:1 Sargon of Assyria is Sargon II (721–705 BC). • Ashdod was one of the five Philistine cities that rebelled against Assyria in 713 BC.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.