Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Isaiah 22:8
And he discovered the covering of Judah, and thou didst look in that day to the armor of the house of the forest.
8. he discovered the covering of Judah ] Probably “exposed the defencelessness of the state.” The subj. may be Jehovah or the enemy, or it may be indefinite. The clause is virtually the protasis to the following “And when the defencelessness of Judah was exposed, thou didst look, &c.”
the house of the forest ] of Lebanon (1Ki 7:2; 1Ki 10:17). It was evidently used as an arsenal.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
8 11. The preparations for the siege. Cf. 2Ch 32:2-5; 2Ch 32:30 ; 2Ki 20:20.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And he discovered – Hebrew, vayegal – He made naked, or bare. The expression, He discovered, means simply that it was uncovered, without designating the agent.
The covering of Judah – The word used here ( masak) denotes properly a covering, and is applied to the curtain or veil that was before the tabernacle Exo 26:36; Exo 39:38; and to the curtain that was before the gate of the court Exo 35:17; Exo 39:40. The Septuagint understands it of the gates of Judah, They revealed the gates ( tas pulas) of Judah. Many have understood it of the defenses, ramparts, or fortifications of Judah, meaning that they were laid open to public view, that is, were demolished. But the more probable meaning, perhaps, is, that the invading army exposed Judah to every kind of reproach; stripped off everything that was designed to be ornamental in the land; and thus, by the figure of exposing one to reproach and shame by stripping off all his clothes, exposed Judah in every part to reproach. Sennacherib actually came up against all the fortified cities of Judah, and took them and dismantled them 2Ki 18:13; Isa 36:1. The land was thus laid bare, and unprotected.
And thou didst look – Thou Judah; or the king of Judah. Thou didst cast thine eyes to that armory as the last resort, and as the only hope of defense.
To the armor – Or rather, perhaps, the armory, the arsenal ( nesheq). The Septuagint renders it, To the choice houses of the city (compare Neh 3:19).
Of the house of the forest – This was built within the city, and was called the house of the forest of Lebanon, probably from the great quantity of cedar from Lebanon which was employed in building it 1Ki 7:2-8. In this house, Solomon laid up large quantities of munitions of war 1Ki 10:16-17; and this vast storehouse was now the principal reliance of Hezekiah against the invading forces of Sennacherib.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 8. The armour – “The arsenal”] Built by Solomon within the city, and called the house of the forest of Lebanon; probably from the great quantity of cedar from Lebanon which was employed in the building. See 2Kg 7:2-3.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
He; the enemy, Sennacherib, of whose invasion he seems to speak.
The covering of Judah: he took those fenced cities, which were a covering or safeguard both to the people of Judah, who fled to them, and to Jerusalem, which was begirt and defended by them.
Thou didst look in that day to the armour; thy hope and trust was wholly or chiefly placed in the arm of flesh. For although Hezekiah was commended for his trust in God, yet the generality of the people were guilty of distrust in God, and confidence in the creature.
The house of the forest; more fully called the house of the forest of Lebanon, 1Ki 7:2, not because it was built in Lebanon, for it was in Jerusalem; but either because it was built of the trees of Lebanon, for which cause the temple is called Lebanon, Zec 11:1, or for other reasons. See Poole “1Ki 7:2“.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
8. he discovered thecoveringrather, “the veil of Judah shall be taken off”[HORSLEY]: figurativelyfor, exposing to shame as a captive (Isa 47:3;Nah 3:5). Sennacherib dismantledall “the defensed cities of Judah” (Isa36:1).
thou didst lookrather,”thou shalt look.”
house of . . . forestThehouse of armory built of cedar from the forest ofLebanon by Solomon, on a slope of Zion called Ophel (1Ki 7:2;1Ki 10:17; Neh 3:19).Isaiah says (Isa 22:8-13)his countrymen will look to their own strength to defendthemselves, while others of them will drown their sorrows as to theircountry in feasting, but none will look to Jehovah.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And he discovered the covering of Judah,…. Either God himself, who uncloaked them of their hypocrisy, as Dr. Lightfoot; or took away his power and presence from them, and his protection of them, and discovered their weakness; or rather the enemy Sennacherib: and then by the covering is meant, not Jerusalem, nor the temple, as Jarchi and Kimchi, for neither of them came into his hands; but the fenced cities of Judah, which were the strength and protection of the country; these he took and dismantled, 2Ki 18:13 and when this was done, it was high time for the Jews at Jerusalem to look about them, and provide for their defence and safety:
and thou, didst look in that day to the armour of the house of the forest; to see what store of armour they had, in what condition it was, and to take from hence, and furnish themselves and soldiers with it, to annoy the enemy, and defend themselves. This house of the forest is the same with the house of the forest of Lebanon; so called, not because built in it, for it was in Jerusalem, but because it was built of the wood of Lebanon; or because it was surrounded with trees, and had walks and groves belonging to it, resembling that forest. This was an armoury; here Solomon put his two hundred targets, and three hundred shields of beaten gold, 1Ki 7:2 see also So 4:4.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
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.” Masak 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 ( neshek , or rather, according to the Masora on Job 20:24, and the older editions, neshek ), 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 nathatz , 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). Kibbetz 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 ; 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 satham , 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 ( te e alah ), 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 m ikvah 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. might be a plural, according to Isa 54:5; but the parallel favours the singular (on the form itself, from = , 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.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Contempt of Divine Goodness; Contempt of Divine Judgments. | B. C. 718. |
8 And he discovered the covering of Judah, and thou didst look in that day to the armour of the house of the forest. 9 Ye have seen also the breaches of the city of David, that they are many: and ye gathered together the waters of the lower pool. 10 And ye have numbered the houses of Jerusalem, and the houses have ye broken down to fortify the wall. 11 Ye made also a ditch between the two walls for the water of the old pool: but ye have not looked unto the maker thereof, neither had respect unto him that fashioned it long ago. 12 And in that day did the Lord GOD of hosts call to weeping, and to mourning, and to baldness, and to girding with sackcloth: 13 And behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen, and killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine: let us eat and drink; for to morrow we shall die. 14 And it was revealed in mine ears by the LORD of hosts, Surely this iniquity shall not be purged from you till ye die, saith the Lord GOD of hosts.
What is meant by the covering of Judah, which in the beginning of this paragraph is said to be discovered, is not agreed. The fenced cities of Judah were a covering to the country; but these, being taken by the army of the Assyrians, ceased to be a shelter, so that the whole country lay exposed to be plundered. The weakness of Judah, its nakedness, and inability to keep itself, now appeared more than ever; and thus the covering of Judah was discovered. Its magazines and stores, which had been locked up, were now laid open for the public use. Dr. Lightfoot gives another sense of it, that by this distress into which Judah should be brought God would discover their covering (that is, uncloak their hypocrisy), would show all that was in their heart, as is said of Hezekiah upon another occasion, 2 Chron. xxxii. 31. Thus, by one means or other, the iniquity of Ephraim will be discovered and the sin of Samaria, Hos. vii. 1.
They were now in a great fright, and in this fright they manifested two things much amiss:–
I. A great contempt of God’s goodness, and his power to help them. They made use of all the means they could think of for their own preservation; and it is not for doing this that they are blamed, but, in doing this, they did not acknowledge God. Observe,
1. How careful they were to improve all advantages that might contribute to their safety. When Sennacherib had made himself master of all the defenced cities of Judah, and Jerusalem was left as a cottage in a vineyard, they thought it was time to look about them. A council was immediately called, a council of war; and it was resolved to stand upon their defence, and not tamely to surrender. Pursuant to this resolve, they took all the prudent measures they could for their own security. We tempt God if, in times of danger, we do not the best we can for ourselves. (1.) They inspected the magazines and stores, to see if they were well stocked with arms and ammunition: They looked to the armour of the house of the forest, which Solomon built in Jerusalem for an armoury (1 Kings x. 17), and thence they delivered out what they had occasion for. It is the wisdom of princes, in time of peace, to provide for war, that they may not have arms to seek when they should use them, and perhaps upon a sudden emergency. (2.) They viewed the fortifications, the breaches of the city of David; they walked round the walls, and observed where they had gone to decay for want of seasonable repairs, or were broken by some former attempts made upon them. These breaches were many; the more shame for the house of David that they suffered the city of David to lie neglected. They had probably often seen those breaches; but now they saw them to consider what course to take about them. This good we should get by public distresses, we should be awakened by them to repair our breaches, and amend what is amiss. (3.) They made sure of water for the city, and did what they could to deprive the besiegers of it: You gathered together the water of the lower pool, of which there was probably no great store, and of which therefore they were the more concerned to be good husbands. See what a mercy it is that, as nothing is more necessary to the support of human life than water, so nothing is more cheap and common; but it is bad indeed when that, as here, is a scarce commodity. (4.) They numbered the houses of Jerusalem, that every house might send in its quota of men for the public service, or contribute in money to it, which they raised by a poll, so much a head or so much a house. (5.) Because private property ought to give way to the public safety, those houses that stood in their way, when the wall was to be fortified, were broken down, which, in such a case of necessity, is no more an injury to the owner than blowing up houses in case of fire. (6.) They made a ditch between the outer and inner wall, for the greater security of the city; and they contrived to draw the water of the old pool to it, that they might have plenty of water themselves and might deprive the besiegers of it; for it seems that was the project, lest the Assyrian army should come and find much water (2 Chron. xxxii. 4) and so should be the better able to prolong the siege. If it be lawful to destroy the forage of a country, much more to divert the streams of its waters, for the straitening and starving of an enemy.
2. How regardless they were of God in all these preparations: But you have not looked unto the Maker thereof (that is, of Jerusalem, the city you are so solicitous for the defence of) and of all the advantages which nature has furnished it with for its defence–the mountains round about it (Ps. cxxv. 2), and the rivers, which were such as the inhabitants might turn which way soever they pleased for their convenience. Note, (1.) It is God that made his Jerusalem, and fashioned it long ago, in his counsels. The Jewish writers, upon this place, say, There were seven things which God made before the world (meaning which he had in his eye when he made the world): the garden of Eden, the law, the just ones, Israel, the throne of glory, Jerusalem, and Messiah the Prince. The gospel church has God for its Maker. (2.) Whatever service we do, or endeavour to do, at any time to God’s Jerusalem, must be done with an eye to him as the Maker of it; and he takes it ill if it be done otherwise. It is here charged upon them that they did not look to God. [1.] They did not design his glory in what they did. They fortified Jerusalem because it was a rich city and their own houses were in it, not because it was the holy city and God’s house was in it. In all our cares for the defence of the church we must look more at God’s interest in it than at our own. [2.] They did not depend upon him for a blessing upon their endeavours, saw no need of it, and therefore sought not to him for it, but thought their own powers and policies sufficient for them. Of Hezekiah himself it is said that he trusted in God (2 Kings xviii. 5), and particularly upon this occasion (2 Chron. xxxii. 8); but there were those about him, it seems, who were great statesmen and soldiers, but had little religion in them. [3.] They did not give him thanks for the advantages they had, in fortifying their city, from the waters of the old pool, which were fashioned long ago, as Kishon is called an ancient river, Judg. v. 21. Whatever in nature is at any time serviceable to us, we must therein acknowledge the goodness of the God of nature, who, when he fashioned it long ago, fitted it to be so, and according to whose ordinance it continues to this day. Every creature is that to us which God makes it to be; and therefore, whatever use it is of to us, we must look at him that fashioned it, bless him for it, and use it for him.
II. A great contempt of God’s wrath and justice in contending with them, v. 12-14. Here observe,
1. What was God’s design in bringing this calamity upon them: it was to humble them, bring them to repentance, and make them serious. In that day of trouble, and treading down, and perplexity, the Lord did thereby call to weeping and mourning, and all the expressions of sorrow, even to baldness and girding with sackcloth; and all this to lament their sins (by which they had brought those judgments upon their land), to enforce their prayers (by which they might hope to avert the judgments that were breaking in), and to dispose themselves to a reformation of their lives by a holy seriousness and a tenderness of heart under the word of God. To this God called them by his prophet’s explaining his providences, and by his providences awakening them to regard what his prophets said. Note, When God threatens us with his judgments he expects and requires that we humble ourselves under his mighty hand, that we tremble when the lion roars, and in a day of adversity consider.
2. How contrary they walked to this design of God (v. 13): Behold, joy and gladness, mirth and feasting, all the gaiety and all the jollity imaginable. They were as secure and cheerful as they used to be, as if they had had no enemy in their borders or were in no danger of falling into his hands. When they had taken the necessary precautions for their security, then they set all deaths and dangers at defiance, and resolved to be merry, let come on them what would. Those that should have been among the mourners were among the wine-bibbers, the riotous eaters of flesh; and observe what they said, Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we shall die. This may refer either to the particular danger they were now in, and the fair warning which the prophet gave them of it, or to the general shortness and uncertainty of human life, and the nearness of death at all times. This was the language of the profane scoffers who mocked the messengers of the Lord and misused his prophets. (1.) They made a jest of dying. “The prophet tells us we must die shortly, perhaps to-morrow, and therefore we should mourn and repent to-day; no, rather let us eat and drink, that we may be fattened for the slaughter, and may be in good heart to meet our doom; if we must have a short life, let it be a merry one.” (2.) They ridiculed the doctrine of a future state on the other side death; for, if there were no such state, the apostle grants there would be something of reason in what they said, 1 Cor. xv. 32. If, when we die, there were an end of us, it were good to make ourselves as easy and merry as we could while we live; but, if for all these things God shall bring us into judgment, it is at our peril if we walk in the way of our heart and the sight of our eyes, Eccl. xi. 9. Note, A practical disbelief of another life after this is at the bottom of the carnal security and brutish sensuality which are the sin, and shame, and ruin of so great a part of mankind, as of the old world, who were eating and drinking till the flood came.
3. How much God was displeased at it. He signified his resentment of it to the prophet, revealed it in his ears, to be by him proclaimed upon the house-top: Surely this iniquity shall not be purged from you till you die, v. 14. It shall never be expiated with sacrifice and offering, any more than the iniquity of the house of Eli, 1 Sam. iii. 14. It is a sin against the remedy, a baffling of the utmost means of conviction and rendering them ineffectual; and therefore it is not likely they should ever repent of it or have it pardoned. The Chaldee reads it, It shall not be forgiven you till you die the second death. Those that walk contrary to them; with the froward he will show himself froward.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
8. And he took away the covering of Judah. He shews in what distress of mind the Jews were when they were so closely besieged. Some refer this verb to God, and others to the enemy; but I rather think it ought to be taken indefinitely, for by a mode of expression frequently used in the Hebrew language, “he took away,” means that “the covering of Judah was taken away.” By the word covering almost all think that either the Temple or God himself is meant, in whose name the Jews falsely boasted. But I interpret it more simply as denoting the armory, in which, as a secret place, they kept the instruments of war. He calls it a “covering,” because they were not exposed to public view, but were concealed in a more sacred place. In short, he describes what commonly happens in a season of great alarm, because at such a time men run to arms, and the instruments of war, which had been formerly concealed, are brought forward.
And thou didst look in that day to the armory of the house of the forest. This latter clause agrees with what has been remarked, that they sought out, on such an occasion, every place which contained the means of arming themselves for a case of extreme urgency, the instruments of war having lain long concealed during peace. Sacred history informs us, that this “house of the forest” was built by Solomon, in order to contain the armory of the whole kingdom. (85) (1Kg 7:2.) The change of person, thou didst look, does not obscure the meaning, but rather confirms what I have already remarked, that the Prophet relates how eagerly the Jews at that time made every preparation for defending the city.
(85) Bogus footnote
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(8) And he discovered the covering of Judahi.e., Jehovah removed the veil which till then had hidden the approaching danger from the eyes of the inhabitants, and laid bare their weakness to those of the invaders. The verbs which in the English version are in the past tense are really in a kind of prophetic present, painting the future as if actually passing before the prophets gaze.
The armour of the house of the forest.More fully (as in 1Ki. 7:2; 1Ki. 10:17), the house of the forest of Lebanon, which appears to have been used as an arsenal, and to which the people now turn as their chief resource.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
8-11. He discovered the covering of Judah “He” is indefinite, but from the verses following it is quite evident that it refers to the Jews. The expression means, “The covering of Judah was removed.” The Jews become conscious of their own condition, and are alarmed.
Look to the armour To the arsenal of shields, etc., in the house of the forest, so named from its Lebanon cedars of which it was made.
Breaches They look also to the bad condition of the walls, and to gathering from the outside lower pool adequate water supplies in the city.
Numbered the houses To see which can best be spared to take down, the stone to be used for repairing the walls. Estimating expenses and asserting materials for wall building may have had something to do with this numbering.
Between the two walls Or, pair of walls. This must mean that a basin was formed for collecting additional waters, a parallel wall to one then standing being reared for it.
Old pool The upper Gihon, probably three fourths of a mile outside, west, and higher than the city within the walls. To all these preparations the Jews looked, on awaking to their condition. But unto the maker him that fashioned, etc. They did not look.
These words are to be taken as poetical equivalents for the Efficient Cause of all things. They were looking to arsenals, etc., but not to God. Long ago had God foreseen this, and ordered such a siege to punish and correct the Jews.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Isa 22:8. And he discovered, &c. And the barrier of Judah shall be laid open. Lowth. This might be rendered, “And he shall dismantle the fortified cities of Judah.” The meaning of the metaphor is, that the fortified cities covered Judaea as with a veil. What the prophet here expresses figuratively, is expressed literally in the history, ch. Isa 36:1 and 2Ch 32:1.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Isa 22:8-11. And thou didst look in that day, &c. Or, And thou shalt look, &c. The verbs may be rendered throughout in the future. The third member of the former part contains the causes of these judgments; namely, the crimes and vices of the people; and, in these verses, their inconsideration and want of faith. This passage is best explained by the history, 2Ch 32:2; 2Ch 32:33. Whence we learn, that the prince and the people were rather solicitous to seek for human defence by fortifying their city, than to have respect unto Him who was their king and defence. The house of the forest is that mentioned 1Ki 7:2 where the armory was laid: see also 1Ki 10:17 and Neh 3:19.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
b) The punishment of defiance in sight of danger
Isa 22:8-14
8And he [8]discovered the covering of Judah,
And thou didst look in that day
To the armour of the house of the forest.
9Ye have seen also the breaches of the city of David,
That they are many:
And ye gathered together the waters of the lower pool.
10And ye have numbered the houses of Jerusalem,
And the houses have ye broken down to fortify the wall.
11Ye made also a 9dicth between the two walls
For the water of the old pool:
But ye have not looked unto the maker thereof,
Neither had respect unto him that fashioned it long ago.
12And in that day did the Lord God of hosts call
To weeping, and to mourning,
And to baldness, and to girding with sackcloth;
13And behold, joy and gladness,
Slaying oxen, and killing sheep,
Eating flesh, and drinking wine;
Let us eat and drink,
For to-morrow we shall die.
14And it was revealed in mine ears by the Lord of hosts,
Surely this iniquity shall not be purged from you till ye die,
Saith the Lord God of hosts.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Isa 22:11. The feminine suffixes in (regarding the form comp. Ewald, 256 b) and are to be regarded as neuters. is the forming, shaping in idea, to which then comes as the execution. In analogous places stands therefore before : Isa 43:7; Isa 45:18; Isa 46:11. However in Isa 37:26; Jer 33:2, the order is as here. We could say that the succession of ideas is conceived in the one case analytically, in the other, synthetically.
Isa 22:13. On these infinitive constructions comp. Isa 5:5; Isa 21:5.The abnormal form is in imitation of , comp. Hos 10:4.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. The inhabitants of Jerusalem are now no longer inspired by thoughtless presumption. They see themselves compelled by this new emergency to consider seriously their means of defence. First, they inspect the store of weapons in the arsenal (Isa 22:8). They examine the fortifications, and collect water in the lower pool (Isa 22:9). They pull down houses in order to repair the walls (Isa 22:10), and they form a new reservoir. But to Him who has caused this distress, and who alone can remove it, they do not turn their eyes (Isa 22:11). And when He brings upon them bitter misery (Isa 22:12), the only effect of it is that, with the recklessness of despair, they give themselves eagerly to pleasure, because all will soon be over (Isa 22:13). But this defiant spirit exhibited no longer in blindness, but in sight of danger, the Lord will not pardon. They must expiate it with their life (Isa 22:14).
2. And he discoveredlong ago.
Isa 22:8-11. This section is closely connected with the preceding one, as the construction shows.And he discovered. The subject of the verb is the Lord God of hosts in Isa 22:5. But, though the connection of the two sections is so intimate, a considerable interval of time must lie between them, as the transition from that blind presumption to the defiance in sight of danger here described, was hardly quite sudden. But for this close grammatical connection of the two sections one might be tempted to refer the first part (Isa 22:1-7) as a separate prediction to an earlier time. It would, in fact, have been possible for the Prophet to have combined in one prophecy this earlier prediction with a later one on account of a correspondence in subject-matter between the two. But it is most natural to regard the whole piece, Isa 22:1-14, as a single composition, and to suppose that the Prophet in the first part (Isa 22:1-7) transported himself back to an earlier juncture, because it served admirably as a foil to the later crisis which he describes (Isa 22:8-14). This later situation, which was the occasion of this whole prophecy before us, is here described by him as a basis for the complaints and denunciations of punishment which he utters, Isa 22:11 b and Isa 22:13 sq. We have therefore to understand the aorists, Isa 22:8 sqq., not as praeterita prophetica, but in their proper signification. We perceive from Isa 22:8 a, that the Lord at last took from the eyes of Judah the covering that caused blindness. is here applied not to that which is hidden, but to that which hides, as frequently. Comp. Isa 47:2; Nah 3:5; Job 41:5. Judah then saw the necessity of preparing for war. They proceed therefore to the armory built by Solomon, of cedars, called the house of the forest of Lebanon (1Ki 7:2; 1Ki 10:17; 1Ki 10:21), which is probably identical with the 39:2, in order to see how it stood with the apparatus bellicus. The primary meaning of is tela. They next examine the fortifications of the city of David, and discover that there are many breaches in them. I do not think that under the city of David we are to understand the whole of Jerusalem, as Arnold appealing to Isa 29:1 maintains (HerzogR. Enc. XVIII., p. 593). The city of David is always the South-western elevated part of Jerusalem; and if this part alone is mentioned here, this need not surprise us, as we cannot expect that the Prophet should give an enumeration historically complete. We learn, moreover, from 2Ch 32:5, that Hezekiah fortified especially the proper city of David, or Zion. Another matter, which must be particularly attended to by those who defend a city, is to provide themselves with water, and to cut off the supply of it from the enemy. This is what the inhabitants of Jerusalem do. They collect, draw inwards the waters of the lower pool. In the valley of Gihon which borders Jerusalem on the west there are still two old pools; the upper (now Birket-el-Mamilla) and the lower (now Birket es-Sultn). Compare what is said on Isa 7:3. The account in 2Ch 32:3 sq., and that in the place before us supplement one another. In the former, mention is made only of the stopping of the reservoirs. Here, prominence is given to the other necessary step, the turning into the city of the water cut off from the enemy. cannot here denote merely collecting in the pool by hindering it from flowing away. For, first, the water, without flowing off, would have risen and been soon remarked by the enemy. Secondly, the water was needed in the city. I take, therefore, in the signification in which it is employed Joe 2:6; Nah 2:11, where it is said that faces , i. e., draw in their brightness. Here, then, the meaning is that the inhabitants of Jerusalem drew the water into their city. In reference to Delitzschs remark that this must rather be expressed by , I call attention to the fact that Joel expresses, Joe 2:10 and Joel 4:15, by the same thought which he had in Joe 2:6 expressed by , whence it follows that in this place, too, can be used in the signification . It may occasion surprise that Isa 22:10 interrupts the account regarding the reservoirs. But the Prophet evidently proceeds from the easier to the more difficult. The breaking down of the houses for the purpose of repairing the walls, was a greater work than drawing off the water of the lower pool into the wells or reservoirs already existing in the city. And the formation of a new pool between the walls, in order to empty the old one, might well appear the grandest work of all. The opinion of Drechsler, that the numbering of the houses was with a view to quartering the soldiers, is very strange. In Jer 33:4 it is supposed that houses were demolished in order to repair the fortifications. The (only here, elsewhere ) which (Isa 22:11) was prepared for the waters of the old pool, is very probably still in existence in the Birket-el-Batrak (the pool of the patriarchs) which the Franks after this passage and 2Ki 20:20; 2Ch 32:30; Sir 48:19, call the pool of Hezekiah. It lies within the present wall of the city east of the Yafa (Joppa) gate. It still receives its water from the Mamilla pool by means of a canal which enters the city south of the Yafa gate. (Comp. Arnold in Herz.,R. Enc. XVIII., p. 619, and especially C. W. WilsonsOrdnance Survey of Jerusalem, 1865, and WarrensRecovery of Jerusalem, 1872). In opposition to the new pool, the pool whose waters it received was called the old pool. The former name of the old pool was the upper pool, which is twice mentioned by Isaiah (Isa 7:3; Isa 36:2). The expression occurs besides only in Jer 39:4, and in the parallel passages Jer 52:7; 2Ki 25:4. In these places in the books of Jeremiah and Kings a double wall seems to be meant, which connected Zion and Ophel at the end of the Tyropon. This does not suit well the situation of the pool of Hezekiah as before mentioned. It is uncertain whether we are to understand in the place before us a corner of a wall between the north wall of Zion and the wall going north-eastwards round Akra (Delitzsch after Robinson), or a second double wall situated near the Yafa gate. This precaution was certainly not in itself wrong. What was wrong in their conduct was that they fixed their eyes only on these measures of human prudence, and omitted to look with confidence to Him who had made all this, i. e., the whole situation, and had arranged it long ago. [The common view, which supposes God to be here described as the maker and fashioner of Jerusalem, has against it the analogy of Isa 37:26.D. M.].
3. And in that dayof hosts.
Isa 22:12-14. We may ask how the Lord then called the inhabitants of Jerusalem to weeping, and to mourning, and to baldness (Isa 3:24), and to girding with sackcloth (Isa 20:2). The language is probably taken from the proclamations by which a general fast, a day of humiliation and prayer was ordained (1Ki 21:9; 1Ki 21:12). Such proclamations proceed proximately from the rulers, but ultimately from the Lord, who by the course of His providence renders them necessary. It is now also the Lord who so makes and forms everything that Israel, if it would give heed, would be called thereby to repentance. One thinks here very naturally of Isa 37:1 sqq., where it is related that Hezekiah, in consequence of the message of Rabshakeh, rent his clothes, covered himself with sackcloth, and sent deputies clothed with sackcloth to Isaiah. I would say that as Isa 22:8-11 recall to mind the defensive measures taken by Hezekiah (2Ch 32:2 sqq.), so what is said in Isa 22:12 reminds us of Isa 37:1 sqq. Hezekiah was better than the majority of his people. His own father was Ahaz, and his son was Manasseh. He formed between the two only a short episode, which stemmed indeed for a short time the flood of corruption, but which rendered the inundation under Manasseh all the more impetuous. We can therefore reasonably assume that at the very time when Hezekiah and his immediate attendants were exhibiting these signs of penitence there were very many people in Jerusalem who were doing that wherewith the Prophet (Isa 22:13) reproaches the Jews. They saw the danger. They were no longer blind as in Isa 22:1 sqq. They did not, however, let the perception of the danger move them to lay hold of the only hand that could save them, but in defiant resignation they refused this help. They made up their mind to go to destruction, but first they would enjoy life right heartily (Isa 22:13). The words I prefer, with Drechsler, Knobel, and others, to take as words of the Jews, rather than with Delitzsch ascribe them to the Prophet. For, as words of the Prophet they are superfluous, while as words of the Jews they round off their speech. Moreover the form makes the impression of being an abbreviation borrowed from popular usage. Isa 22:14. The perfect cannot be taken as the aorist. It marks rather, as Drechsler correctly observes, the revelation as an abiding one, continuing to echo in the inner ear of the Prophet. (comp. Isa 6:7; Isa 27:9) properly to cover. According to the way in which this covering takes place the word denotes forgive, or atone. Here it seems to me to signify to forgive, for the mode of threatening excludes the thought of atonement. A recompense after death is not yet taught in the Old Testament. Punishments are inflicted in this life. If a man has to suffer punishment for guilt unpardoned, he has to bear the burden till it has destroyed him, till he is dead. till, declares, therefore, that up to death, all through life, they will have to bear the punishment of that sin. After death follows only Sheol in which there is no more life. [Isaiah himself seems clearly to teach the doctrine of a punishment after death, Isa 33:14; Isa 66:24. And in chapter 14 the Prophet represents the dwellers of Sheol as meeting the king of Babylon with taunts on his appearance among them. This supposes that there is life there. Though the inhabitants of Sheol are prevented from taking part in the affairs of the present life on earth, as Scripture affectingly testifies, this does not hinder their possession of consciousness and activity in the invisible world.D. M.].
Footnotes:
[8]uncovered, took away.
[9]reservoir.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
Whatever were the histories in the siege of Judah, as this scripture records, I stay not to inquire; but I think, without violence to the expressions, by the uncovering of Judah, and the breaches of the city of David, we may very safely suppose, it had reference to somewhat more than the mere events themselves, carried on in the siege. May it not be in reference (for I humbly ask the question) to Judah’s being made sensible of her hypocrisy and deceitfulness, with her God; by which a breach in the covenant is made, and the Lord now resents it? Judah had sinned, but yet put on a covering of piety; and in her distress, looked to the number of her troops, and the strength of her inhabitants; but lifted not her eyes for help to the Lord, her Maker. Then, saith the Lord, this covering shall be taken off, and she shall be seen as she is. See another beautiful expostulation to this effect, Jer 2:19 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Isa 22:8 And he discovered the covering of Judah, and thou didst look in that day to the armour of the house of the forest.
Ver. 8. And he discovered the covering of Judah. ] That is, he that is the enemy took the city; Hoc enim significat nudari operimentum – i.e., Protectionem Iudae; or, as others sense it, a God took away his protection, the rampart and defence of their country; see Exo 32:25 Num 14:9 Mic 1:11 or the enemy destroyed the temple, wherein the Jews so foolishly confided. Jer 7:4
To the armour of the house.
a Zeged., Diodat., Oecolamp.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
discovered = dismantled.
covering = veil.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
he discovered: Isa 36:1-3
the armour: 1Ki 7:2, 1Ki 10:17, 1Ki 14:27, 1Ki 14:28, Son 4:4
Reciprocal: 2Ch 11:5 – built 2Ch 32:3 – to stop Hos 8:14 – and Judah
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Isa 22:8-11. And he Namely, the enemy Sennacherib, of whose invasion he seems to speak; discovered the covering of Judah Took those fenced cities which were a covering or safeguard, both to the people of Judah and to Jerusalem. Thou didst look Or, rather, as Dr. Waterland and Bishop Lowth render it, Thou shalt, or wilt look, &c. For the prophet is evidently predicting an invasion which was future, and the behaviour of the Jews on that occasion. He is showing beforehand some of the causes of these judgments, namely, the crimes and vices of the people; and first, in these verses, their inconsideration and want of faith. They would look, he says, to the armour of the house of the forest But not to God. The history (2Ch 32:2, &c.) best explains this passage. From thence we learn, that the prince and the people were rather solicitous to seek for human defence, by fortifying their city, than for that which was divine, by having respect unto him who was their king and protector. The house of the forest is that mentioned 1Ki 7:2, where the armory was kept. See the note there. The prophet proceeds to foretel that they would see, that is, observe or consider, the breaches of the city of David Namely, in order to the reparation of them, and to fortify the city; that they would gather the waters of the lower pool In order that they might both deprive the enemy of water, and supply the city with it: of which see on 2Ch 32:3-4. That they would number the houses of Jerusalem Namely, with a view to know their own strength, and the number of their people, that so they might lay the burdens more equally upon them, and make sufficient provision for them; that they would break down the houses Namely, which stood upon or without the walls of their city, and which therefore would have given their enemies advantage against them, and have hindered the fortifying of the city. But, adds he, ye have not looked, or will not look, into the maker thereof That is, of Jerusalem, mentioned in the foregoing verse; him that fashioned it Hebrew, , the former, or framer of it. God, who made it a city, and the place of his special presence and worship; which also he had undertaken to protect, on condition that the people would observe his commands; to whom, therefore, they should have had recourse in this time of their distress. The expression , of old, or long ago, may be added to aggravate their sin in distrusting that God who had now, for a long time, given proof of his care and kindness in defending that city.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
22:8 And he uncovered the {k} coverings of Judah, and thou didst look in that day to the armour of the house of the forest.
(k) The secret place where the armour was: that is, in the house of the forest, 1Ki 7:2 .
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Such an attack would be possible because the Lord would remove His defensive screen from around the city. The reason was that the people had relied on physical implements of warfare for their security rather than on Him. Evidently the "house of the forest" of Lebanon was an armory in Isaiah’s day (cf. 1Ki 7:2-5; 1Ki 10:17).
"The Lord is always the ultimate agent in his people’s experiences . . ." [Note: Motyer, p. 184.]