The Message of Yeshayahu 20/2

The Message of Yeshayahu 20

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Downfall of Egypt and Kush

The prophecy is aimed at Egypt and Kush and foretells their downfall at the hand of Assyria.

Sources:R. Eliezer of BeaugencyYeshayahu 20About R. Eliezer of Beaugency

Context – Yeshayahu 13-23 constitute a unit of prophecies aimed at foreign nations.  The location of this prophecy in the midst of this section of the book supports the idea that it, too, focuses on the fate of neighboring nations and not Yehuda. As many of the other prophecies of the unit are similarly prophecies of calamity, it fits well in the larger context.

Heading of the chapter – According to R"E of Beaugency, the chapter's heading is not intrinsically connected to the content of the prophecy.  It serves merely to date when the prophecy was given.  As the invasion of Ashdod was a known event, it served as a time marker.

Sackcloth – R"E of Beaugency assumes that Yeshayahu had been wearing sackcloth as a sign of mourning for the exile of the ten tribes.

Derobing: symbolic act or vision

• Though R"E of Beaugency maintains that Yeshayahu actively fulfilled Hashem's command to walk naked and barefoot, he suggests that he did not walk around totally unclothed,¹ but with meager garb.  This would aptly symbolize the tattered rags worn by captives,² which the people of Egypt and Kush were soon to be. 
• If Yeshayahu's intended audience was Kush and Egypt, however, it is not clear why he needed to actively walk around Jerusalem unclothed, considering that his main audience would only hear of the symbolic act orally regardless. As such, this approach might alternatively suggest that, to begin with, the disrobing took place only in a prophetic dream, and was simply relayed as a verbal analogy to the people.

Sending the message?

Three years – This approach might assume, as most medieval commentators do, that the words "three years" qualifies the second half of the verse. Yeshayahu was not meant to walk unclothed for a full three years; rather Kush and Egypt were to fall to Assyria in three years time, or to suffer at their hands for a period of three years.

"וְחַתּוּ וָבֹשׁוּ מִכּוּשׁ מַבָּטָם וּמִן מִצְרַיִם תִּפְאַרְתָּם" – According to R"E of Beaugency, the people who will be ashamed and dismayed are the Egyptians and Kushites themselves.  They had always looked to (מַבָּטָם) and prided themselves (תִּפְאַרְתָּם) upon the strength of their fortifications, which now proved worthless.

"יֹשֵׁב הָאִי הַזֶּה" – This phrase, too, refers to those left behind between the rivers of Egypt and Kush.  They bemoan the fact that that they had viewed their countries as a refuge, hoping they would provide safety from Assyria, when in the end they proved incapable of standing up to the enemy.³

Warning not to Trust Foreign Powers

The prophecy is aimed at Yehuda and serves to warn them against relying on the might of foreign powers such as Egypt and Kush.

Context – This approach assumes that most of the prophecies to the foreign nations held a message not only for the named countries but for Israel as well. Thus, this prophecy's location among the "prophecies to the nations" is not surprising.  It, like them, speaks of some calamity to befall a neighboring power, but ultimately, the deeper message is meant for Yehuda and not them.

The heading – According to this approach, the chapter's heading is crucial for understanding the historical backdrop of the prophecy.  From Sargon's annals and monuments, we know that between 713-711 BCE, Ashdod, relying on the backing and aid of her neighbors, attempted to rebel against Assyria multiple times.  A first attempt, by a king named Aziru, was quelled by the Assyrians who replaced him with his brother. Soon after, however, the people of Ashdod ousted the vassal king, choosing a new leader, Yamani. He too, hoped to rebel, and sent requests of aid to his neighbors, Yehuda included. His attempts resulted in a new Assyrian campaign to the area and the conquest of Ashdod.

Sackcloth – Prof. Elitzur suggests that the prophet was wearing sackcloth not as a sign of mourning, but of submission and pleading.  He assumes that it is likely that Chizkiyahu was among the supporters of Aziru's rebellion and, that when Assyria came on a punitive campaign to the region, the people feared that they too might be punished. Yeshayahu donned sackcloth as part of his prayers for mercy, pleading to Hashem, that Yehuda be spared.

Removing the sackcloth – When Sargon's second came to the area, he punished only Ashdod, allowing all in Israel to bring a collective sigh of relief. Initially, the people understood the removal of sackcloth to be a sign that the threat had ended.  

Walking unclothed and barefoot – The removal of sackcloth, however, quickly turned into a new sign, as it was not replaced with new, respectable clothing, but further disrobing. Yeshayahu's actions told the people that, contrary to their hopes, the danger was not over, and a new worse threat loomed. Ashdod was thinking of new rebellions, and if Yehua joined, it could spell disaster.

Derobing: symbolic act or vision – This position assumes that Yeshayahu's actions were performed publicly, a stark demonstration of the potential outcome of joining the anti-Assyrian rebellion.  Yeshayahu wanted to be seen and heard, huda.

Three years – Prof. Elitzur posits that Yeshayahu did not walk around unclothed for three full years, but rather that over the three year period between 713-711 (between the two rebellions), he would periodically demonstrate.  Perhaps, each time that a diplomatic mission arrived to try and convince Chizkiyahu to join a coalition of rebels, Yeshayahu stood outside and demonstrated, telling all that their trust in Egyptian and Kushite aid won't suffice, for they too would eventually be conquered by Assyria.

¹ See Bizarre Prophetic Commands for a variety of ways to read the many directives of Hashem which appear to invite humiliation or hardship on his prophets. 

² See Targhum Yonatan and Rashi who suggest that he worn torn garments.

³ R"E of Beaugency argues that the verse can not refer to Jerusalem and her reliance on Egypt/ Kush, as it does not border any water (as the word "island" would necessitate) and Israel never turned to Kush for aid.