Isa 22:1-14 | KD | STEP | The prophet exposes the nature and worthlessness of their confidence in : “What aileth thee, then, that thou art wholly ascended upon the house-tops? O full of tumult, thou noisy city, shouting castle, thy slain men are not slain with the sword, nor slaughtered in battle. All thy rulers departing together are fettered without bow; all thy captured ones are fettered together, fleeing far away.” From the flat house-tops they all look out together at the approaching army of the foe, longing for battle, and sure of victory ( cullâk is for cullēk , , ). They have no suspicion of what is threatening them; therefore are they so sure, so contented, and so defiant. מלאה תּשׂאות is inverted, and stands for תּשׁאות מלאת, like מנדּח אפלה in Isa 8:22. עלּיזה is used to denote self-confident rejoicing, as in Zep 2:15. How terribly they deceive themselves! Not even the honour of falling upon the battle-field is allowed them. Their rulers ( kâtzin , a judge, and then any person of rank) depart one and all out of the city, and are fettered outside “without bow” ( mikkesheth ), i.e., without there being any necessity for the bow to be drawn ( min , as in ; ; cf., Ewald, §217, b ). All, without exception, of those who are attacked in Jerusalem by the advancing foe ( nimzâ'aik , thy captured ones, as in ), fall helplessly into captivity, as they are attempting to flee far away (see at ; the perf. de conatu answers to the classical praesens de conatu ). Hence (what is here affirmed indirectly) the city is besieged, and in consequence of the long siege hunger and pestilence destroy the inhabitants, and every one who attempts to get away falls into the hands of the enemy, without venturing to defend himself, on account of his emaciation and exhaustion from hunger. Whilst the prophet thus pictures to himself the fate of Jerusalem and Judah, through their infatuation, he is seized with inconsolable anguish.

‏ Isaiah 22:1-14

The prophet exposes the nature and worthlessness of their confidence in Isa 22:1-3 : “What aileth thee, then, that thou art wholly ascended upon the house-tops? O full of tumult, thou noisy city, shouting castle, thy slain men are not slain with the sword, nor slaughtered in battle. All thy rulers departing together are fettered without bow; all thy captured ones are fettered together, fleeing far away.” From the flat house-tops they all look out together at the approaching army of the foe, longing for battle, and sure of victory (cullâk is for cullēk, Isa 14:29, Isa 14:31). They have no suspicion of what is threatening them; therefore are they so sure, so contented, and so defiant. מלאה תּשׂאות is inverted, and stands for תּשׁאות מלאת, like מנדּח אפלה in Isa 8:22. עלּיזה is used to denote self-confident rejoicing, as in Zep 2:15. How terribly they deceive themselves! Not even the honour of falling upon the battle-field is allowed them. Their rulers (kâtzin, a judge, and then any person of rank) depart one and all out of the city, and are fettered outside “without bow” (mikkesheth), i.e., without there being any necessity for the bow to be drawn (min, as in Job 21:9; 2Sa 1:22; cf., Ewald, §217,b). All, without exception, of those who are attacked in Jerusalem by the advancing foe (nimzâ'aik, thy captured ones, as in Isa 13:15), fall helplessly into captivity, as they are attempting to flee far away (see at Isa 17:13; the perf. de conatu answers to the classical praesens de conatu). Hence (what is here affirmed indirectly) the city is besieged, and in consequence of the long siege hunger and pestilence destroy the inhabitants, and every one who attempts to get away falls into the hands of the enemy, without venturing to defend himself, on account of his emaciation and exhaustion from hunger. Whilst the prophet thus pictures to himself the fate of Jerusalem and Judah, through their infatuation, he is seized with inconsolable anguish. Isa 22:4-5 “Therefore I say, Look away from me, that I may weep bitterly; press me not with consolations for the destruction of the daughter of my people! For a day of noise, and of treading down, and of confusion, cometh from the Lord, Jehovah of hosts, in the valley of vision, breaking down walls; and a cry of woe echoes against the mountains.” The note struck by Isaiah here is the note of the kinah that is continued in the Lamentations of Jeremiah. Jeremiah says sheber for shod (Lam 3:48), and bath-ammi (daughter of my people) is varied with batḣZion (daughter of Zion) and bath-yehudah (daughter of Judah). Mērēr babbeci (weep bitterly) is more than bâcâh mar (Isa 33:7): it signifies to give one’s self thoroughly up to bitter weeping, to exhaust one’s self with weeping. The two similar sounds which occur in Isa 22:5, in imitation of echoes, can hardly be translated. The day of divine judgment is called a day in which masses of men crowd together with great noise (mehūmâh), in which Jerusalem and its inhabitants are trodden down by foes (mebūsâh) and are thrown into wild confusion (mebūcâh). This is one play upon words. The other makes the crashing of the walls audible, as they are hurled down by the siege-artillery (mekarkar kir). Kirkēr is not a denom. of kı̄r, as Kimchi and Ewald suppose (unwalling walls), but is to be explained in accordance with Num 24:17, “he undermines,” i.e., throws down by removing the supports, in other words, “to the very foundations” (kur, to dig, hence karkârâh, the bottom of a vessel, Kelim ii. 2; kurkoreth, the bottom of a net, ib. xxviii. 10, or of a cask, Ahaloth ix. 16). When this takes place, then a cry of woe echoes against the mountain (shōa‛, like shūa‛, sheva‛), i.e., strikes against the mountains that surround Jerusalem, and is echoed back again. Knobel understands it as signifying a cry for help addressed to the mountain where Jehovah dwells; but this feature is altogether unsuitable to the God - forgetting worldly state in which Jerusalem is found. It is also to be observed, in opposition to Knobel, that the description does not move on in the same natural and literal way as in a historical narrative. The prophet is not relating, but looking; and in Isa 22:5 he depicts the day of Jehovah according to both its ultimate intention and its ultimate result. Isa 22:6-7

The advance of the besiegers, which leads to the destruction of the walls, is first described in Isa 22:6, Isa 22:7. “And Elam has taken the quiver, together with chariots with men, horsemen; and Kir has drawn out the shield. And then it comes to pass, that thy choicest valleys are filled with chariots, and the horsemen plant a firm foot towards the gate.” Of the nations composing the Assyrian army, the two mentioned are Elam, the Semitic nation of Susiana (Chuzistan), whose original settlements were the row of valleys between the Zagros chain and the chain of advanced mountains bounding the Assyrian plains on the east, and who were greatly dreaded as bowmen (Eze 32:24; Jer 49:35), and Kir, the inhabitants of the country of the Cyrus river, which was an Assyrian province, according to 2Ki 16:9 and Amo 1:5, and still retained its dependent position even in the time of the Achaemenides, when Armenia, at any rate, is expressly described in the arrowheaded writings as a Persian province, though a rebellious one. The readiness for battle of this people of Kur, who represent, in combination with Elam, the whole extent of the Assyrian empire from south to north, ^{▼▼The name Gurgistan (= Georgia) has nothing to do with the river Kur; and it is a suspicious fact that Kir has k at the commencement, and i in the middle, whereas the name of the river which joins the Araxes, and flows into the Caspian sea, is pronounced Kur, and is written in Persian with k (answering to the Armenian and old Persian, in which Kuru is equivalent to Κῦρος). Wetzstein considers Kir a portion of Mesopotamia.} is attested by their “drawing out the shield” (‛ērâh mâgēn), which Caesar calls scutis tegimenta detrahere (bell. gall. ii. 21); for the Talmudic meaning applicare cannot be thought of for a moment (Buxtorf, lex. col. 1664). These nations that fought on foot were accompanied (Beth, as in 1Ki 10:2) by chariots filled with men (receb 'âdâm), i.e., war-chariots (as distinguished from ‛agâloth), and, as is added ἀσυνδέτως, by pârâshim, riders (i.e., horsemen trained to arms). The historical tense is introduced with ויהי in Isa 22:7, but in a purely future sense. It is only for the sake of the favourite arrangement of the words that the passage does not proceed with Vav relat. וּמלאוּ. “Thy valleys” (‛amâkaik) are the valleys by which Jerusalem was encircled on the east, the west, and the south, viz., the valley of Kidron on the east; the valley of Gihon on the west; the valley of Rephaim, stretching away from the road to Bethlehem, on the south-west (Isa 17:5); the valley of Hinnom, which joins the Tyropaeum, and then runs on into a south-eastern angle; and possibly also the valley of Jehoshaphat, which ran on the north-east of the city above the valley of Kidron. These valleys, more especially the finest of them towards the south, are now cut up by the wheels and hoofs of the enemies’ chariots and horses; and the enemies’ horsemen have already taken a firm position gatewards, ready to ride full speed against the gates at a given signal, and force their way into the city (shı̄th with a shoth to strengthen it, as in Psa 3:7; also sı̄m in 1Ki 20:12, compare 1Sa 15:2). Isa 22:8-11

When Judah, after being for a long time intoxicated with hope, shall become aware of the extreme danger in which it is standing, it will adopt prudent measures, but without God. “Then he takes away the covering of Judah, and thou lookest in that day to the store of arms of the forest-house; and ye see the breaches of the city of David, that there are many of them; and ye collect together the waters of the lower pool. And ye number the houses of Jerusalem, and pull down the houses, to fortify the wall. And ye make a basin between the two walls for the waters of the old pool; and ye do not look to Him who made it, neither do ye have regard to Him who fashioned it long ago.” Mâsâk is the curtain or covering which made Judah blind to the threatening danger. Their looks are now directed first of all to the forest-house, built by Solomon upon Zion for the storing and display of valuable arms and utensils (nēshĕk, or rather, according to the Masora on Job 20:24, and the older editions, nĕshĕk), and so called because it rested upon four rows of cedar columns that ran all round (it was in the centre of the fore-court of the royal palace; see Thenius, das vorexil. Jerusalem, p. 13). They also noticed in the city of David, the southern and highest portion of the city of Jerusalem, the bad state of the walls, and began to think of repairing them. To this end they numbered the houses of the city, to obtain building materials for strengthening the walls and repairing the breaches, by pulling down such houses as were suitable for the purpose, and could be dispensed with (vattithtzu, from nâthatz, with the removal of the recompensative reduplication). The lower pool and the old pool, probably the upper, i.e., the lower and upper Gihon, were upon the western side of the city, the lower (Birket es-Sultan) to the west of Sion, the upper (Birket el-Mamilla) farther up to the west of Akra (Robinson, i. 483-486; V. Raumer, Pal. pp. 305-6). Kibbētz either means to collect in the pool by stopping up the outflow, or to gather together in the reservoirs and wells of the city by means of artificial canals. The latter, however, would most probably be expressed by אסף; so that the meaning that most naturally suggests itself is, that they concentrate the water, so as to be able before the siege to provide the city as rapidly as possible with a large supply. The word sâtham, which is used in the account of the actual measures adopted by Hezekiah when he was threatened with siege (2Ch 32:2-5), is a somewhat different one, and indicates the stopping up, not of the outflow but of the springs, and therefore of the influx. But in all essential points the measures adopted agree with those indicated here in the prophecy. The chronicler closes the account of Hezekiah’s reign by still further observing that “Hezekiah also stopped the outflow of the upper Gihon, and carried the water westwards underground to the city of David” (2Ch 32:30, explanatory of 2Ki 20:20). If the upper Gihon is the same as the upper pool, there was a conduit (teeâlâh), connected with the upper Gihon as early as the time of Ahaz, Isa 7:3. And Hezekiah’s peculiar work consisted in carrying the water of the upper pool “into the city of David.” The mikvâh between the two walls, which is here prospectively described by Isaiah, is connected with this water supply, which Hezekiah really carried out. There is still a pool of Hezekiah (also called Birket el-Batrak, pool of the patriarchs, the Amygdalon of Josephus) on the western side of the city, to the east of the Joppa gate. During the rainy season this pool is supplied by the small conduit which runs from the upper pool along the surface of the ground, and then under the wall against or near the Joppa gate. It also lies between two walls, viz., the wall to the north of Zion, and the one which runs to the north-east round the Akra (Robinson, i. 487-489). How it came to pass that Isaiah’s words concerning “a basin between the two walls” were so exactly carried out, as though they had furnished a hydraulic plan, we do not know. But we will offer a conjecture at the close of the exposition. It stands here as one of those prudent measures which would be resorted to in Jerusalem in the anticipation of the coming siege; but it would be thought of too late, and in self-reliant alienation from God, with no look directed to Him who had wrought and fashioned that very calamity which they were now seeking to avert by all these precautions, and by whom it had been projected long, long before the actual realization. עשׂיה might be a plural, according to Isa 54:5; but the parallel יצרהּ favours the singular (on the form itself, from עשׂי = עשׂה, see Isa 42:5, and at Isa 5:12; Isa 1:30). We have here, and at Isa 37:26, i.e., within the first part of the book of Isaiah, the same doctrine of “ideas” that forms so universal a key-note of the second part, the authenticity of which has been denied. That which is realized in time has existed long before as a spiritual pattern, i.e., as an idea in God. God shows this to His prophets; and so far as prophecy foretells the future, whenever the event predicted is fulfilled, the prophecy becomes a proof that the event is the work of God, and was long ago the predetermined counsel of God. The whole of the Scripture presupposes this pre-existence of the divine idea before the historical realization, and Isaiah in Israel (like Plato in the heathen world) was the assiduous interpreter of this supposition. Thus, in the case before us, the fate of Jerusalem is said to have been fashioned “long ago” in God. But Jerusalem might have averted its realization, for it was no decretum absolutum. If Jerusalem repented, the realization would be arrested. Isa 22:12-14

And so far as it had proceeded already, it was a call from Jehovah to repentance. “The Lord, Jehovah of hosts, calls in that day to weeping, and to mourning, and to the pulling out of hair, and to girding with sackcloth; and behold joy and gladness, slaughtering of oxen and killing of sheep, eating of flesh and drinking of wine, eating and drinking, for 'tomorrow we die.' And Jehovah of hosts hath revealed in mine ears, Surely this iniquity shall not be expiated for you until ye die, saith the Lord, Jehovah of hosts.” The first condition of repentance is a feeling of pain produced by the punishments of God. But upon Jerusalem they produce the opposite effect. The more threatening the future, the more insensibly and madly do they give themselves up to the rude, sensual enjoyment of the present. Shâthoth is interchanged with shâthō (which is only another form of שׁתה, as in Isa 6:9; Isa 30:19), to ring with shâchōt (compare Hos 10:4). There are other passages in which we meet with unusual forms introduced for the sake of the play upon the words (vid., Isa 4:6; Isa 8:6; Isa 16:9, and compare Eze 43:11, and the keri of 2Sa 3:25). The words of the rioters themselves, whose conduct is sketched by the inf. abs., which are all governed by hinnēh, are simply “for tomorrow we shall die.” This does not imply that they feel any pleasure in the thought of death, but indicates a love of life which scoffs at death. Then the unalterable will of the all-commanding God is audibly and distinctly revealed to the prophet. Such scoffing as this, which defies the chastisements of God, will not be expiated in any other way than by the death of the scoffer (cuppar, from câphar, tegere, means to be covered over, i.e., expiated). This is done in the case of sin either by the justice of God, as in the present instance, or by the mercy of God (Isa 6:7), or by both justice and mercy combined (as in Isa 27:9). In all three cases the expiation is demanded by the divine holiness, which requires a covering between itself and sin, by which sin becomes as though it were not. In this instance the expunging act consists in punishment. The sin of Jerusalem is expiated by the giving up of the sinners themselves to death. The verb temūthūn (ye shall die) is written absolutely, and therefore is all the more dreadful. The Targum renders it “till ye die the second (eternal) death” (mōthâh thinyânâh). So far as they prophecy threatened the destruction of Jerusalem by Assyria, it was never actually fulfilled; but the very opposite occurred. Asshur itself met with destruction in front of Jerusalem. But this was by no means opposed to the prophecy; and it was with this conviction that Isaiah, nevertheless, included the prophecy in the collection which he made at a time when the non-fulfilment was perfectly apparent. It stands here in a double capacity. In the first place, it is a memorial of the mercy of God, which withdraws, or at all events modifies, the threatened judgment as soon as repentance intervenes. The falling away from Assyria did take place; but on the part of Hezekiah and many others, who had taken to heart the prophet’s announcement, it did so simply as an affair that was surrendered into the hands of the God of Israel, through distrust of either their own strength or Egyptian assistance. Hezekiah carried out the measures of defence described by the prophet; but he did this for the good of Jerusalem, and with totally different feelings from those which the prophet had condemned. These measures of defence probably included the reservoir between the two walls, which the chronicler does not mention till the close of the history of his reign, inasmuch as he follows the thread of the book of Kings, to which his book stands, as it were, in the relation of a commentary, like the midrash, from which extracts are made. The king regulated his actions carefully by the prophecy, inasmuch as after the threats had produced repentance, Isa 22:8-11 still remained as good and wise counsels. In the second place, the oracle stands here as the proclamation of a judgment deferred but not repealed. Even if the danger of destruction which threatened Jerusalem on the part of Assyria had been mercifully caused to pass away, the threatening word of Jehovah had not fallen to the ground. The counsel of God contained in the word of prophecy still remained; and as it was the counsel of the Omniscient, the time would surely come when it would pass out of the sphere of ideality into that of actual fact. It remained hovering over Jerusalem like an eagle, and Jerusalem would eventually become its carrion. We have only to compare the temūthūn of this passage with the ἀποθανείσθε of Joh 8:21, to see when the eventual fulfilment took place. Thus the “massa of the valley of vision” became a memorial of mercy to Israel when it looked back to its past history: but when it looked into the future, it was still a mirror of wrath.