Commentari biblici

Chap. Isaiah 10:5-34The Judgment of the World-Power. An Oracle against Assyria

This great prophecy is the clearest and probably the earliest exposition of that conception of the divine government of the world which was the guiding principle of the latest period of Isaiah’s ministry. The leading idea of the passage is the contrast between the mission assigned to Assyria in the scheme of Jehovah’s Providence, and the ambitious policy of universal dominion cherished by the rulers of that Empire. Assyria was the instrument chosen by Jehovah to manifest His sole deity by the extinction of all the nationalities that put their trust in false gods. But the great world-power, intoxicated by its success, and attributing this to its own wisdom and resource, recognises no difference between Jehovah and other gods, but confidently reckons on proving His impotence by the subjugation of His land and people. Hence it becomes necessary for Jehovah to vindicate His supreme Godhead by the destruction of the power which has thus impiously transgressed the limits of its providential commission. And this judgment will take place at the very moment when Assyria seeks to crown its career of conquest by an assault on Jehovah’s sanctuary on Mount Zion, the earthly seat of His government. These are the ideas which lay at the root of Isaiah’s heroic faith in the crisis of Sennacherib’s invasion. He did not doubt that Judah’s sins required an exemplary chastisement, or that that chastisement would come by means of the Assyrians, but he had the firmest conviction that Jehovah’s purpose did not include the violation of His sanctuary, which would in that age have been equivalent to the extinction of the true religion.

When was this prophecy written? Certainly between the years 717 and 701. The superior limit is given by the list of captured cities in Isaiah 10:9. Carchemish, the latest conquest there mentioned, was incorporated in the Assyrian Empire (although, to be sure, it had been captured more than once previously) in 717, about five years after the fall of Samaria. The lower limit is of course the great invasion of 701. But whether the oracle was uttered near the beginning, middle, or end of that period is a question on which no agreement has yet been reached. (1) The opinion that the prophecy belongs to a time not long after the destruction of Samaria has much to recommend it. The overthrow of the greater portion of Jehovah’s people must have excited the greatest consternation in Judah, and led to anxious questionings as to where this seemingly irresistible tide of invasion was to end. This would be a suitable occasion for the publication of a prophetic oracle on the true function of Assyria in Jehovah’s counsel and the impassable limit to its power. It is also in favour of an early date that Isaiah 10:20 seems to contain a reflection on the fatal policy inaugurated by Ahaz of trusting to Assyria as the best security against national annihilation. The principal objection to this view arises from the impression, which is probably a just one, that the prophet regards the crisis, and consequently the defeat of Assyria, as imminent (see esp. Isaiah 10:28-34). (2) Assuming that an invasion of Judah was either actually carried out or at least seriously contemplated by Sargon about 711, several critics have brought this prophecy into connexion with that event. The same difficulty, however, meets us here in another form. The prophecy of chapter 20, which undoubtedly belongs to the time supposed, anticipates a still further extension of the Assyrian conquests to Egypt and Ethiopia. It seems incredible that when Isaiah had for three years sought to impress that fact on his countrymen, he should simultaneously announce the downfall of Assyria as an event just about to take place. (3) There remains the hypothesis that this oracle belongs generally to the same period as the group of discourses with which it has the closest affinities (chs. 28–32), and was uttered in view of Sennacherib’s invasion in 701. Only, the imaginary description of the invader’s route in Isaiah 10:28-32 forbids us to place it too near the actual attack. The Assyrians are there conceived as advancing from the north, which was the natural course for an Assyrian onslaught on Jerusalem to take. Sennacherib’s expedition, however, came from the Philistine plain, and for some time previous to the event, it must have been evident that that was the direction from which danger was to be apprehended. Other objections to this date have little weight. It is true that none of the conquests enumerated in Isaiah 10:9 were effected by Sennacherib in person, but neither were they all effected by any one king, and if it is the king who speaks in Isaiah 10:9 he speaks not in his own name but as the representative of the might of Asshur. Nor is Isaiah 10:27 inconsistent with the fact that Hezekiah had renounced his allegiance to Assyria before the attack by Sennacherib. The mere withholding of tribute was by no means equivalent to emancipation from the Assyrian yoke, so long as Assyria was in a position to enforce submission by an exemplary chastisement.

These arguments are only valid on the assumption of the Isaianic authorship and substantial unity of the passage as a whole. The grounds on which this has been disputed by recent writers (see Cheyne, Introduction, pp. xlviii ff.) are not convincing, and cannot be adequately discussed here.

Following Ewald, we may divide the prophecy into three main sections:—

i. Isaiah 10:5-15. The plan of Jehovah and the plan of Asshur.

(1) The divine mission entrusted to Assyria is boldly contrasted with the barbarous lust of plunder and conquest, and the glorification of brute force which characterised the policy of that Empire (5–7).

(2) The latter thought is expanded in a speech put into the mouth of the Assyrian, in which he enumerates his past successes, and confidently anticipates an easy conquest of Jerusalem (8–11). The prophet’s answer (12).

(3) A second speech of the Assyrian, full of the spirit of self-exaltation and savage delight in the exercise of irresistible power (13, 14); the section closing with a contemptuous reply on the part of the prophet, recalling the image of the opening verse (15).

ii. Isaiah 10:16-23. The overthrow of Assyria and its consequences for Judah.

(1) The destruction of Assyria is described under the two figures of a wasting disease and a consuming fire (16–19).

(2) The conversion of the Remnant of Israel will follow this decisive manifestation of Jehovah’s sovereignty (20–23).

iii. Isaiah 10:24-34. The peroration, consisting of:

(1) A message of comfort to the harassed nation (24–27).

(2) An ideal description of the march of the Assyrian from the northern frontier to the walls of Jerusalem (28–32) and his sudden annihilation by the hand of Jehovah (33, 34).

1. that decree unrighteous decrees, &c.] Better perhaps, that draw up mischievous ordinances and are continually writing oppression. The magnates are addressed not as judges but as legislators; their offence is that they embody injustice in arbitrary written enactments, which enable them to perpetrate the most grievous wrongs under legal forms.

and that write … prescribed] The construction is peculiar. The intensive form of the verb “to write” occurs only here.

1–4. Fourth strophe. Most critics consider that at this point the scene changes from Samaria to Jerusalem; (1) because the internal condition of Ephraim has already been depicted in the last stages of dissolution and (2) because the abuses here denounced are a constant feature of Isaiah’s prophecies against Judah. In the absence of positive indications these reasons are hardly sufficient to justify so abrupt a transition. It would be more plausible to hold with Giesebrecht and others that the strophe had its place originally among the “woes” of ch. 5; but this also seems unnecessary.

2. The effect and real purpose of this legislative activity.

To turn aside the needy from judgment] See on ch. Isaiah 1:23.

my people] as Isaiah 3:12; Isaiah 3:15.

3. The unjust lawgivers are reminded that there is a day of revision, when they must answer to the Supreme Judge.

And what will ye do?] cf. Hosea 9:5. day of visitation] cf. Hosea 9:7; Micah 7:4; Jeremiah 11:23; Jeremiah 23:12, &c.

desolation] or, storm; the word is only employed here by Isaiah. The “storm” of invasion “comes from far”; cf. ch. Isaiah 5:26, Isaiah 30:27.

leave your glory] i.e. “your wealth”; Genesis 31:1; Isaiah 61:6; Isaiah 66:12.

4. Without me … slain] This clause is very difficult. The easiest explanation perhaps is to take it as the answer to the questions of Isaiah 10:3 : (they can do nothing) except crouch under the captives and fall under the slain. Another is “Except one (here and there) crouch among captives, they must fell under the slain.” Objections to both occur readily enough to anyone who reads the Hebrew, especially the abrupt changes from singular to plural. An ingenious conjecture of Lagarde’s gives the sense “Beltis crouches, Osiris is broken (חַת אֹסִיר כֵּלְתִּי כֹּרַעַת cf. Isaiah 46:1; Jeremiah 50:2), they fall, &c.”; i.e. the heathen gods shall be unable to give protection to their votaries. But there is no evidence that Egyptian deities (Osiris) were worshipped in Israel in Isaiah’s time; and in any case their sudden introduction here would be surprising.

his hand is stretched out still] See on ch. Isaiah 5:25 ff.

5. O Assyrian] Ho Asshur, the name both of the people and its national god. The god being little more than the personified genius of the nation, we might almost venture to suppose that he is here directly addressed and is the speaker in Isaiah 10:8 ff. But the word is never used of the god in the O.T.

the rod of mine anger] the instrument with which Jehovah chastises the nations, cf. Jeremiah 51:20.

and the staff … indignation] lit. “and a staff, it is in their hand, my indignation,”—an absolutely refractory clause. Driver (Tenses § 201, 1, Obs.) translates “and a staff is it in their hand, [viz.] mine indignation.” But to say in one line that Assyria is the rod of Jehovah’s anger and in the next that His indignation is a staff in their hand is awkward in the extreme. Better a “flat tautology” than that, although the objection is meaningless as applied to a synonymous parallelism. It is best to omit the words “it is in their hand” as a gloss and render and the staff of mine indignation.

5–7. Jehovah’s plan contrasted with Assyria’s purpose.

6. I will send him, &c.] Rather: I send him against a profane nation (R.V.). See ch. Isaiah 9:17. In a general description of the mission of Assyria it is not advisable to limit the reference to Judah or Israel. The meaning is that Jehovah sends the Assyrian against any nation that deserves punishment.

people of my wrath] See Isaiah 9:19.

like the mire of the streets] Cf. Psalm 18:42; Micah 7:10.

7. Howbeit he meaneth not so] The charge is not so much that Asshur exceeds his commission (as in Zechariah 1:15), as that he recognises no commission at all; his policy is entirely oblivious of moral interests.