Moab’s Plea, Zion’s Throne of Mercy, and the Judgment of Moab’s Pride

Isa 16:6 But if Moab does this, and the law of the history of Israel, which is that “a remnant shall return,” is thus reflected in the history of Moab; Isa 16:6 cannot possibly contain the answer which Moab receives from Zion, as the more modern commentators assume according to an error that has almost become traditional. On the contrary, the prophecy enters here upon a new stage, commencing with Moab’s sin, and depicting the fate of Moab in still more elegiac strains.

“We have heard of the pride of Moab, the very haughty ( pride ) , his haughtiness, and his pride, and his wrath, the falsehood of his speech. ” The future self-humiliation of Moab, which would be the fruit of its sufferings, is here contrasted with the previous self-exaltation, of which these sufferings were the fruit. “ We have heard ,” says the prophet, identifying himself with his people.

Boasting pompousness has hitherto been the distinguishing characteristic of Moab in relation to the latter (see Isa 25:11). The heaping up of words of the same verbal stem (cf. , Isa 3:1) is here intended to indicate how thoroughly haughty was their haughtiness (cf. , Rom 7:13, “that sin might become exceeding sinful”), and how completely it had taken possession of Moab.

It boasted and was full of rage towards Israel, to which, so far as it retained its consciousness of the truth of Jehovah, the talk of Moab (בדיו from בדד = בדא, בטא, to talk at random) must necessarily appear as לא־כן, not-right , i. e. , at variance with fact. These expressions of opinion had been heard by the people of God, and, as Jeremiah adds in Jer 48:29-30, by Israel’s God as well.

Isa 16:7-8 Therefore the delightful land is miserably laid waste. “Therefore will Moab wail for Moab, everything will wail: for the grape-cakes of Kir-hareseth will ye whine, utterly crushed. For the fruit-fields of Heshbon have faded away: the vine of Sibmah, lords of the nations its branches smote down; they reached to Ja'zer, trailed through the desert: its branches spread themselves out wide, crossed over the sea.

” The Lamed in l'Moab is the same as in Isa 15:5, and in la'ashishē , which follows here. Kir - hareseth (written Kir - heres in Isa 16:11, and by Jeremiah; compare 2Ki 3:25, where the vowel-pointing is apparently false): Heres or Hareseth may possibly refer to the glazed tiles or grooved stones. As this was the principal fortress of Moab, and according to Isa 15:1 it had already been destroyed, ‛ashishē appears to mean the “strong foundations,” - namely, as laid bare; in other words, the “ruins” (cf.

, Jer 50:15, and mōsedē in Isa 58:12). But in every other passage in which the word occurs it signifies a kind of cake; and as the devastation of the vines of Moab is made the subject of mourning afterwards, it has the same meaning here as in Hos 3:1, namely raisin-cakes , or raisins pressed into the form of cakes. Such cakes as these may have been a special article of the export trade of Kir.

Jeremiah has altered 'ashishē into 'anshē (Jer 48:31), and thus made men out of the grapes. Hâgâh is to be understood in accordance with Isa 38:14; Isa 59:11 (viz. , of the cooing of the dove); 'ac (in good texts it is written with mercha , not with makkeph ) according to Deu 16:15. On the construction of the pluralet . shadmoth , compare Hab 3:17. We have rendered the clause commencing with baalē goyim (lords of the nations) with the same amphibolism as we find in the Hebrew.

It might mean either “lords of the nations ( domini gentium ) smote down its branches” (viz. , those of the vine of Sibmah ; hâlam being used as in Isa 41:7), or “its branches smote down (i. e. , intoxicated) lords of the nations” ( dominos gentium ; hâlam having the same meaning as in the undisputed prophecy of Isaiah in Isa 28:1). As the prophet enlarges here upon the excellence of the Moabitish wine, the latter is probably intended.

The wine of Sibmah was so good, that it was placed upon the tables of monarchs, and so strong that it smote down, i. e. , inevitably intoxicated, even those who were accustomed to good wines. This Sibmah wine was cultivated, as the prophet says, far and wide in Moab - northwards as far as Ja'zer (between Ramoth, i. e. , Salt, and Heshbon, now a heap of ruins), eastwards into the desert, and southwards across the Dead Sea - a hyperbolical expression for close up to its shores.

Jeremiah defines yâm (the sea) more closely as yam Ja‛zer (the sea of Jazer; vid. , Jer 48:32), so that the hyperbole vanishes. But what sea can the sea of Jazer be? Probably some celebrated large pool, like the pools of Heshbon, in which the waters of the Wady ( Nahr ) Sir , which takes its rise close by, were collected. Seetzen found some pools still there.

The “sea” ( yâm ) in Solomon’s temple shows clearly enough that the term sea was also commonly applied to artificial basins of a large size; and in Damascus the marble basins of flowing water in the halls of houses are still called baharât ; and the same term is applied to the public reservoirs in all the streets of the city, which are fed by a network of aqueducts from the river Baradâ . The expression “break through the desert” ( tâ‛u midbâr ) is also a bold one, probably pointing to the fact that, like the red wines of Hungary at the present time, they were trailing vines, which did not require to be staked, but ran along the ground.

Isa 16:7-8 Therefore the delightful land is miserably laid waste. “Therefore will Moab wail for Moab, everything will wail: for the grape-cakes of Kir-hareseth will ye whine, utterly crushed. For the fruit-fields of Heshbon have faded away: the vine of Sibmah, lords of the nations its branches smote down; they reached to Ja'zer, trailed through the desert: its branches spread themselves out wide, crossed over the sea.

” The Lamed in l'Moab is the same as in Isa 15:5, and in la'ashishē , which follows here. Kir - hareseth (written Kir - heres in Isa 16:11, and by Jeremiah; compare 2Ki 3:25, where the vowel-pointing is apparently false): Heres or Hareseth may possibly refer to the glazed tiles or grooved stones. As this was the principal fortress of Moab, and according to Isa 15:1 it had already been destroyed, ‛ashishē appears to mean the “strong foundations,” - namely, as laid bare; in other words, the “ruins” (cf.

, Jer 50:15, and mōsedē in Isa 58:12). But in every other passage in which the word occurs it signifies a kind of cake; and as the devastation of the vines of Moab is made the subject of mourning afterwards, it has the same meaning here as in Hos 3:1, namely raisin-cakes , or raisins pressed into the form of cakes. Such cakes as these may have been a special article of the export trade of Kir.

Jeremiah has altered 'ashishē into 'anshē (Jer 48:31), and thus made men out of the grapes. Hâgâh is to be understood in accordance with Isa 38:14; Isa 59:11 (viz. , of the cooing of the dove); 'ac (in good texts it is written with mercha , not with makkeph ) according to Deu 16:15. On the construction of the pluralet . shadmoth , compare Hab 3:17. We have rendered the clause commencing with baalē goyim (lords of the nations) with the same amphibolism as we find in the Hebrew.

It might mean either “lords of the nations ( domini gentium ) smote down its branches” (viz. , those of the vine of Sibmah ; hâlam being used as in Isa 41:7), or “its branches smote down (i. e. , intoxicated) lords of the nations” ( dominos gentium ; hâlam having the same meaning as in the undisputed prophecy of Isaiah in Isa 28:1). As the prophet enlarges here upon the excellence of the Moabitish wine, the latter is probably intended.

The wine of Sibmah was so good, that it was placed upon the tables of monarchs, and so strong that it smote down, i. e. , inevitably intoxicated, even those who were accustomed to good wines. This Sibmah wine was cultivated, as the prophet says, far and wide in Moab - northwards as far as Ja'zer (between Ramoth, i. e. , Salt, and Heshbon, now a heap of ruins), eastwards into the desert, and southwards across the Dead Sea - a hyperbolical expression for close up to its shores.

Jeremiah defines yâm (the sea) more closely as yam Ja‛zer (the sea of Jazer; vid. , Jer 48:32), so that the hyperbole vanishes. But what sea can the sea of Jazer be? Probably some celebrated large pool, like the pools of Heshbon, in which the waters of the Wady ( Nahr ) Sir , which takes its rise close by, were collected. Seetzen found some pools still there.

The “sea” ( yâm ) in Solomon’s temple shows clearly enough that the term sea was also commonly applied to artificial basins of a large size; and in Damascus the marble basins of flowing water in the halls of houses are still called baharât ; and the same term is applied to the public reservoirs in all the streets of the city, which are fed by a network of aqueducts from the river Baradâ . The expression “break through the desert” ( tâ‛u midbâr ) is also a bold one, probably pointing to the fact that, like the red wines of Hungary at the present time, they were trailing vines, which did not require to be staked, but ran along the ground.

Isa 16:9 The beauties of nature and fruitfulness of the land, which come into the possession of any nation, are gifts from the riches of divine goodness, remnants of the paradisaical commencement of the history of man, and types of its paradisaical close; and for this very reason they are not matters of indifference to the spirit of prophecy. And for the same reason, it is not unworthy of a prophet, who predicts the renovation of nature and the perfecting of it into the beauty of paradise, to weep over such a devastation as that of the Moabitish vineyards which was now passing before his mind (cf.

, Isa 32:12-13). “Therefore I bemoan the vines of Sibmah with the weeping of Jazer; I flood thee with my tears, O Heshbon and Elealeh, that Hêdad hath fallen upon thy fruit-harvest and upon thy vintage. ” A tetrastich, the Hebrew equivalent, in measure and movement, of a sapphic strophe. The circumstantiality of the vision is here swallowed up again by the sympathy of the prophet; and the prophecy, which is throughout as truly human as it is divine, becomes soft and flowing like an elegy.

The prophet mingles his tears with the tears of Jazer. Just as the latter weeps for the devastated vines of Sibmah , so does he also weep. The form אריּוך, transposed from ארוּיך = ארוּך (cf. , Ewald, §253, a, where it is explained as being a rare “voluntative” formation), corresponds to the elegiac tone of the whole strophe. Heshbon and Elealeh , those closely connected cities, with their luxuriant fields ( shedemoth , Isa 16:8), are now lying in ruins; and the prophet waters them with tears, because hedad has fallen upon the fruit-harvest and vintage of both the sister cities.

In other instances the term kâtzı̄r is applied to the wheat-harvest ; but here it is used in the same sense as bâtzı̄r , to which it is preferred on account of Isaiah’s favourite alliteration, viz. , with kaytz (compare, for example, the alliteration of mistor with sēther in Isa 4:6). That it does not refer to the wheat-harvest here, but to the vintage, which was nearly coincident with the fruit-harvest (which is called kaytz , as in Isa 28:4), is evident from the figure suggested in the word hēdâd , which was the shout raised by the pressers of the grapes, to give the time for moving their feet when treading out the wine (Isa 16:10; Jer 25:30).

A hēdâd of this kind had fallen upon the rich floors of Heshbon-Elealeh, inasmuch as they had been trodden down by enemies - a Hedad , and yet no Hedad , as Jeremiah gives it in a beautiful oxymoron (Jer 48:33), i. e. , no joyous shout of actual grape-treaders.

Isa 16:10-11 The prophet, to whose favourite words and favourite figures Carmel belongs, both as the name of a place and as the name of a thing, now proceeds with his picture, and is plunged still more deeply into mourning. “And joy is taken away, and the rejoicing of the garden-land; and there is no exulting, no shouting in the vineyards: the treader treads out no wine in the presses; I put an end to the Hedad.

Therefore my bowels sound for Moab like a harp, and my inside for Kir-heres. ” It is Jehovah who says “I put an end;” and consequently the words, “My bowels sound like a harp,” or, as Jeremiah expresses it (Jer 48:36), like flutes, might appear to be expressive of the feelings of Jehovah. And the Scriptures do not hesitate to attribute mē‛ayim ( viscera ) to God (e.

g. , Isa 63:15; Jer 31:20). But as the prophet is the sympathizing subject throughout the whole of the prophecy, it is better, for the sake of unity, to take the words in this instance also as expressing the prophet’s feelings. Just as the hand or plectrum touches the strings of the harp, so that they vibrate with sound; so did the terrible things that he had heard Jehovah say concerning Moab touch the strings of his inward parts, and cause them to resound with notes of pain.

By the bowels, or rather entrails ( viscera ), the heart, liver, and kidneys are intended - the highest organs of the Psyche, and the sounding-board, as it were, of those “hidden sounds” which exist in every man. God conversed with the prophet “in the spirit;” but what passed there took the form of individual impressions in the domain of the soul, in which impressions the bodily organs of the psychical life sympathetically shared.

Thus the prophet saw in the spirit the purpose of God concerning Moab, in which he could not and would not make any change; but it threw his soul into all the restlessness of pain.

Isa 16:10-11 The prophet, to whose favourite words and favourite figures Carmel belongs, both as the name of a place and as the name of a thing, now proceeds with his picture, and is plunged still more deeply into mourning. “And joy is taken away, and the rejoicing of the garden-land; and there is no exulting, no shouting in the vineyards: the treader treads out no wine in the presses; I put an end to the Hedad.

Therefore my bowels sound for Moab like a harp, and my inside for Kir-heres. ” It is Jehovah who says “I put an end;” and consequently the words, “My bowels sound like a harp,” or, as Jeremiah expresses it (Jer 48:36), like flutes, might appear to be expressive of the feelings of Jehovah. And the Scriptures do not hesitate to attribute mē‛ayim ( viscera ) to God (e.

g. , Isa 63:15; Jer 31:20). But as the prophet is the sympathizing subject throughout the whole of the prophecy, it is better, for the sake of unity, to take the words in this instance also as expressing the prophet’s feelings. Just as the hand or plectrum touches the strings of the harp, so that they vibrate with sound; so did the terrible things that he had heard Jehovah say concerning Moab touch the strings of his inward parts, and cause them to resound with notes of pain.

By the bowels, or rather entrails ( viscera ), the heart, liver, and kidneys are intended - the highest organs of the Psyche, and the sounding-board, as it were, of those “hidden sounds” which exist in every man. God conversed with the prophet “in the spirit;” but what passed there took the form of individual impressions in the domain of the soul, in which impressions the bodily organs of the psychical life sympathetically shared.

Thus the prophet saw in the spirit the purpose of God concerning Moab, in which he could not and would not make any change; but it threw his soul into all the restlessness of pain.

Isa 16:12 The ultimate reason for this restlessness is, that Moab does not know the living God. “And it will come to pass, when it is seen that Moab is weary with weeping upon the mountain height, and enters into its sanctuary to pray, it will not gain anything. ” נלאה נראה, a pictorial assonance, such as Isaiah delights in. נראה . ni st is transferred from the Israelitish worship (appearance before God in His temple) to the heathen; syntactically, si apparuerit , etc.

, with Vav before the apodosis. It would be with the Moabites as with the priests of Baal in the time of Elijah (1Ki 18:26.)

Isa 16:13-14 The massa is now brought to a close, and there follows an epilogue which fixes the term of the fulfilment of what is not predicted now for the first time, from the standpoint of the anticipated history. “This is the word which Jehovah spake long ago concerning Moab. And now Jehovah speaketh thus: In three years, like years of a hireling, the glory of Moab is disgraced, together with all the multitude of the great; a remnant is left, contemptibly small, not great at all.

” The time fixed is the same as in Isa 20:3. Of working time the hirer remits nothing, and the labourer gives nothing in. The statement as to the time, therefore, is intended to be taken exactly: three years, not more, rather under than over. Then will the old saying of God concerning Moab be fulfilled. Only a remnant, a contemptible remnant, will be left (וּשׁאר, cf.

, וּמשׂושׂ, Isa 8:6, in sense equivalent to ושׁאר); for every history of the nations is but the shadow of the history of Israel. The massa in Isaiah 15:1-16:12 was a word that had already gone forth from Jehovah “long ago. ” This statement may be understood in three different senses. In the first place, Isaiah may mean that older prophecies had already foretold essentially the same concerning Moab.

But what prophecies? We may get an answer to this question from the prophecies of Jeremiah concerning Moab in Jer 48. Jeremiah there reproduces the massa Moab of the book of Isaiah, but interweaves with it reminiscences (1.) out of the mâshal on Moab in Num 21:27-30; (2.) out of Balaam’s prophecy concerning Moab in Num 24:17; (3.) out of the prophecy of Amos concerning Moab (Amo 2:1-3).

And it might be to these earlier words of prophecy that Isaiah here refers (Hävernick, Drechsler, and others). But this is very improbable, as there is no ring of these earlier passages in the massa , such as we should expect if Isaiah had had them in his mind. Secondly , Isaiah might mean that Isa 15:1. contained the prophecy of an older prophet, which he merely brought to remembrance in order to connect therewith the precise tenor of its fulfilment which had been revealed to him.

This is at present the prevailing view. Hitzig, in a special work on the subject (1831), as well as in his Commentary, has endeavoured to prove, on the ground of 2Ki 14:25, that in all probability Jonah was the author of the oracle which Isaiah here resumes. And Knobel, Maurer, Gustav Baur, and Thenius agree with him in this; whilst De Wette, Ewald, and Umbreit regard it as, at any rate, decidedly non-Messianic.

If the conjecture that Jonah was the author could but be better sustained, we should heartily rejoice in this addition to the history of the literature of the Old Testament. But all that we know of Jonah is at variance with such a conjecture. He was a prophet of the type of Elijah and Elisha, in whom the eloquence of a prophet’s words was thrown altogether into the shade by the energy of a prophet’s deeds.

His prophecy concerning the restoration of the kingdom of Israel to its old boundaries, which was fulfilled by the victories of Jeroboam II, we cannot therefore imagine to have been so pictorial or highly poetical as the massa Moab (which would only be one part of that prophecy) really is; and the fact that he was angry at the sparing of Nineveh harmonizes very badly with its elegiac softness and its flood of tears. Moreover, it is never intimated that the conquerors to whom Moab was to succumb would belong to the kingdom of Israel; and the hypothesis is completely overthrown by the summons addressed to Moab to send tribute to Jerusalem.

But the conclusion itself, that the oracle must have originated with any older prophet whatever, is drawn from very insufficient premises. No doubt it is a thing altogether unparalleled even in Isaiah, that a prophecy should assume so thoroughly the form of a kinah , or lamentation; still there are tendencies to this in Isa 22:4 (cf. , Isa 21:3-4), and Isaiah was an inexhaustible master of language of every character and colour.

It is true we do light upon many expressions which cannot be pointed out anywhere else in the book of Isaiah, such as baalē goyim , hedâd , yelâlâh , yâra‛ , yithrâh , mâhir , mētz , nosâphoth , pekuddâh (provision, possession); and there is something peculiar in the circular movement of the prophecy, which is carried out to such an extent in the indication of reason and consequence, as well as in the perpetually returning, monotonous connection of the sentences by ci (for) and ‛al - cēn ( lâcēn , therefore), the former of which is repeated twice in Isa 15:1, three times in Isa 15:8-9, and four times in succession in Isa 15:5-6. But there is probably no prophecy, especially in chapters 13-23, which does not contain expressions that the prophet uses nowhere else; and so far as the conjunctions ci and a‛ l - cēn ( lâcēn ), are concerned, Isaiah crowds them together in other passages as well, and here almost to monotony, as a natural consequence of the prevailing elegiac tone.

Besides, even Ewald can detect the characteristics of Isaiah in Isa 16:1-6; and you have only to dissect the whole rhetorically, syntactically, and philologically, with the carefulness of a Caspari, to hear throughout the ring of Isaiah’s style. And whoever has retained the impression which he brought with him from the oracle against Philistia, will be constrained to say, that not only the stamp and outward form, but also the spirit and ideas, are thoroughly Isaiah's.

Hence the third possible conjecture must be the correct one. Thirdly , then, Isaiah may mean that the fate of Moab, which he has just proclaimed, was revealed to him long ago; and the addition made now is, that it will be fulfilled in exactly three years. מאז does not necessarily point to a time antecedent to that of Isaiah himself (compare Isa 44:8; Isa 48:3, Isa 48:5, Isa 48:7, with 2Sa 15:34).

If we assume that what Isaiah predicts down to Isa 16:12 was revealed to him in the year that Ahaz died, and that the epilogue reckons from the third or tenth year of Hezekiah, in either case the interval is long enough for the mê'âz (from of old). And we decide in favour of this. Unfortunately, we know nothing certain as to the time at which the three years commence.

The question whether it was Shalmanassar, Sargon, or Sennacherib who treated the Moabites so harshly, is one that we cannot answer. In Herodotus (ii. 141), Sennacherib is called “king of the Arabians and Assyrians;” and Moab might be included in the Arabians. In any case, after the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy in the Assyrian times, there was still a portion left, the fulfilment of which, according to Jer 48, was reserved for the Chaldeans.

The Oracle Concerning Damascus and Israel - Isa 17:1-14 From the Philistines on the west, and the Moabites on the east, the prophecy relating to the neighbouring nations now turns, without any chronological order, to the people of Damascene Syria on the north. The curse pronounced on them, however, falls upon the kingdom of Israel also, because it has allied itself with heathen Damascus, in opposition to its own brother tribe to the south, as well as to the Davidic government; and by this unnatural alliance with a zâr , or stranger, had become a zâr itself.

From the period of Hezekiah’s reign, to which the massa Moab belongs, at least so far as its epilogue is concerned, we are here carried back to the reign of Ahaz, and indeed far beyond “the year that Ahaz died” (Isa 14:28), to the very border of the reigns of Jotham and Ahaz - namely, to the time when the league for the destruction of Judah had only just been concluded. At the time when Isaiah incorporated this oracle in his collection, the threats against the kingdoms of Damascus and Israel had long been fulfilled.

Assyria had punished both of them. And Assyria itself had also been punished, as the fourth turn in the oracle indicates. Consequently the oracle stands here as a memorial of the truthfulness of the prophecy; and it answers a further purpose still, viz. , to furnish a rich prophetic consolation for the church of all times, when persecuted by the world, and sighing under the oppression of the kingdom of the world.

Isa 16:13-14 The massa is now brought to a close, and there follows an epilogue which fixes the term of the fulfilment of what is not predicted now for the first time, from the standpoint of the anticipated history. “This is the word which Jehovah spake long ago concerning Moab. And now Jehovah speaketh thus: In three years, like years of a hireling, the glory of Moab is disgraced, together with all the multitude of the great; a remnant is left, contemptibly small, not great at all.

” The time fixed is the same as in Isa 20:3. Of working time the hirer remits nothing, and the labourer gives nothing in. The statement as to the time, therefore, is intended to be taken exactly: three years, not more, rather under than over. Then will the old saying of God concerning Moab be fulfilled. Only a remnant, a contemptible remnant, will be left (וּשׁאר, cf.

, וּמשׂושׂ, Isa 8:6, in sense equivalent to ושׁאר); for every history of the nations is but the shadow of the history of Israel. The massa in Isaiah 15:1-16:12 was a word that had already gone forth from Jehovah “long ago. ” This statement may be understood in three different senses. In the first place, Isaiah may mean that older prophecies had already foretold essentially the same concerning Moab.

But what prophecies? We may get an answer to this question from the prophecies of Jeremiah concerning Moab in Jer 48. Jeremiah there reproduces the massa Moab of the book of Isaiah, but interweaves with it reminiscences (1.) out of the mâshal on Moab in Num 21:27-30; (2.) out of Balaam’s prophecy concerning Moab in Num 24:17; (3.) out of the prophecy of Amos concerning Moab (Amo 2:1-3).

And it might be to these earlier words of prophecy that Isaiah here refers (Hävernick, Drechsler, and others). But this is very improbable, as there is no ring of these earlier passages in the massa , such as we should expect if Isaiah had had them in his mind. Secondly , Isaiah might mean that Isa 15:1. contained the prophecy of an older prophet, which he merely brought to remembrance in order to connect therewith the precise tenor of its fulfilment which had been revealed to him.

This is at present the prevailing view. Hitzig, in a special work on the subject (1831), as well as in his Commentary, has endeavoured to prove, on the ground of 2Ki 14:25, that in all probability Jonah was the author of the oracle which Isaiah here resumes. And Knobel, Maurer, Gustav Baur, and Thenius agree with him in this; whilst De Wette, Ewald, and Umbreit regard it as, at any rate, decidedly non-Messianic.

If the conjecture that Jonah was the author could but be better sustained, we should heartily rejoice in this addition to the history of the literature of the Old Testament. But all that we know of Jonah is at variance with such a conjecture. He was a prophet of the type of Elijah and Elisha, in whom the eloquence of a prophet’s words was thrown altogether into the shade by the energy of a prophet’s deeds.

His prophecy concerning the restoration of the kingdom of Israel to its old boundaries, which was fulfilled by the victories of Jeroboam II, we cannot therefore imagine to have been so pictorial or highly poetical as the massa Moab (which would only be one part of that prophecy) really is; and the fact that he was angry at the sparing of Nineveh harmonizes very badly with its elegiac softness and its flood of tears. Moreover, it is never intimated that the conquerors to whom Moab was to succumb would belong to the kingdom of Israel; and the hypothesis is completely overthrown by the summons addressed to Moab to send tribute to Jerusalem.

But the conclusion itself, that the oracle must have originated with any older prophet whatever, is drawn from very insufficient premises. No doubt it is a thing altogether unparalleled even in Isaiah, that a prophecy should assume so thoroughly the form of a kinah , or lamentation; still there are tendencies to this in Isa 22:4 (cf. , Isa 21:3-4), and Isaiah was an inexhaustible master of language of every character and colour.

It is true we do light upon many expressions which cannot be pointed out anywhere else in the book of Isaiah, such as baalē goyim , hedâd , yelâlâh , yâra‛ , yithrâh , mâhir , mētz , nosâphoth , pekuddâh (provision, possession); and there is something peculiar in the circular movement of the prophecy, which is carried out to such an extent in the indication of reason and consequence, as well as in the perpetually returning, monotonous connection of the sentences by ci (for) and ‛al - cēn ( lâcēn , therefore), the former of which is repeated twice in Isa 15:1, three times in Isa 15:8-9, and four times in succession in Isa 15:5-6. But there is probably no prophecy, especially in chapters 13-23, which does not contain expressions that the prophet uses nowhere else; and so far as the conjunctions ci and a‛ l - cēn ( lâcēn ), are concerned, Isaiah crowds them together in other passages as well, and here almost to monotony, as a natural consequence of the prevailing elegiac tone.

Besides, even Ewald can detect the characteristics of Isaiah in Isa 16:1-6; and you have only to dissect the whole rhetorically, syntactically, and philologically, with the carefulness of a Caspari, to hear throughout the ring of Isaiah’s style. And whoever has retained the impression which he brought with him from the oracle against Philistia, will be constrained to say, that not only the stamp and outward form, but also the spirit and ideas, are thoroughly Isaiah's.

Hence the third possible conjecture must be the correct one. Thirdly , then, Isaiah may mean that the fate of Moab, which he has just proclaimed, was revealed to him long ago; and the addition made now is, that it will be fulfilled in exactly three years. מאז does not necessarily point to a time antecedent to that of Isaiah himself (compare Isa 44:8; Isa 48:3, Isa 48:5, Isa 48:7, with 2Sa 15:34).

If we assume that what Isaiah predicts down to Isa 16:12 was revealed to him in the year that Ahaz died, and that the epilogue reckons from the third or tenth year of Hezekiah, in either case the interval is long enough for the mê'âz (from of old). And we decide in favour of this. Unfortunately, we know nothing certain as to the time at which the three years commence.

The question whether it was Shalmanassar, Sargon, or Sennacherib who treated the Moabites so harshly, is one that we cannot answer. In Herodotus (ii. 141), Sennacherib is called “king of the Arabians and Assyrians;” and Moab might be included in the Arabians. In any case, after the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy in the Assyrian times, there was still a portion left, the fulfilment of which, according to Jer 48, was reserved for the Chaldeans.

The Oracle Concerning Damascus and Israel - Isa 17:1-14 From the Philistines on the west, and the Moabites on the east, the prophecy relating to the neighbouring nations now turns, without any chronological order, to the people of Damascene Syria on the north. The curse pronounced on them, however, falls upon the kingdom of Israel also, because it has allied itself with heathen Damascus, in opposition to its own brother tribe to the south, as well as to the Davidic government; and by this unnatural alliance with a zâr , or stranger, had become a zâr itself.

From the period of Hezekiah’s reign, to which the massa Moab belongs, at least so far as its epilogue is concerned, we are here carried back to the reign of Ahaz, and indeed far beyond “the year that Ahaz died” (Isa 14:28), to the very border of the reigns of Jotham and Ahaz - namely, to the time when the league for the destruction of Judah had only just been concluded. At the time when Isaiah incorporated this oracle in his collection, the threats against the kingdoms of Damascus and Israel had long been fulfilled.

Assyria had punished both of them. And Assyria itself had also been punished, as the fourth turn in the oracle indicates. Consequently the oracle stands here as a memorial of the truthfulness of the prophecy; and it answers a further purpose still, viz. , to furnish a rich prophetic consolation for the church of all times, when persecuted by the world, and sighing under the oppression of the kingdom of the world.

Isa 17:1-3 The first turn: “Behold, Damascus must ( be taken ) away out of the number of the cities, and will be a heap of fallen ruins. The cities of Aroer are forsaken, they are given up to flocks, they lie there without any one scaring them away. And the fortress of Ephraim is abolished, and the kingdom of Damascus; and it happens to those that are left of Aram as to the glory of the sons of Israel, saith Jehovah of hosts.

” “ Behold ,” etc. : hinnēh followed by a participle indicates here, as it does everywhere else, something very near at hand. Damascus is removed מעיר (= עיר מהיות, cf. , 1Ki 15:13), i. e. , out of the sphere of existence as a city. It becomes מעי, a heap of ruins. The word is used intentionally instead of עי, to sound as much as possible like מעיר: a mutilated city, so to speak.

It is just the same with Israel, which has made itself an appendage of Damascus. The “cities of Aroer” ( gen. appos. Ges. §114, 3) represent the land to the east of the Jordan: there the judgment upon Israel (executed by Tiglath-pileser) first began. There were two Aroers : an old Amoritish city allotted to the tribe of Reuben, viz. , “Aroer on the Arnon” (Deu 2:36; Deu 3:12, etc.)

; and an old Ammonitish one, allotted to the tribe of Gad, viz. , “Aroer before Rabbah” (Rabbath, Ammon, Jos 13:25). The ruins of the former are Arair , on the lofty northern bank of the Mugib ; but the situation of the latter has not yet been determined with certainty (see Comm. on Jos 13:25). The “cities of Aroer” are these two Aroers, and the rest of the cities similar to it on the east of the Jordan; just as “the Orions” in Isa 13:10 are Orion and other similar stars.

We meet here again with a significant play upon the sound in the expression ‛ârē ‛Aro‛ēr (cities of Aroer): the name of Aroer was ominous, and what its name indicated would happen to the cities in its circuit. ערער means “to lay bare,” to pull down (Jer 51:58); and ערער, ערירי signifies a stark-naked condition, a state of desolation and solitude. After Isa 17:1 has threatened Damascus in particular, and Isa 17:2 has done the same to Israel, Isa 17:3 comprehends them both.

Ephraim loses the fortified cities which once served it as defences, and Damascus loses its rank as a kingdom. Those that are left of Aram, who do not fall in the war, become like the proud citizens of the kingdom of Israel, i. e. , they are carried away into captivity. All this was fulfilled under Tiglath-pileser. The accentuation connects ארם שׁאר (the remnant of Aram) with the first half of the verse; but the meaning remains the same, as the subject to יהיוּ is in any case the Aramaeans.

Isa 17:1-3 The first turn: “Behold, Damascus must ( be taken ) away out of the number of the cities, and will be a heap of fallen ruins. The cities of Aroer are forsaken, they are given up to flocks, they lie there without any one scaring them away. And the fortress of Ephraim is abolished, and the kingdom of Damascus; and it happens to those that are left of Aram as to the glory of the sons of Israel, saith Jehovah of hosts.

” “ Behold ,” etc. : hinnēh followed by a participle indicates here, as it does everywhere else, something very near at hand. Damascus is removed מעיר (= עיר מהיות, cf. , 1Ki 15:13), i. e. , out of the sphere of existence as a city. It becomes מעי, a heap of ruins. The word is used intentionally instead of עי, to sound as much as possible like מעיר: a mutilated city, so to speak.

It is just the same with Israel, which has made itself an appendage of Damascus. The “cities of Aroer” ( gen. appos. Ges. §114, 3) represent the land to the east of the Jordan: there the judgment upon Israel (executed by Tiglath-pileser) first began. There were two Aroers : an old Amoritish city allotted to the tribe of Reuben, viz. , “Aroer on the Arnon” (Deu 2:36; Deu 3:12, etc.)

; and an old Ammonitish one, allotted to the tribe of Gad, viz. , “Aroer before Rabbah” (Rabbath, Ammon, Jos 13:25). The ruins of the former are Arair , on the lofty northern bank of the Mugib ; but the situation of the latter has not yet been determined with certainty (see Comm. on Jos 13:25). The “cities of Aroer” are these two Aroers, and the rest of the cities similar to it on the east of the Jordan; just as “the Orions” in Isa 13:10 are Orion and other similar stars.

We meet here again with a significant play upon the sound in the expression ‛ârē ‛Aro‛ēr (cities of Aroer): the name of Aroer was ominous, and what its name indicated would happen to the cities in its circuit. ערער means “to lay bare,” to pull down (Jer 51:58); and ערער, ערירי signifies a stark-naked condition, a state of desolation and solitude. After Isa 17:1 has threatened Damascus in particular, and Isa 17:2 has done the same to Israel, Isa 17:3 comprehends them both.

Ephraim loses the fortified cities which once served it as defences, and Damascus loses its rank as a kingdom. Those that are left of Aram, who do not fall in the war, become like the proud citizens of the kingdom of Israel, i. e. , they are carried away into captivity. All this was fulfilled under Tiglath-pileser. The accentuation connects ארם שׁאר (the remnant of Aram) with the first half of the verse; but the meaning remains the same, as the subject to יהיוּ is in any case the Aramaeans.

Isa 17:1-3 The first turn: “Behold, Damascus must ( be taken ) away out of the number of the cities, and will be a heap of fallen ruins. The cities of Aroer are forsaken, they are given up to flocks, they lie there without any one scaring them away. And the fortress of Ephraim is abolished, and the kingdom of Damascus; and it happens to those that are left of Aram as to the glory of the sons of Israel, saith Jehovah of hosts.

” “ Behold ,” etc. : hinnēh followed by a participle indicates here, as it does everywhere else, something very near at hand. Damascus is removed מעיר (= עיר מהיות, cf. , 1Ki 15:13), i. e. , out of the sphere of existence as a city. It becomes מעי, a heap of ruins. The word is used intentionally instead of עי, to sound as much as possible like מעיר: a mutilated city, so to speak.

It is just the same with Israel, which has made itself an appendage of Damascus. The “cities of Aroer” ( gen. appos. Ges. §114, 3) represent the land to the east of the Jordan: there the judgment upon Israel (executed by Tiglath-pileser) first began. There were two Aroers : an old Amoritish city allotted to the tribe of Reuben, viz. , “Aroer on the Arnon” (Deu 2:36; Deu 3:12, etc.)

; and an old Ammonitish one, allotted to the tribe of Gad, viz. , “Aroer before Rabbah” (Rabbath, Ammon, Jos 13:25). The ruins of the former are Arair , on the lofty northern bank of the Mugib ; but the situation of the latter has not yet been determined with certainty (see Comm. on Jos 13:25). The “cities of Aroer” are these two Aroers, and the rest of the cities similar to it on the east of the Jordan; just as “the Orions” in Isa 13:10 are Orion and other similar stars.

We meet here again with a significant play upon the sound in the expression ‛ârē ‛Aro‛ēr (cities of Aroer): the name of Aroer was ominous, and what its name indicated would happen to the cities in its circuit. ערער means “to lay bare,” to pull down (Jer 51:58); and ערער, ערירי signifies a stark-naked condition, a state of desolation and solitude. After Isa 17:1 has threatened Damascus in particular, and Isa 17:2 has done the same to Israel, Isa 17:3 comprehends them both.

Ephraim loses the fortified cities which once served it as defences, and Damascus loses its rank as a kingdom. Those that are left of Aram, who do not fall in the war, become like the proud citizens of the kingdom of Israel, i. e. , they are carried away into captivity. All this was fulfilled under Tiglath-pileser. The accentuation connects ארם שׁאר (the remnant of Aram) with the first half of the verse; but the meaning remains the same, as the subject to יהיוּ is in any case the Aramaeans.

Isa 17:4-8 Second turn: “And it comes to pass in that day, the glory of Jacob wastes away, and the fat of his flesh grows thin. And it will be as when a reaper grasps the stalks of wheat, and his arm mows off the ears; and it will be as with one who gathers together ears in the valley of Rephaim. Yet a gleaning remains from it, as at the olive-beating: two, three berries high up at the top; four, five in its, the fruit tree’s, branches, saith Jehovah the God of Israel.

At that day will man look up to his Creator, and his eyes will look to the Holy One of Israel. And he will not look to the altars, the work of his hands; and what his fingers have made he will not regard, neither the Astartes nor the sun-gods. ” This second turn does not speak of Damascus, but simply of Israel, and in fact of all Israel, the range of vision widening out from Israel in the more restricted sense, so as to embrace the whole.

It will all disappear, with the exception of a small remnant; but the latter will return. Thus “a remnant will return,” the law of Israel’s history, which is here shown first of all in its threatening aspect, and then in its more promising one. The reputation and prosperity to which the two kingdoms were raised by Jeroboam II and Uzziah would pass away. Israel was ripe for judgment, like a field of corn for the harvest; and it would be as when a reaper grasps the stalks that have shot up, and cuts off the ears.

קציר is not used elliptically for קציר אישׁ (Gesenius), nor is it a definition of time (Luzzatto), nor an accusative of the object (Knobel), but a noun formed like נביא, פליל, פריץ, and used in the sense of reaper ( kōtzēr in other cases). The figure suggested here is more fully expanded in John 4 and Rev 14. Hardly a single one will escape the judgment: just as in the broad plain of Rephaim, which slopes off to the south-west of Jerusalem as far as Bethlehem, where it is covered with rich fields of wheat, the collectors of ears leave only one or two ears lying scattered here and there.

Nevertheless a gleaning of Israel (“in it,” viz. , in Jacob, Isa 17:4; Isa 10:22) will be left, just as when the branches of the olive tree, which have been already cleared with the hand, are still further shaken with a stick, there still remain a few olives upon the highest branch (two, three; cf. , 2Ki 9:32), or concealed under the foliage of the branches.

“ Its , the fruit tree's , branches :” this is an elegant expression, as, for example, in Pro 14:13; the carrying over of the ה to the second word is very natural in both passages (see Ges. §121, b ). This small remnant will turn with stedfast gaze to the living God, as is becoming in man as such ( hâ'âdâm ), and not regard the idols as worthy of any look at all, at least of any reverential look.

As hammânim are here images of the sun-god חמן בעל, which is well known from the Phoenician monuments, 'ashērim (for which we find, though more rarely, 'ashēroth ) apparently signifies images of the moon-goddess. And the combination of “Baal, Asherah, and all the host of heaven” in 2Ki 23:4, as well as the surname “queen of heaven” in Jer 7:18; Jer 44:18-19, appears to require this (Knobel).

But the latest researches have proved that 'Ashērâh is rather the Semitic Aphrodite, and therefore the planet Venus, which was called the “little luck” ( es - sa‛d el - as'gar ) by the Arabs, in distinction from Musteri (Jupiter), or “the great luck. ” And with this the name 'Asherah the “lucky” (i. e. , the source of luck or prosperity) and the similar surname given to the Assyrian Istar agree; for 'Asherah is the very same goddess as 'Ashtoreth , whose name is thoroughly Arian, and apparently signifies the star (Ved.

stir = star ; Zend. stare ; Neo-Pers. sitâre , used chiefly for the morning star), although Rawlinson (without being able to suggest any more acceptable interpretation) speaks of this view as “not worthy of much attention. ” Thus Asherim is used to signify the bosquets (shrubberies) or trees dedicated to the Semitic Aphrodite (Deu 16:21; compare the verbs used to signify their removal, גדע, כרת, נתשׁ); but here it probably refers to her statues or images (2Ki 21:7; compare the miphletzeth in 1Ki 15:13, which is used to denote an obscene exhibition).

For these images of the sun-god and of the goddess of the morning star, the remnant of Israel, that has been purified by the smelting furnace of judgment, has no longer any eye. Its looks are exclusively directed to the one true God of man. The promise, which here begins to dawn at the close of the second turn, is hidden again in the third, though only to break forth again in the fourth with double or triple intensity.