whom, so to speak, the understanding of the land concentrated, the land is led astray in the most shameful manner. This shameful leading astray he expresses by a very revolting figure: he compares Egypt to a drunken man rolling about hither and thither in his own vomitings (ver. | 14). Comp. xxviii. 8; Jer. xlviii. 26 uses the same figure of Moab.--Thus Egypt becomes poor in deeds. All it does is nothing done. Neither head nor tail; neither palm-branch nor rush, i. e., neither the highest nor the lowest comp. on ix. 13) will accomplish anything. With this the Prophet returns back to the thought from which (ver. 9) he started out. 16 2) The Transition: Egypt fears the LORD. In that day shall Egypt be like unto women: And it shall be afraid and fear Because of the shaking of the hand of the LORD of hosts, 17 And the land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt, Every one that 'maketh mention thereof shall be afraid in himself, Which he hath determined against it. • From before the lifting of the hand, etc., which He lifteth against it. TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. Ver. 16. 1 comp. x. 29; xxxii. 16; xli. 5.— xii. 2; xxxiii. 14; xliv. 8, 11: lx. 5.—The verb we have already read of the hand lifted up in threatening: xi. 15, comp. x. 15, 32; xiii. 2; xxx. 28.-1, frequent in the Pentateuch, occurs in Isaiah only here and III. 32-Regarding the expression it is to be remarked that, apart from the frequent b recalls it. -never occurs in con אדמה,in Ezekiel אדמת ישראל EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. it occurs only lii. 6) appears with more frequency in the present chapter, than in any other passage: viz. vers. 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24. Comp. the remark at ii. 12. As often as one utters the name Judah, men turn affrighted to him, for they know but too well the power of the God of Judah. The counsel of Jehovah, then, of which ver. 12 speaks, must have been partly accomplished. Meu fear its further and complete fulfilment. 1) EGYPT BY DEGREES CONVERTED WHOLLY TO THE LORD, AND THE THIRD IN THE CONFEDERATION WITH ASSYRIA AND ISRAEL. CHAPTER XIX. 18-25. 18 In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt Speak 'the language of Canaan, And swear to the LORD of hosts; One shall be called, "The city of 'destruction. 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 deliver them. 21 And the LORD shall be known to Egypt, And the Egyptians shall know the LORD in that day, And shall do sacrifice and oblation ; "Yea, 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 the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, And the Egyptian into Assyria, And the Egyptians shall serve with 'the Assyrians. 24 In that day shall Israel be the third With Egypt and Assyria. 25 Even a blessing in the midst of the "land: "whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, b Speaking. A since. EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. Ver. 18. The expression occurs only here.yay with must be distinguished from its use with The latter is "to swear by one" (Ixii. 8; Amos vi. 8; viii. 7, etc.); the former is "to swear, to oblige one'sself to another by oath," (Zeph. i. 5; Gen. xxiv. 7; 1. 24; Exod. xiii. 5; Ps. cxxxii. 2, etc.). Dann or Dan. Sixteen CODD. have the latter reading, also several editions. The LXX. indeed reads aσedék, which is evidently a designed alteration resulting from the application of i. 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 D, and among the ancient versions at least the SYRIAC decidedly so reads (for 'Apés, which Aqu. and THEOD. read, could stand also for ▷). Thus critically the reading MAURER, from the Hebrew, by taking D-" tearing take the word. But how can a word of such mischiev- דייי! ; although he uses it in pausa .טבאל into טבאל name - : IT is the best supported. The authority of the Masora is for it. But the reading Dn is, any way, very ancient SYMMACHUS, JEROME, the TARGUMIST met with it. And it and xxi. 11 he introduces Edom under the name of must have enjoyed equal authority with the other read-7 ("silence of the dead") and, finally the TALMUD in ing. Else the TARGUMIST Would not have combined both the treatise Aboda sara (Fol. 46 a, in the German transla readings when he writes: STAVI UDUN'E Ntion of EWALD, Nuremberg, 1856. p. 324) gives the follow , i. e., the city "Beth-Shemes quae futura est ad evertendum, i. e., quae evertetur." And the fact that the ing examples as prescribing the rule for changing the treatise Menachot reads D is certainly proof that weighty authorities supported this reading. Add to this that 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 T: names of cities that have an idolatrous meaning: "Has such a city had the name "house of revelation," it should be called "house of concealment" (or fossae, latrinae); has the city been called T: the fact that it rests only on Arabic etymology. Yet, "house of the king," it should be called more uncertain is the meaning liberatio, salus, amor, ben "house of the dog;" instead of it derived from the Syriac (which, as GESEN. in loc. de monstrates, rests on pure misunderstanding) or, with all-seeing eye," call it pop sy עֵין "the "the eye of thorns.” Further examples of the kind see in BUXTORFF, Lex., | 1870, Heft I., on the imputed changes of the Masoretic Chald., Talmud, et rabb., p. 1086 sq., 8. V., text in Isa. xix. 18, and the remarks of the same writer in his Beiträgen zur Eklr. des A. T. Giesen 1872, Band VIII., p. 87 sqq. ** Thus we see that as a twisting of must either be opposed to the context or to the usus loquendi. I therefore hold to be the original correct reading. But means "the sun" (Jud. i. 35, where it is remarkable that a little before, ver. 23, a DV-N'a is mentioned- — viii. 13; xiv. 18; Job ix. 7). I think, as older expositors (comp. GESEN. in loc.) and latterly PRESSEL (HERZ. R. Encycl. X., p. 612) have conjectured, that .... in our עיר החרס it is not impossible that this name 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 ver. 18 also had a significance for him. He even says expressly, after having quoted the contents of ver. 19: “kai moλλà δὲ προεφήτευσεν ἄλλα τοιαῦτα διὰ τὸν τόπον.” But if the Egyptian temple, which, according to JOSEPHUS (Bell. jud. 7, 10, 4), stood 343 years (it ought rather to say 243), was a great offence to the Hebrew Jews, it could easily happen that of our verse was changed by them to D. There are in fact six MSS. that read expressly "city of the curse;" and the 'Aredék 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 as the orthodox reading, and the fixing of the same by the Masorets. Comp. moreover, REINKE in the Tüb. theol. Quart. Schrift. Ver. 22. The reason why Isaiah uses the word is probably because this word is repeatedly used of the plagues of Egypt: Exod. vii. 27; xii. 13, 23, 27; Josh. xxiv. 5—, audientem se praestitit alicui; only here in Isaiah; comp. Gen. xxv. 21; 2 Sam. xxi. 14; xxiv. 25. nhop see vii. 3.-1 can only be under Ver. 23. stood as the abbreviation of the statement that occurs entire immediately before with application there to Egypt alone. The same service (y) shall Egypt per form in union with Assyria. The Prophet could so much the more readily express himself thus, in as much as is used also elsewhere (Job xxxvi. 11) in the same absolute way. Ver. 24. is in itself tertia; yet not merely pars, but size, degree generally, designated by "three.". Here it is the third element, the third factor that must be added in order to make the harmony complete. Ver. 25. cannot be construed as simple relative pronoun. For then the suffix in 1 must be referred to 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. xvii. 10, 13). Therefore here is a conjunction (GREEN Gr., § 239, 1). .5 .xv עגלת שלישיה Compare EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. 1. Egypt will gradually be altogether converted to the LORD. At first, indeed, only five cities will serve Him (ver. 18), but soon the LORD will have an altar in Egypt, and a pillar dedicated to Him on the border (ver. 19) will at once announce to the approaching traveller that Egypt is a land that pays worship to Jehovah. Then, when they ery to the Lord, He will deliver them from oppression as He did Israel of old in the days of the judges (ver. 20). He will reveal Himself to them, and they will know Him and offer Him divine service in due form (ver. 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 (ver. 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 (ver. 23). And Israel will be the third in the confederation, and that will be a great blessing from the LORD for the whole earth (ver. 24), who then will call Egypt His people, Assyria the work of His hand, but Israel always still His special inheritance. 2. In that daydestruction.-Ver. 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 Gen. xlv. 22; Exod. xxii. 1; Num. vii. 17, 23; Matt. xxv. 2, 20; 1 Cor. xiv. 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. 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. lem. But the altar was accurately patterned after the one in Jerusalem. Onias (and probably in That Jehovah-Temple was built by Onias IV. (according to another calculation II.) under Pto["The construction of CALVIN (who under- the Nome of Heliopolis (JOSEPHUS Antiq. 12, 9, lomæus Philometor (180-145) at Leontopolis in stands five out of six to be intended) is to be pre-7; 13, 3, 1-3; 20, 10; Bell. Jud. 7, 10, 2-4), or ferred, because the others arbitrarily assume a standard of comparison (twenty thousand, ten rather was a ruined Egyptian temple restored. thousand, ten, etc.); whereas this hypothesis finds Built upon a foundation sixty feet high, and conit in the verse itself, five professing the true reli-structed like a tower, this temple, of course, did gion to one rejecting it. Most of the other internot in its outward form resemble that at Jerusapretations understand the one to be included in the five, as if he had said one of them. As opposition to his fellow-countrymen) appealed to admits either of these senses, or rather applica- our passage. For the building, strictly interpretions, the question must depend upon the mean-ted, was of course unlawful. And it was steadily ing given to the rest of the clause. Even on opposed by the Hebrew Jews with greater or less CALVIN'S hypothesis, however, the proportion determination. But the Egyptian Jews, as said, indicated need not be taken with mathematical thought themselves authorized in the undertaking precision. What appears to be meant is that five- by our passage, especially ver. 19. It is not imsixths, i. e., a very large proportion, shall profess possible that the choice of the locality was condithe true religion, while the remaining sixth per- tioned by the fact that our passage originally read sists in unbelief." "It shall be said to one, i. e., one (see under Text. and Gram.) which was 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 iv. 3; lxi. 6; This may be urged as an argument against the explanation of D 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.] lxii. 4). translated "city of the sun" and was referred to city (Gen. xli. 45, 50; xlvi. 20). [Would it not Heliopolis, the ancient On, the celebrated priestly prophecy in regard to the foregoing application to be a juster interpretation of the fulfilment of this repeat, mutatis mutandis, Dr. NAEGELSBACH'S own remark in the exegetical comment on vers. 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 Jehovahaltar 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 ver. 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 The city of destruction.-Isaiah often ex-pretation," which must mean "strictly legal," is to a legal and ceremonial worship a "strict interpresses the future existence of a person or matter the only admissible interpretation. Deeds of forby a name, of which he says it shall be applied mal worship that are unlawful by that interpreto the person in question (i. 26; iv. 3; lxi. 6; tation cannot be right by any other interpretalxii. 4). Here there seems to be intended, not so much a characteristic of the nature, as a mark could Isaiah refer prophetically to such a matter tion, seeing that no other applies to them. How that shall serve as a means for recognizing the fulfilment. For why does the Prophet give the such language as we have in our verses 18, 19?— as the mimic temple of Jehovah at Leontopolis in name of only one city? Why does he not give the five cities a name in common? It seems to me TR.] 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. 22. 3. In that day--heal them.-Vers. 19What was only hinted in ver. 18, is in ver. 19 expressly affirmed: The LORD shall have an indicated already above. Egypt became not only altar in Egypt. How this was fulfilled we have a second home to the people of Israel. [But it token of God's approval, who said Hos. xi. 5, must be remembered that this never received the TR.]. It became also the birth-place of a most "He shall not return into the land of Egypt."significant form of development of the Jewish a Christian land, spirit. It became moreover 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 s "pillar," was fulfilled in a way not so literally but not therefore in a less real sense. The word means statua, "standing image," cippus, monu- viours," (Jud. iii. 9, 15; vi. 36; xii. 3). 37, ment." Jer. xliii. 14 so designates the numerous too, occurs in this sense in Judges vi. 9; viii. obelisks that were in Heliopolis. Often idol 34; ix. 17, etc.-In consequence of these manipillars are so designated (1 Kings xiv. 23; 2 fold mutual relations Jehovah shall become Kings iii. 2; x. 27, etc.), the raising of which known to the Egyptians. The expression "shall was expressly forbidden in the law (Lev. xxvi. be known," etc., recalls the celebrated passage 1; Deut. xvi. 22). When it is announced here Exod. vi. 3. "But by my name Jehovah, was I that a dedicated to Jehovah would be not known to them." There the LORD reveals raised up, it is not meant that this would be for Himself to those that were held in bondage by the purpose of divine service. Rather we see the Egyptians; here is seen the remarkable adfrom" at the border" and also from ver. 20 that vance that the LORD reveals Himself to the the pillar (the obelisk) should serve merely for a Egyptians themselves as Jehovah, that they, too, sign and mark by which any one crossing the really know Him as such; serving Him in acborder could know at once that he treads a land cordance with His law, they present sacrifice and that is exclusively consecrated to the service of oblation, i. e., bloody and unbloody offerings, and Jehovah. Altar and pillar, each in its place,—make vows to Him which they scrupulously perthe pillar first and preparatory, the altar after- form as recognition of His divine majesty and wards in the midst of the land and definitive-grace (comp. Lev. xxvii.; Num. xxx.; Deut. 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 xviii. 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 ver. 20 reminds one of that "crying of the children of Israel to Jehovah" that is so often mentioned in the book of Judges (iii. 9, 15; iv. 3; vi. 6, etc.). In that survey of the times of the judges contained in Jud. ii. 11 sqq. (at ver. 18 comp. Jud. i. 34; vi. 9) the oppressors of Israel are called Dyr just as here, and Jud. ii. 16, 18 the performance of the judges whom God sent to the people, is designated y, and the judges are on that account expressly called "deliverers, sa xii. 6; xxiii. 21 sqq.; Jer. xliv. 25; Ps. lxi. 9; lxvi. 13; cxvi. 14, 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 ver. 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 Deut. xxxii. 39, comp. Job v. 18; Hos. vi. 1 sqq. 4. In that day-mine inheritance.Vers. 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 (ver. 21), and both these unite in the service of the LORD. For it is clear that the concluding clause of ver. 23, does not mean that Egypt shall be subject to Assyria (see 17 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 |