Isaiah is instructed by God to walk naked and barefoot for three years as a sign to Egypt and Ethiopia. This signified that the king of Assyria, Sargon, would defeat and exile many people from Egypt and Ethiopia. Sargon sent his general Tartan to besiege and capture the Philistine city of Ashdod. Though Sargon is not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible or historical sources at this time, recent archaeological discoveries have revealed him as a great Assyrian king who conquered many lands, including parts of Egypt and Ethiopia. Isaiah's actions were meant to warn Judah not to ally with Egypt and Ethiopia in opposition to the Assyrian empire.

1. ISAIAH 20 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
A Prophecy Against Egypt and Cush
1 In the year that the supreme commander, sent by
Sargon king of Assyria, came to Ashdod and attacked
and captured it—
1.BARNES, “In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod - Tartan was one of the generals
of Sennacherib. Ashdod, called by the Greeks Azotus, was a seaport on the Mediterranean,
between Askelon and Ekron, and not far from Gaza (Reland’s “Palestine,” iii.) It was one of the
five cities of the Philistines, assigned to the tribe of Judah, but never conquered by them
Jos_13:8; Jos_15:46-47. The temple of Dagon stood here; and here the ark of God was brought
after the fatal battle of Eben-ezer (1Sa_5:1, following.) It sustained many sieges, and was
regarded as an important place in respect to Palestine, and also to Egypt. It was taken by Tartan,
and remained in the possession of the Assyrians until it was besieged by Psammetichus, the
Egyptian king, who took it after a siege of twenty-nine years (Herod. ii. 157). It was about thirty
miles from Gaza. It is now a small village, and is called “Esdud.” It was besieged and taken by
Tartan as preparatory to the conquest of Egypt; and if the king who is here called “Sargon” was
Sennacherib, it probable that it was taken before he threatened Jerusalem.
Sargon the king of Assyria - Who this “Sargon” was is not certainly known. Some have
supposed that it was Sennacherib; others that it was Shalmaneser the father of Sennacherib, and
others that it was Esar-haddon the successor of Sennacherib - (Michaelis). Rosenmuller and
Gesenius suppose that it was a king who reigned “between” Sbalmaneser and Sennacherib.
Tartan is known to have been a general of Sennacherib 2Ki_18:17, and it is natural to suppose
that he is here intended. Jerome says that Senacherib had seven names, and Kimchi says that he
had eight; and it is not improbable that “Sargon” was one of those names. Oriental princes often
had several names; and hence, the difficulty of identifying them. See Vitringa on this place.
2. PULPIT, “A PROPHECY AGAINST EGYPT AND ETHIOPIA. The Assyrian inscriptions enable us to
date this prophecy with a near approach to exactness. Ashdod was besieged by an Assyrian army twice
in the reign of Sargon—in his ninth year and in his eleventh year. On the former occasion it is probable
that the arms of a general (Tartan) were employed; on the latter it is nearly certain that Sargon made the
expedition in person. The capture of Ashdod, here mentioned, is consequently the first capture. Egypt

2. and Ethiopia were at the time united under one head, Shabak, or Shabatok; and the inhabitants of
Ashdod looked to this quarter for deliverance from the Assyrian power. Shortly after the first capture, they
revolted, deposed the king whom Sargon had set over them, appointed another, and then proceeded, in
conjunction with Philistia, Judah, Edom, and Moab, to call in the aid of the Egyptians and Ethiopians.
Isaiah's mission on this occasion was to discourage Judaea from joining Ashdod and her allies in this
appeal. He was instructed to prophesy that Assyria would shortly inflict a severe defeat on the two African
powers, and carry into captivity large numbers of both nations. The prophecy seems to have had its
accomplishment about twelve years later, when Sennacherib defeated the combined forces of Egypt and
Ethiopia at Eltekeh, near Ekron.
Isa_20:1
In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod; rather, a tartan. The word was not a proper name, but a title of
office, equivalent to surena among the Parthians, and signifying "commander-in-chief." The tartan held
the second position in the empire. Isaiah has been accused of having confounded together the two sieges
of Ashdod (Cheyne); but if one was conducted by the tartan, and the other by Sargon in person, his
words would distinguish as perfectly as possible which siege he meant. When Sargon the King of
Assyria sent him. The present passage furnished almost the sole trace of the existence of this
monarch—one of the greatest of Assyria's sovereigns—until about the middle of the present century,
when the exploration of the Assyrian ruins, and the decipherment of the Assyrian inscriptions, presented
him to us in the most distinct and vivid way, as king, conqueror, and builder. He was the founder of the
last and greatest of the Assyrian dynasties, the successor of the biblical Shalmaneser, and the father of
Sennacherib. He reigned from B.C. 722 to B.C. 705. He was the captor of Samaria; he defeated the
forces of Egypt; he warred on Susiana, Media, Armenia, Asia Minor, Cyprus; and he conquered and held
in subjection Babylon. He built the great city explored by M. Botta, near Khorsabad, which is sometimes
called "the French Nineveh." It is now found that Ptolemy's 'Canon' contains his name under the form of
Arkeanus, and that Yacut's 'Geography' mentions his great city under the form of Sarghun. But these
facts were unsuspected until the recent explorations in Mesopotamia, and Isaiah's mention of him alone
gave him a place in history. And fought against Ashdod, and took it. Ashdod was the strongest of the
Philistine cities, and one of the most ancient (Jos_15:47). Its name is probably derived from a root
meaning "strength." We hear of its having stood on one occasion a siege of twenty-nine years (Herod;
2:157). It is now known asEsdud. When Ashdod is first mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions it is
tributary to Sargon, having probably submitted to him in s c. 720, alter the battle of Raphia. It soon,
however, revolts and reclaims its independence. In B.C. 713 the Assyrians proceed against it; and its
capture is implied by the facts that the Assyrians depose its king, and install, one of his brothers as
monarch in his room.

3. 3. GILL, “In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod,.... Or Azotus, as the Septuagint
here call it; and which is its name in the New Testament; see Gill on Act_8:40. This Tartan, or
whom the Septuagint names Tanathan, and the Arabic version Tathan, was one of Sennacherib's
generals, 2Ki_18:17,
(when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him); to the above place to besiege it. This Sargon
is generally thought to be the same with Sennacherib, since Tartan was one of his generals, who
might have more names than one. Jerom says he had seven; the Jewish Rabbins (h) eight;
though some think a predecessor of his is meant, Shalmaneser; and others his son Esarhaddon,
who in the Apocrypha:
"And there passed not five and fifty days, before two of his sons killed him, and they fled into the
mountains of Ararath; and Sarchedonus his son reigned in his stead; who appointed over his
father's accounts, and over all his affairs, Achiacharus my brother Anael's son.'' (Tobit 1:21)
is called Sarchedon, which might easily pass by pronunciation into Sargon:
and fought against Ashdod, and took it; which was held by the Assyrians till the time of
Psammiticus, and was so strong a city, and so well fortified, that it held out a siege of twenty
nine years before he could be master of it (i); how long Tartan lay against it, before he took it, is
not said; nor is it certain what year he came against it; those who take Sargon to be Shalmaneser
place it in the fourth year of Hezekiah's reign, who sent Tartan to Ashdod at the same time that
he went against Samaria, 2Ki_18:9 but others, who think Sennacherib is Sargon, fix it to the
fourteenth year of Hezekiah's reign, as Kimchi; who, hearing of Tirhakah king of Ethiopia and
Egypt coming against him, went forth to meet him, and subdued him; and at the same time sent
Tartan against Ashdod; or rather this was done when he took the fenced cities of Judah, of
which this was one, having been taken a little before by Hezekiah from the Philistines; see
2Ki_18:8 though, if Esarhaddon is Sargon, this must be in the times of Manasseh, perhaps
about the twenty second year of his reign, by whom he was taken, and carried captive; but it is
most likely to have been in Hezekiah's time.
4. HENRY, “God here, as King of nations, brings a sore calamity upon Egypt and Ethiopia,
but, as King of saints, brings good to his people out of it. Observe,
I. The date of this prophecy. It was in the year that Ashdod, a strong city of the Philistines (but
which some think was lately recovered from them by Hezekiah, when he smote the Philistines
even unto Gaza, 2Ki_18:8), was besieged and taken by an army of the Assyrians. It is uncertain
what year of Hezekiah that was, but the event was so remarkable that those who lived then could
by that token fix the time to a year. He that was now king of Assyria is called Sargon, which
some take to be the same with Sennacherib; others think he was his immediate predecessor, and
succeeded Shalmaneser. Tartan, who was general, or commander-in-chief, in this expedition,
was one of Sennacherib's officers, sent by him to bid defiance to Hezekiah, in concurrence with
Rabshakeh, 2Ki_18:17.
II. The making of Isaiah a sign, by his unusual dress when he walked abroad. He had been a sign
to his own people of the melancholy times that had come and were coming upon them, by the
sackcloth which for some time he had worn, of which he had a gown made, which he girt about

4. him. Some think he put himself into that habit of a mourner upon occasion of the captivity of the
ten tribes. Others think sackcloth was what he commonly wore as a prophet, to show himself
mortified to the world, and that he might learn to endure hardness; soft clothing better becomes
those that attend in king's palaces (Mat_11:8) than those that go on God's errands. Elijah wore
hair-cloth (2Ki_1:8), and John Baptist (Mat_3:4) and those that pretended to be prophets
supported their pretension by wearing rough garments (Zec_13:4); but Isaiah has orders given
him to loose his sackcloth from his loins, not to exchange it for better clothing, but for none at
all - no upper garment, no mantle, cloak, or coat, but only that which was next to him, we may
suppose his shirt, waistcoat, and drawers; and he must put off his shoes, and go barefoot; so that
compared with the dress of others, and what he himself usually wore, he might be said to go
naked. This was a great hardship upon the prophet; it was a blemish to his reputation, and
would expose him to contempt and ridicule; the boys in the streets would hoot at him, and those
who sought occasion against him would say, The prophet is indeed a fool, and the spiritual man
is mad, Hos_9:7. It might likewise be a prejudice to his health; he was in danger of catching a
cold, which might throw him into a fever, and cost him his life; but God bade him do it, that he
might give a proof of his obedience to God in a most difficult command, and so shame the
disobedience of his people to the most easy and reasonable precepts. When we are in the way of
our duty we may trust God both with our credit and with our safety. The hearts of that people
were strangely stupid, and would not be affected with what they only heard, but must be taught
by signs, and therefore Isaiah must do this for their edification. If the dress was scandalous, yet
the design was glorious, and what a prophet of the Lord needed not to be ashamed of.
5. JAMISON, “Isa_20:1-6. Continuation of the subject of the nineteenth chapter, but at a
later date. Captivity of Egypt and Ethiopia.
In the reign of Sargon (722-715 b.c.), the successor of Shalmaneser, an Assyrian invasion of
Egypt took place. Its success is here foretold, and hence a party among the Jews is warned of the
folly of their “expectation” of aid from Egypt or Ethiopia. At a later period (Isa_18:1-7), when
Tirhakah of Ethiopia was their ally, the Ethiopians are treated as friends, to whom God
announces the overthrow of the common Assyrian foe, Sennacherib. Egypt and Ethiopia in this
chapter (Isa_20:3, Isa_20:4) are represented as allied together, the result no doubt of fear of
the common foe; previously they had been at strife, and the Ethiopian king had, just before
Sethos usurpation, withdrawn from occupation of part of Lower Egypt. Hence, “Egypt” is
mentioned alone in Isa_19:1-25, which refers to a somewhat earlier stage of the same event: a
delicate mark of truth. Sargon seems to have been the king who finished the capture of Samaria
which Shalmaneser began; the alliance of Hoshea with So or Sabacho II of Ethiopia, and his
refusal to pay the usual tribute, provoked Shalmaneser to the invasion. On clay cylindrical seals
found in Sennacherib’s palace at Koyunjik, the name of Sabacho is deciphered; the two seals are
thought, from the inscriptions, to have been attached to the treaty of peace between Egypt and
Assyria, which resulted from the invasion of Egypt by Sargon, described in this chapter;
2Ki_18:10 curiously confirms the view derived from Assyrian inscriptions, that though
Shalmaneser began, Sargon finished the conquest of Samaria; “they took it” (compare 2Ki_17:4-
6). In Sargon’s palace at Khorsabad, inscriptions state that 27,280 Israelites were led captive by

5. the founder of the palace. While Shalmaneser was engaged in the siege of Samaria, Sargon
probably usurped the supreme power and destroyed him; the siege began in 723 b.c., and ended
in 721 b.c., the first year of Sargon’s reign. Hence arises the paucity of inscriptions of the two
predecessors of Sargon, Tiglath-pileser and Shalmaneser; the usurper destroyed them, just as
Tiglath-pileser destroyed those of Pul (Sardanapalus), the last of the old line of Ninus; the
names of his father and grandfather, which have been deciphered in the palace of his son
Sennacherib, do not appear in the list of Assyrian kings, which confirms the view that he was a
satrap who usurped the throne. He was so able a general that Hezekiah made no attempt to
shake off the tribute until the reign of Sennacherib; hence Judah was not invaded now as the
lands of the Philistines and Egypt were. After conquering Israel he sent his general, Tartan, to
attack the Philistine cities, “Ashdod,” etc., preliminary to his invasion of Egypt and Ethiopia; for
the line of march to Egypt lay along the southwest coast of Palestine. The inscriptions confirm
the prophecy; they tell us he received tribute from a Pharaoh of “Egypt”; besides destroying in
part the Ethiopian “No-ammon,” or Thebes (Nah_3:8); also that he warred with the kings of
“Ashdod,” Gaza, etc., in harmony with Isaiah here; a memorial tablet of him is found in Cyprus
also, showing that he extended his arms to that island. His reign was six or seven years in
duration, 722-715 b.c. [G. V. Smith].
Tartan — probably the same general as was sent by Sennacherib against Hezekiah
(2Ki_18:17). Gesenius takes “Tartan” as a title.
Ashdod — called by the Greeks Azotus (Act_8:40); on the Mediterranean, one of the “five”
cities of the Philistines. The taking of it was a necessary preliminary to the invasion of Egypt, to
which it was the key in that quarter, the Philistines being allies of Egypt. So strongly did the
Assyrians fortify it that it stood a twenty-nine years’ siege, when it was retaken by the Egyptian
Psammetichus.
sent — Sargon himself remained behind engaged with the Phoenician cities, or else led the
main force more directly into Egypt out of Judah [G. V. Smith].
6. K&D, “This section, commencing in the form of historic prose, introduces itself thus: “In
the year that Tartan came to Ashdod, Sargon the king of Asshur having sent him (and he made
war against Ashdod, and captured it): at that time Jehovah spake through Yeshayahu the son
of Amoz as follows,” i.e., He communicated the following revelation through the medium of
Isaiah (b'yad, as in Isa_37:24; Jer_37:2, and many other passages). The revelation itself was
attached to a symbolical act. B'yad (lit. “by the hand of”) refers to what was about to be made
known through the prophet by means of the command that was given him; in other words, to
Isa_20:3, and indirectly to Isa_20:2. Tartan (probably the same man) is met with in 2Ki_18:17
as the chief captain of Sennacherib. No Assyrian king of the name of Sargon is mentioned
anywhere else in the Old Testament; but it may now be accepted as an established result of the
researches which have been made, that Sargon was the successor of Shalmanassar, and that
Shalmaneser (Shalman, Hos_10:14), Sargon, Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon, are the names of
the four Assyrian kings who were mixed up with the closing history of the kingdoms of Israel
and Judah. It was Longperrier who was the first to establish the identity of the monarch who
built the palaces at Khorsabad, which form the north-eastern corner of ancient Nineveh, with
the Sargon of the Bible. We are now acquainted with a considerable number of brick, harem,
votive-table, and other inscriptions which bear the name of this king, and contain all kinds of
testimony concerning himself.
(Note: See Oppert, Expédition, i. 328-350, and the picture of Sargon in his war-chariot in
Rawlinson's Five Great Monarchies, i. 368; compare also p. 304 (prisoners taken by

6. Sargon), p. 352 (the plan of his palace), p. 483 (a glass vessel with his name), and many
other engravings in vol. ii.)
It was he, not Shalmanassar, who took Samaria after a three years' siege; and in the annalistic
inscription he boasts of having conquered the city, and removed the house of Omri to Assyria.
Oppert is right in calling attention to the fact, that in 2Ki_18:10 the conquest is not attributed to
Shalmanassar himself, but to the army. Shalmanassar died in front of Samaria; and Sargon not
only put himself at the head of the army, but seized upon the throne, in which he succeeded in
establishing himself, after a contest of several years' duration with the legitimate heirs and their
party. He was therefore a usurper.
(Note: See Oppert, Les Inscriptions Assyriennes des Sargonides et les Fastes de Ninive
(Versailles, 1862), and Rawlinson (vol. ii. 406ff.), who here agrees with Oppert in all
essential points. Consequently there can no longer be any thought of identifying Sargon with
Shalmanassar (see Brandis, Ueber den historischen Gewinn aus der Entzifferung der assyr.
Inschriften, 1856, p. 48ff.). Rawlinson himself at first thought they were the same person
(vid., Journal of the Asiatic Society, xii. 2, 419), until gradually the evidence increased that
Sargon and Shalmanassar were the names of two different kings, although no independent
inscription of the latter, the actual besieger of Samaria, has yet been found.)
Whether his name as it appears on the inscriptions is Sar-kin or not, and whether it signifies the
king de facto as distinguished from the king de jure, we will not attempt to determine now.
(Note: Hitzig ventures a derivation of the name from the Zend; and Grotefend compares it
with the Chaldee Sarek, Dan_6:3 (in his Abhandlung über Anlage und Zerstörung der
Gebäude von Nimrud, 1851).)
This Sargon, the founder of a new Assyrian dynasty, who reigned from 721-702 (according to
Oppert), and for whom there is at all events plenty of room between 721-20 and the
commencement of Sennacherib's reign, first of all blockaded Tyre for five years after the fall of
Samaria, or rather brought to an end the siege of Tyre which had been begun by Shalmanassar
(Jos. Ant. ix. 14, 2), though whether it was to a successful end or not is quite uncertain. He then
pursued with all the greater energy his plan for following up the conquest of Samaria with the
subjugation of Egypt, which was constantly threatening the possessions of Assyria in western
Asia, either by instigation or support. The attack upon Ashdod was simply a means to this end.
As the Philistines were led to join Egypt, not only by their situation, but probably by kinship of
tribe as well, the conquest of Ashdod - a fortress so strong, that, according to Herodotus (ii. 157),
Psammetichus besieged it for twenty-nine years - was an indispensable preliminary to the
expedition against Egypt. When Alexander the Great marched against Egypt, he had to do the
same with Gaza. How long Tartan required is not to be gathered from Isa_20:1. But if he
conquered it as quickly as Alexander conquered Gaza - viz. in five months - it is impossible to
understand why the following prophecy should defer for three years the subjugation of Ethiopia
and Egypt. The words, “and fought against Ashdod, and took it,” must therefore be taken as
anticipatory and parenthetical.
It was not after the conquest of Ashdod, but in the year in which the siege commenced, that
Isaiah received the following admonition: “Go and loosen the smock-frock from off thy loins,
and take off thy shoes from thy feet. And he did so, went stripped and barefooted.” We see from
this that Isaiah was clothed in the same manner as Elijah, who wore a fur coat (2Ki_1:8, cf.,
Zec_13:4; Heb_11:37), and John the Baptist, who had a garment of camel hair and a leather
girdle round it (Mat_3:4); for sak is a coarse linen or hairy overcoat of a dark colour (Rev_6:12,
cf., Isa_50:3), such as was worn by mourners, either next to the skin (‛al-habbasar, 1Ki_21:27;
2Ki_6:30; Job_16:15) or over the tunic, in either case being fastened by a girdle on account of its
want of shape, for which reason the verb chagar is the word commonly used to signify the putting

7. on of such a garment, instead of labash. The use of the word arom does not prove that the former
was the case in this instance (see, on the contrary, 2Sa_6:20, compared with 2Sa_6:14 and
Joh_21:7). With the great importance attached to the clothing in the East, where the feelings
upon this point are peculiarly sensitive and modest, a person was looked upon as stripped and
naked if he had only taken off his upper garment. What Isaiah was directed to do, therefore, was
simply opposed to common custom, and not to moral decency. He was to lay aside the dress of a
mourner and preacher of repentance, and to have nothing on but his tunic (cetoneth); and in
this, as well as barefooted, he was to show himself in public. This was the costume of a man who
had been robbed and disgraced, or else of a beggar or prisoner of war. The word cen (so) is
followed by the inf. abs., which develops the meaning, as in Isa_5:5; Isa_58:6-7.
7. BI, “The purpose of the chapter
Judah, alarmed by the capture of Samaria, and the rapid extension of the Assyrian invasion,
looked for assistance from Egypt.
And the aim of this brief chapter is to recall king and people from any such reliance, by the
announcement that the King of Assyria would shortly prevail against Egypt, and lead into
captivity multitudes of prisoners. (F. B. Meyer, B. A.)
The date of the prophecy
The date of the prophecy is assured. The expedition mentioned took place in 711 B.C., and is
minutely related in two of Sargon’s own inscriptions.
See Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions, vol. 2. (Cambridge Bible for Schools.)
The Tartan,
The Tartan, Assyrian, turtanu, i.e., Commander-in-chief. (A. B.Davidson, LL. D.)
8. PULPIT, “Foolish trust rebuked by a strange sign.
Few things are so difficult as to bring men to rely wholly and solely upon God. The circumstances of the
time were these. Humanly speaking, Judaea lay absolutely at the mercy of Assyria. There was no existing
power or combination of powers that could successfully contend at the time against the vast bodies of
well-armed and well-disciplined soldiers which a king of Assyria could bring into the field. Nothing could
prolong Jewish independence for more than a few years but some miraculous interposition of God on
behalf of the Jewish people. But for God to interpose miraculously, it was necessary that implicit trust
should be placed in him. The Jews, however, could not bring themselves to believe that they had no help
but Jehovah. They thought Egypt, or Egypt and Ethiopia combined, might well prove a match for Assyria,
and were bent on l, lacing themselves under the protection of the combined powers. The lesson of the

8. destruction of the kingdom of Israel, which had trusted in Egypt (2Ki_17:4), and then been destroyed by
Assyria, was lost on them. In connection with Ashdod, they had actually sent ambassadors to Egypt to
entreat assistance (Isa_30:1-4). Then it was that Isaiah received the special mission which was to warn
his countrymen of the utter folly of trusting to human aid. For three years he was to wear the scant
clothing that Assyrian captives ordinarily wore, announcing that he did so in token that ere long the
warriors of Egypt and Ethiopia would be seen thus clad, on their way from Egypt to captivity at Nineveh.
The unusual attire of the prophet could not but create a great sensation. It probably made a considerable
impression on Hezekiah and his counselors. It was not forgotten; and if it did not at once cause the
negotiations with Egypt to be broken off, it produced the result that, when Isaiah's prediction was fulfilled
after the battle of Eltekeh, the Jewish monarch and people did in their trouble turn to God. At the crisis of
his danger, Hezekiah made appeal to the Almighty (Isa_37:4); and his appeal was followed by that
destruction of the Assyrian host (Isa_37:36) which caused the Assyrians to respect and fear the Jews
thenceforward, and to allow them to retain their independence. Thus the life of the Jewish monarchy was
extended for above a century.
9. KRETZMANN, “In the year that Tartan, the commander-in-chief of the Assyrian
armies, 2Ki_18:17, came unto Ashdod, one of the cities of Philistia which had revolted against the
Assyrian supremacy (when Sargon, the king of Assyria, who succeeded Shalmaneser at just about the
time when Samaria was taken by the Assyrians, sent him), and fought against Ashdod, and took it, in
the second last decade of the eighth century before Christ (in 711 B. C. according to the Assyrian
annals),
10. CALVIN, “1.In the year that Tartan came to Ashdod. In the preceding chapter Isaiah prophesied
about the calamity which threatened Egypt, and at the same time promised to it the mercy of God. He
now introduces the same subject, and shews that Israel will be put to shame by this chastisement of the
Egyptians, because they placed their confidence in Egypt. He now joins Ethiopia, which makes it
probable that the Ethiopians were leagued with the Egyptians, as I have formerly remarked, and as we
shall see again at the thirty-seventh chapter.
First, we must observe the time of this prediction. It was when the Jews were pressed hard by necessity
to resort, even against their will, to foreign nations for assistance. Sacred history informs us (2Kg_18:17)
that Tartan was one of Sennacherib’ captains, which constrains us to acknowledge that this Sargon was
Sennacherib, who had two names, as may be easily learned from this passage. We must also consider
what was the condition of Israel, for the ten tribes had been led into captivity. Judea appeared almost to

9. be utterly ruined, for nearly the whole country was conquered, except Jerusalem, which was besieged by
Rabshakeh. (2Kg_18:13.) Tartan, on the other hand, was besieging Ashdod. Sacred history (2Kg_18:17)
mentions three captains; (60) and this makes it probable that Sennacherib’ forces were at that time
divided into three parts, that at the same instant he might strike terror on all, and might throw them into
such perplexity and confusion that they could not render assistance to each other. Nothing was now left
for the Jews but to call foreign nations to their aid. In the mean time, Isaiah is sent by God to declare that
their expectation is vain in relying on the Egyptians, against whom the arm of the Lord was now lifted up,
and who were so far from assisting them, that they were unable to defend themselves against their
enemies. Hence the Jews ought to acknowledge that they are justly punished for their unbelief, because
they had forsaken God and fled to the Egyptians.
We must consider the end which is here proposed, for the design of God was not to forewarn the
Egyptians, but to correct the unbelief of the people, which incessantly carried them away to false and
wicked hopes. In order therefore to teach them that they ought to rely on God alone, the Prophet here
foretells what awaits their useless helpers. The warning was highly seasonable, for the Ethiopians had
begun to repel the Assyrians, and had forced them to retire, and no event could have occurred which
would have been more gladly hailed by the Jews. Lest those successful beginnings should make them
wanton, he foretells that this aid will be of short duration, because both the Ethiopians and the Egyptians
will soon be most disgracefully vanquished.
(60) “ and Rabsaris, and Rabshakeh”
FT318 “ Egyptians prisoners (Heb. the captivity of Egypt) and Ethiopians captives.” — Eng. Ver. “ captives
of Egypt and the exiles of Cush.” — Lowth
2
at that time the LORD spoke through Isaiah son of
Amoz. He said to him, “Take off the sackcloth from
your body and the sandals from your feet.” And he did
so, going around stripped and barefoot.

10. 1.BARNES, “By Isaiah - Margin, ‘By the hand of Isaiah.’ So the Hebrew. That is, by the
instrumentality of Isaiah. He sent him to make known the fate of the Egyptians, and the folly of
trusting in them on this occasion.
Go, and loose the sackcloth - For the meaning of the word “sackcloth,” see the note at
Isa_3:24. It was commonly worn as an emblem of mourning. But there is reason to believe that
it was worn also by the prophets, and was regarded, in some degree, as their appropriate dress.
It was made usually of the coarse hair of the goat, and was worn as a zone or girdle around the
loins. That this was the dress of Elijah is apparent from 2Ki_1:8 : ‘He was an hairy man, and girt
with a girdle of leather;’ that is, he was clothed in a garment made of hair. The same was true of
John the Baptist Mat_3:4. That the prophets wore ‘a rough garment’ is apparent also from
Zec_13:4 : ‘Neither shall they (the false prophets) wear a rough garment (Hebrew, A garment of
hair) to deceive;’ that is, the false prophets shall not assume the dress of the true prophets for
the purpose of deluding the people, or to make them think that they are true prophets. It is
evident, therefore, that this hairy garment was regarded as a dress that pertained particularly to
the prophets. It is well known, also, that the ancient Greek philosophers had a special dress to
distinguish them from the common people. Probably the custom of wearing “hair cloth” among
the monks of later ages took its rise from this example of the prophets. His removing this
garment was designed to be a sign or an emblem to show that the Egyptians should be stripped
of all their possessions, and carried captive to Assyria.
Walking naked - That is, walking “without this special prophetic garment. It does not mean
that he was in a state of entire nudity, for all that he was directed to do was to lay this garment -
this emblem of his office - aside. The word “naked,” moreover, is used in the Scriptures, not to
denote an absolute destitution of clothing, but that the “outer” garment was laid aside (see the
note at Joh_21:7). Thus it is said of Saul 1Sa_19:24 that he ‘stripped off his clothes also, and
prophesied before Samuel, and lay down naked all that day;’ that is, he stripped off his royal
robes, and was “naked or unclothed” in that respect. He removed his “special” dress as a king, or
military chieftain, and appeared in the ordinary dress. It cannot be supposed that the king of
Israel would be seen literally without raiment. So David is said to have danced “naked” before
the ark, that is, with his royal robes laid aside. How “long” Isaiah walked in this manner has
been a matter of doubt (see the note at Isa_20:3). The prophets were accustomed to use
symbolic actions to denote the events which they foretold (see the note at Isa_8:18). Thus the
children of Isaiah, and the names given to them, were significant of important events (Isa_8:1-3;
compare Jer_18:1-6; Jer_43:8-9); in both of which places he used emblematic actions to exhibit
the events concerning which he prophesied in a striking manner. Thus also the prophets are
expressly called ‘signs and wonders’ Zec_3:8; Eze_12:6.
2. CLARKE, “Walking naked and barefoot - It is not probable that the prophet walked
uncovered and barefoot for three years; his appearing in that manner was a sign that within
three years the Egyptians and Cushites should be in the same condition, being conquered and
made captives by the king of Assyria. The time was denoted as well as the event; but his
appearing in that manner for three whole years could give no premonition of the time at all. It is
probable, therefore, that the prophet was ordered to walk so for three days to denote the
accomplishment of the event in three years; a day for a year, according to the prophetical rule,
Num_14:34; Eze_4:6. The words ‫שלש‬‫ימים‬ shalosh yamim, three days, may possibly have been
lost out of the text, at the end of the second verse, after ‫יחף‬ yacheph, barefoot; or after the same

11. word in the third verse, where, in the Alexandrine and Vatican copies of the Septuagint, and in
MSS. Pachom. and 1. D. 2 the words τρια ετη, three years, are twice expressed. Perhaps, instead
of ‫שלש‬‫י‬‫מים‬ shalosh yamim, three days, the Greek translator might read ‫שלש‬‫שנים‬ shalosh shanim,
three years, by his own mistake, or by that of his copy, after ‫יחף‬ yacheph in the third verse, for
which stands the first τρια ετη, three years, in the Alexandrine and Vatican Septuagint, and in
the two MSS. above mentioned. It is most likely that Isaiah’s walking naked and barefoot was
done in a vision; as was probably that of the Prophet Hosea taking a wife of whoredoms. None of
these things can well be taken literally.
From thy foot - ‫רגליך‬ ragleycha, thy feet, is the reading of thirty-four of Kennicott’s and De
Rossi’s MSS., four ancient editions, with the Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate, and Arabic.
3. GILL, “At the same time spake the Lord by Isaiah the son of Amoz,.... Or, "by the
hand of Isaiah", by his means; and it was to him likewise, as the following words show; and so
the Septuagint version renders it; he spoke by him, by the sign he used, according to his order,
and he spoke to him to use the sign:
saying; so the Arabic version, "with him"; and with these versions Noldius agrees:
go, and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins; a token of mourning, and which the
prophet wore, as Kimchi thinks, because of the captivity of the ten tribes; and it may be also on
account of the miseries that were coming upon the people of the Jews; though some think this
was his common garb, and the same with the royal garment the prophets used to wear, Zec_13:4
but that he had put off, and had put on sackcloth in its room, which he is now bid to take off:
and put off thy shoe from thy foot; as a sign of distress and mourning also, 2Sa_15:30,
and he did so, walking naked and barefoot; Kimchi thinks this was only visionally, or in
the vision of prophecy, as he calls it, and not in reality; but the latter seems most probable, and
best to agree with what follows; for he was obedient to the divine command, not regarding the
disgrace which might attend it, nor the danger of catching cold, to which he was exposed; and
hence he has the character of a servant of the Lord, in the next words, and a faithful obedient
one he was.
4. BI, “Isaiah stripped and barefooted
Owing to the great importance which is attributed to clothing from the standpoint of Oriental
culture and manners, anyone who appears without the upper garment is already regarded as
naked and bare.
Isaiah has to lay off the garment of the preacher of repentance and of the mourner, so that only
his tunic remains; and in this dress, and moreover barefooted, he has to appear in public. It is
the costume of a man who had been robbed and disgraced, of a beggar, it may be, or a prisoner
of war. (F. Delitzsch.)
God’s appointment magnifies mean things

12. The appointment of God renders those things and actions which in themselves seem mean and
contemptible, momentous and useful: it stamps them with real dignity and importance, and
makes them truly instructive. View the ceremonial institutions of the Old Testament, such as
circumcision, abstinence from particular kinds of food and of raiment, uncleanness contracted
by touching certain objects, and sprinkling the tabernacle with blood, and they appear trifling
and ridiculous. Contemplate them again as the ordinances of God, infinitely wise and gracious,
and you may discern their excellence and extensive utility. Look at our prophet as he is here
described, and you see an odd appearance; but consider him acting by Divine commission, that
he might represent to his countrymen the future naked and destitute condition to which those
nations were to be reduced in whom they foolishly placed their confidence, and every
circumstance acquires new consequence. (R. Macculloch.)
Isaiah’s obedience
When we are in the way of our duty we must trust God both with our credit and with our safety.
(M. Henry.)
God’s purpose dignifies what might otherwise be scandalous
If the dress was scandalous, yet the design was glorious. (M. Henry.)
5. JAMISON, “by — literally, “by the hand of” (compare Eze_3:14).
sackcloth — the loose outer garment of coarse dark hair-cloth worn by mourners (2Sa_3:31)
and by prophets, fastened at the waist by a girdle (Mat_3:4; 2Ki_1:8; Zec_13:4).
naked — rather, “uncovered”; he merely put off the outer sackcloth, retaining still the tunic
or inner vest (1Sa_19:24; Amo_2:16; Joh_21:7); an emblem to show that Egypt should be
stripped of its possessions; the very dress of Isaiah was a silent exhortation to repentance.
5B. PULPIT, “Unpleasant service.
It may always remain uncertain whether Isaiah went stripped and barefoot for three whole years or for a
shorter period. Two things, however, are quite certain, viz. that for some time, longer or shorter, this
servant of Jehovah (verse 3) went about Jerusalem in that humiliating condition, and that he would have
unhesitatingly done this all the time if God had required him to do so. Many suggestions have been made
on the subject, but it does not occur to any one to entertain the idea that Isaiah would decline to render
such an unpleasant service, however long the period of service might be.
I. THAT GOD SOMETIMES DEMANDS OF US SERVICE WHICH WE FIND IT HARD TO RENDER. It
may be:

13. 1. To incur the hostility of those whose honor and affection we would fain enjoy. Isaiah had to pronounce
against an alliance with Egypt and Ethiopia, thus stirring up the active dislike of those politicians who
advised that course. We may often have to take a course which is regarded and denounced as unpatriotic
or disloyal.
2. To endure privation as the consequence of fidelity. Isaiah, in the fulfillment of his prophetic mission,
went half-clad through all changes of temperature. In order to speak the true and faithful word which God
has put into our mind, or to take the right course which he opens before us, we may have to do that which
will lessen our resources and lead to straitened means and even to serious embarrassment.
3. To expose ourselves to the derision of the skeptic or the scoffing. Doubtless the partisans of Egypt
sneered and the idle multitude mocked as the unclothed prophet passed by. It is hard to have to utter that
truth or to identify ourselves with that course which entails the bitter raillery of the opponent and the
heartless jest of the ribald crowd. But "my servant Isaiah walked naked and barefoot" as long as he was
charged to do so. And we conclude—
II. THAT WE CANNOT HESITATE TO RENDER INSTANT AND FULL COMPLIANCE, For:
1. God's demand is absolute and authoritative. If the filial son hastens to do the behest of his father, the
loyal subject that of his king, the brave soldier that of his commander, however uninviting or even perilous
it may be, how much more shall we render instant and hearty obedience to the "Do this" of our heavenly
Father, of our Divine Redeemer.
2. God asks us to do that which is small and slight indeed in comparison with the service which, in Jesus
Christ, he has rendered us. What are the privations, the insults, the humiliations we may be summoned to
endure for Christ when compared with the poverty and the shame and the sorrow to which he stooped for
us?
3. Our unpleasant work is prior, and perhaps preparatory, to nobler and more congenial service further
on. Faithful in the "few things" now and here, we shall have rule given us over "many things" in the
coming years, and still more truly in the better land.—C.
6. PULPIT, “Loose the sackcloth from off thy loins. Dr. Kay supposes that Isaiah was wearing
sackcloth exceptionally, as during a time of mourning. But it is more probable that the
Hebrew sak represents the haircloth ("rough garment," Zec_13:4), which, as ascetics, the Hebrew

14. prophets wore habitually (2Ki_1:8; Mat_3:4). Walking naked. Probably not actually "naked," for captives
were not stripped bare by the Assyrians, but with nothing on besides his short tunic, as the male captives
are commonly represented in the Assyrian sculptures.
7. KRETZMANN, “at the same time spake the Lord by Isaiah, the son of Amoz, in the year when
the siege of Ashdod began, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth, the loose outer garment of coarse
cloth which Isaiah wore, from off thy loins and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking
naked, that is, with only his tunic or shirtlike garment, and barefoot, presenting the appearance of one
who bad been robbed or spoiled, stripped of his possessions, like a beggar or captive of war. The very
dress of Isaiah called attention to his message of repentance.
8. CALVIN, “2.Go and loose the sackcloth from thy loins. In order to confirm this prophecy by the use
of a symbol, the Lord commanded Isaiah to walk naked. If Isaiah had done this of his own accord, he
would have been justly ridiculed; but when he does it by the command of the Lord, we perceive nothing
but what is fitted to excite admiration and to strike awe. In this nakedness, and in the signs of a similar
kind, something weighty is implied. Besides, the Lord does nothing either by himself or by his servants
without likewise explaining the reason; and therefore the Prophet does not merely walk naked, but points
out the design which the Lord had in view in ordering him to do so. In other respects false prophets
imitate the true servants of God, and put on varied and imposing shapes, to dazzle the eyes of the
multitude, and gain credit to themselves; but those symbols are worthless, because God is not the author
of them.
This ought to be carefully observed in opposition to the Papists, who bring forward empty ceremonies
instead of true sacraments. This is the rule with which we ought to meet them. If they proceed from God,
we ought to embrace them, but if not, we may boldly reject them; and, indeed, they cannot be adopted
without offering an insult to God, because in such cases men usurp his authority. Besides, God does not
bring forward signs without the word, for what would a sacrament be if we beheld nothing but the sign? It
is the doctrine alone that makes the sacrament, and therefore let us know that it is mere hypocrisy where
no doctrine is taught, and that Papists act wickedly when they lay aside doctrine, and give the name of
sacrament to empty ceremonies; for the Lord has connected them in such a manner that no man can
separate them without infringing that order which he has enjoined.
When the Lord commands him to loose the sackcloth; almost all the commentators infer from it that Isaiah
at that time wore a garment of mourning, because he bewailed the distressed condition of Israel; for

15. sackcloth was a mourning dress, as is evident from Joel (Joe_1:13.) Their interpretation is, that this was
done in order that, in the dress of culprits, he might supplicate pardon from God, or that it was impossible
for his countenance or his dress to be cheerful when his heart was sad, and he could not but be affected
with the deepest grief when he beheld so great a calamity. Some think that it was his ordinary dress,
because the Prophets, as Zechariah informs us, commonly wore a mantle. (Zec_13:4.) But that
conjecture rests on exceedingly slight grounds, and has no great probability. It is more probable that he
wore sackcloth as expressive of mourning. Judea was at that time sunk into such a state of indifference,
that when men saw their brethren wretchedly distressed and wasted, still they were not affected by it, and
did not think that the affliction of their brethren was a matter which at all concerned them. They still
thought that they were beyond the reach of danger, and mocked at the Prophets when they threatened
and foretold destruction. Hence Micah also complains that no man bewails the distresses of Israel.
(Mic_1:11.)
A question arises, Was this actually done, or was it merely and simply a vision which he told to the
people? The general opinion is, that the Prophet never went naked, but that this was exhibited to him in a
vision, and only once. They allege as a reason, that on account of heat and cold, and other
inconveniences of the weather, he could not have walked naked during the whole period of three years.
What if we should say that the Prophet wore clothes at home, and also in public, unless when he wished
to come forth to teach, and that on such occasions he was accustomed to present to the people a
spectacle of nakedness? I pay little attention to the argument, that he was unable to endure heat and
cold; for God, who commanded him to do this, could easily strengthen and protect him. But they assign
another reason, that nakedness would have been unbecoming in a Prophet. I answer, this nakedness
was not more unbecoming than circumcision, which irreligious men might consider to be the most absurd
of all sights, because it made an exposure of the uncomely parts. Yet it must not be thought that the
Prophet went entirely naked, or without covering those parts which would present a revolting aspect. It
was enough that the people understood what the Lord was doing, and were affected by it as something
extraordinary.
I am led to form this opinion by what is here said, “By the hand of Isaiah;” for although this mode of
expression frequently occurs elsewhere, still we never find it where it does not imply something emphatic,
to describe the effect produced. He places himself in the midst between God and his countrymen, so as
to be the herald of a future calamity, not only in words, but likewise by a visible symbol. Nor is it
superfluous that it is immediately added, He did so. I am therefore of opinion that Isaiah walked naked
whenever he discharged the office of a prophet, and that he uncovered those parts which could be beheld
without shame.

16. So far as relates to sackcloth, although it was customary for men in private stations of life to express their
guilt in this manner in adversity, yet it is probable that it was with a view to his office that Isaiah made use
of this symbol to confirm his doctrine, that he might the better arouse the people from their sluggishness.
If at any time the Lord chastise ourselves or our brethren, he does not enjoin us to change our raiment,
but we are cruel and ( ἄστοργοι) without natural affection, if we are not moved by the afflictions of
brethren and the ruin of the Church. If we have any feeling towards God, we ought to be in sadness and
tears; and if it be our duty to mourn, we ought also to exhort others and stimulate them by our example to
feel the calamities of the Church, and to be touched with some ( συµπαθείᾳ) compassion.
3
Then the LORD said, “Just as my servant Isaiah has
gone stripped and barefoot for three years, as a
sign and portent against Egypt and Cush,[a]
1.BARNES, “Like as - That is, as Isaiah has gone stripped of his special garment as a
prophet, so shall the Egyptians and Ethiopians be stripped of all that they value, and be carried
captive into Assyria.’
Hath walked ... three years - A great deal of difficulty has been felt in the interpretation of
this place, from the strong improbability that Isaiah should have gone in this manner for a space
of time so long as our translation expresses. The Septuagint renders this, ‘As my servant Isaiah
hath walked naked and barefoot three years, three years shall be for signs and wonders to the
Egyptians and Ethiopians.’ The phrase in the Hebrew, ‘three years,’ “may” either be taken in
connection with the preceding part of the sentence, as in our translation, meaning that he
actually walked so long; or it may be taken with that which follows, and then it will denote that
he was a sign and wonder with reference to the captivity of the Egyptians and Ethiopians; and
that by this symbolic action he in some way indicated that they would be carried away captive
for that space of time; or, as Aben Ezra and Abarbanel suppose, that he signified that their
captivity would commence after three years. Lowth supposes that it means that his walking was
for three days, and that the Hebrew text bas been corrupted. Vitringa also seems to suppose that
this is possible, and that a day was a symbolic sign for a year. Rosenmuller supposes that this
prophetic action was continued during three years “at intervals,” so that the subject might be
kept before the mind of the people. But the supposition that this means that the symbolic action
of walking naked and barefoot continued for so long a time in any manner, is highly improbable.
(1) The Hebrew does not necessarily require it. It “may” mean simply that his actions were a
sign and wonder with reference to a three years’ captivity of the Egyptians.
(2) It is in itself improbable that he should so long a time walk about Jerusalem expressly as a
sign and wonder, when a much shorter period would have answered the purpose as well.
(3) Such a sign would have hardly met the circumstances of the case. Asdod was taken. The
Assyrian king was advancing.

17. The Jews were in consternation and looking to Egypt for help; and amidst this agitation and
alarm, there is the highest improbability that Isaiah would be required to remain a sign and
wonder for the long space of three years, when decided action was needed, and when, unless
prevented, the Jews would have formed a speedy alliance with the Egyptians. I suppose,
therefore, that the entire sense of the phrase will be expressed by translating it, ‘my servant
Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot, “a three years’ sign and wonder;’” that is, a sign and
indication that “a three years’ calamity” would come upon Egypt and Ethiopia. Whether this
means that the calamity would “commence” in three years from that time, or that it should
“continue” three years, perhaps we cannot determine. Grotius thinks that it means that it would
occur “after” three years; that is, that the war between the Assyrians and Ethiopians would
continue during that time only. In what manner Isaiah indicated this, is not certainly known.
The conjecture of Lowth is not improbable, that it was by appearing three “days” naked and
barefoot, and that each day denoted a year. Or it may have been that he appeared in this manner
for a short period - though but once - and “declared” that this was the design or purport of the
action.
Upon Egypt ... - With reference to; or as a sign in regard to Egypt. It does not mean that he
was in Egypt, but that his action “had reference” to Egypt.
And Ethiopia - Hebrew, ‫כושׁ‬ kush - (see the note at Isa_11:11). Whether this denotes the
African Cush or Ethiopia, or whether it refers to the “Cush” in Arabia, cannot be determined.
The latter is the more probable supposition, as it is scarcely probable that the Assyrian would
extend his conquests south of Egypt so as to subdue the African Ethiopia. Probably his conquest
embraced the “Cush” that was situated in the southern regions of Arabia.
2. PULPIT, “My servant Isaiah. Isaiah shares this honorable title, "my servant," with a select few
among God's saints—with Abraham (Gen_26:24), Moses (Num_12:7), Caleb (Num_14:24), Job
(Job_1:8; Job_42:7, Job_42:8), Eliakim (Isa_22:20), and Zerubbabel (Hag_2:23). It is a great
acknowledgment for the Creator to make to the creature, that he really does him service. Three
years. Probably from B.C. 713 to B.C. 711, or during the whole of the time that Philistia, Edom, Moab,
and Judah were making representations to the Egyptians and Ethiopians, and endeavoring to obtain their
aid. It has been proposed, by an arbitrary emendation, to cut down the time to "three days;" but a three
days' sign of the kind could not have been expected to have any important effect. The supposed
"impropriety" of Isaiah's having "gone naked and barefoot" for three years arises from a misconception of
the word "naked." which is not to be taken literally (see the comment on verse 2). The costume adopted
would be extraordinary, especially in one of Isaiah's rank and position; but would not be in any degree
"improper." It would be simply that of working men during the greater part of the day
(see Exo_22:26, Exo_22:27).
3. GILL, “And the Lord said,.... Here follows the explanation of the sign, and the
accommodation of it to the thing signified by it:

18. like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot; not wholly naked, for that
would have been very indecent and dangerous indeed; but without his upper garment, as Saul,
1Sa_19:24 and David, 2Sa_6:14 or with rent and ragged clothes, and old shoes, as Jarchi (k)
interprets it, and which might be only when he appeared abroad; and how long he thus walked is
not certain, whether only one day, as some, or three days, as others, or three years, which is not
said, though our version inclines to it; but the three years next mentioned are not to be joined to
Isaiah's walking, but to the thing signified by it; for the accent "athnach" is at the word which is
rendered "barefoot", and distinguishes this clause from the following. The Septuagint indeed
puts the phrase "three years" into both clauses, but it only belongs to the latter:
three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt, and upon Ethiopia; that is, the
prophet's walking naked and barefoot was a sign that three years after this Egypt and Ethiopia
should be subdued by the Assyrians; or, that so long he should be in subduing them, or their
calamities should last such a term of time. This sign was only seen by the Jews, for whose sake
chiefly this prophecy was, to take off their dependence on the above nations; though probably
this might be made known to the Egyptians and Ethiopians.
4. HENRY, “The exposition of this sign, Isa_20:3, Isa_20:4. It was intended to signify that
the Egyptians and the Ethiopians should be led away captive by the king of Assyria, thus
stripped, or in rags, and very shabby clothing, as Isaiah was. God calls him his servant Isaiah,
because in this matter particularly he had approved himself God's willing, faithful, obedient
servant; and for this very thing, which perhaps others laughed at him for, God gloried in him. To
obey is better than sacrifice; it pleases God and praises him more, and shall be more praised by
him. Isaiah is said to have walked naked and barefoot three years, whenever in that time he
appeared as a prophet. But some refer the three years, not to the sign, but to the thing signified:
He has walked naked and barefoot; there is a stop in the original; provided he did so once that
was enough to give occasion to all about him to enquire what was the meaning of his doing so;
or, as some think, he did it three days, a day for a year; and this for a three years' sign and
wonder, for a sign of that which should be done three years afterwards or which should be three
years in the doing. Three campaigns successively shall the Assyrian army make, in spoiling the
Egyptians and Ethiopians, and carrying them away captive in this barbarous manner, not only
the soldiers taken in the field of battle, but the inhabitants, young and old; and it being a very
piteous sight, and such as must needs move compassion in those that had the least degree of
tenderness left them to see those who had gone all their days well dressed now stripped, and
scarcely having rags to cover their nakedness, that circumstance of their captivity is particularly
taken notice of, and foretold, the more to affect those to whom this prophecy was delivered. It is
particularly said to be to the shame of Egypt (v. 4), because the Egyptians were a proud people,
and therefore when they did fall into disgrace it was the more shameful to them; and the higher
they had lifted up themselves the lower was their fall, both in their own eyes and in the eyes of
others.
5. JAMISON, “three years — Isaiah’s symbolical action did not continue all this time, but
at intervals, to keep it before the people’s mind during that period [Rosenmuller]. Rather, join
“three years” with “sign,” a three years’ sign, that is, a sign that a three years’ calamity would
come on Egypt and Ethiopia [Barnes], (Isa_8:18). This is the only instance of a strictly
symbolical act performed by Isaiah. With later prophets, as Jeremiah and Ezekiel, such acts
were common. In some cases they were performed, not literally, but only in prophetic vision.
wonder — rather, “omen”; conveying a threat as to the future [G. V. Smith].

19. upon — in reference to, against.
6. K&D, “It is not till Isaiah has carried out the divine instructions, that he learns the reason
for this command to strip himself, and the length of time that he is to continue so stripped. “And
Jehovah said, As my servant Yesha'yahu goeth naked and barefooted, a sign and type for three
years long over Egypt and over Ethiopia, so will the king of Asshur carry away the prisoners
of Egypt and the exiles of Ethiopia, children and old men, naked and barefooted, and with their
seat uncovered - a shame to Egypt.” The expression “as he goeth” (ca'asher halac) stands here at
the commencement of the symbolical action, but it is introduced as if with a retrospective glance
at its duration for three years, unless indeed the preterite halac stands here, as it frequently does,
to express what has already commenced, and is still continuing and customary (compare, for
example, Job_1:4 and Psa_1:1). The strange and unseemly dress of the prophet, whenever he
appeared in his official capacity for three whole years, was a prediction of the fall of the Egypto-
Ethiopian kingdom, which was to take place at the end of these three years. Egypt and Ethiopia
are as closely connected here as Israel and Judah in Isa_11:12. They were at that time one
kingdom, so that the shame of Egypt was the shame of Ethiopia also. ‛Ervah is a shameful
nakedness, and ‛ervath Mitzrayim is in apposition to all that precedes it in Isa_20:4. Sheth is the
seat or hinder part, as in 2Sa_10:4, from shathah, to set or seat; it is a substantive form, like ֵ‫ן‬ ,
‫ץ‬ ֵ‫,ע‬ ‫ע‬ ֵ‫,ר‬ ‫ם‬ ֵ‫,שׁ‬ with the third radical letter dropt. Chashuphay has the same ay as the words in
Isa_19:9; Jdg_5:15; Jer_22:14, which can hardly be regarded as constructive forms, as Ewald,
Knobel, and Gesenius suppose (although ‫־י‬ of the construct has arisen from ‫,)־י‬ but rather as a
singular form with a collective signification. The emendations suggested, viz., chasuphe by
Olshausen, and chasuphı̄ with a connecting i by Meier, are quite unnecessary.
7. PULPIT, “The insufficiency of the stronger.
Assyria attacked Ashdod with designs on Judaea. Judaea rested on Egypt and Ethiopia; but these
"powers" would be utterly defeated by Assyria, and their citizens led away into captivity with every
circumstance of humiliation and shame. In that hour of fear and humiliation (Isa_20:5) the inhabitants of
Judaea would be constrained to argue from the insufficiency of Egypt and Ethiopia to their own
helplessness. If such strong nations as these are ignominiously overthrown, "how shall we escape?" We
conclude—
I. THAT TIMES OF SEVERE TRIAL AWAIT US ALL. Not only collectively but individually considered. As
separate, individual souls we must anticipate that the future has in store for us not only the pleasant, the
gratifying, the successful, but also the unpleasant, the painful, even the overwhelming. Some of the more
crushing sorrows it may be our fortune to escape, but every one of us will have his share. Sickness which

20. threatens to be fatal; bitter disappointment which appears to throw the whole future path into darkest
shadow; bereavement which takes away the very light of our eyes; the sudden loss which strips the tree
of branch as well as bloom; the financial or (what is a thousand times worse) the moral failure of beloved
friend or near relation; the last illness unexpectedly arriving and extinguishing many a cherished purpose;
the powerful temptation inviting and almost constraining to folly, or vice, or crime;—one or more el these
things, or things as bad as these, will certainly overtake us all.
II. THAT THOSE WHO ARE STRONGER THAN WE ARE SOMETIMES FOUND TO BREAK BENEATH
THE BLOW. We hear or read of men who in mental capacity, in educational advantages, in worldly
endowments, or in the number of their friends, are superior to ourselves, but who cannot stand the strain
of their trial. Either their health breaks down, or their sanity seriously suffers, or their faith fails, or their
courage and energy succumb, or their moral character is lost, and consequently their reputation is
shattered, never to be restored.
III. THAT IF THESE STRONGER SOULS ARE BEATEN, WE MUST BE IN DANGER OF DEFEAT. If
Egypt and Ethiopia are led into captivity, how shall Judaea be delivered—"how shall we escape?" The
storm in which such noble vessels founder will wreck our fragile bark. On any ordinary human calculations
we cannot hope to be victorious where spirits so much stronger and wiser than we are have been
crushed. But we need not yield to despondency; if we are the disciples and followers of Jesus Christ, and
if, therefore, "the Lord is on our side," we may find relief and rest in the thought—
IV. THAT WE HAVE A SAFE REFUGE IN AN ALMIGHTY SAVIOR. So long as Judea was faithful to
Jehovah, she had no need to be afraid of Assyria, and she could afford to witness the overthrow of the
Egyptian and Ethiopian armies. So long as we are loyal to our Divine Lord we may go fearlessly forward
into the future. If the good Shepherd—"the great Shepherd of the sheep"—be our Guardian, we will "fear
no evil," though we walk through the valley of the shadow of death, though the darkest shadows shut us
round.—C.
8. KRETZMANN, “ And the Lord said, Like as My servant Isaiah hath walked naked and
barefoot three years, to bring home with great emphasis the lesson which the Lord wished to
convey, for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia, for a portentous type against the
double kingdom,

21. 9. POOLE, “Walked naked and barefoot three years; not constantly, but when he went abroad
among the people, to whom this was appointed for a sign. Some think it was only three days, a day being
usually put for a year in prophetical scriptures, as Num_14:33,34 Eze 4:4-6. But although a day be put
for a year, yet a year is never put for a day.
A sign; either,
1. When this judgment should come, to wit, three years after this prophecy. Or,
2. How long it should continue, for three years; for some have observed that the Chaldeans spent so
much time in conquering Egypt and Ethiopia.
10. CALVIN, “3.Three years. Why for such a period? Because that was the time granted to the
Egyptians and Ethiopians, during which the Lord gave them a truce for repentance, and at the same time
wished to make trial of the obedience of his people, that without delay they might relinquish unlawful aid,
and that, though the Egyptians and Ethiopians appeared to be secure, they might know that they were not
far from ruin. The Lord intended also to expose the rebellion of wicked men; for undoubtedly many
persons made an open display of their impiety when they despised the nakedness of the prophet, and the
godly, on the other hand, moved by the sight of his nakedness, though the prosperity of the Ethiopians
was delightfully attractive, still did not hesitate to fix their attention on the word. What they were bound to
consider was not the nakedness itself, but the mark which the Lord had put upon it; in the same manner
as, in the visible sacraments, we ought to behold those things which are invisible.
4
so the king of Assyria will lead away stripped and
barefoot the Egyptian captives and Cushiteexiles,
young and old, with buttocks bared—to Egypt’s
shame.
1.BARNES, “So shall the king of Assyria - The emphasis here is on the word “so.” As
Isaiah has walked naked, that is, stripped off his usual clothing, “so” shall the Egyptians and
Ethiopians be led away “stripped” of all their possessions.

22. The Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives - The Egyptians and
Ethiopians, or Cushites, were often united in an alliance, and appear to have been when this
prophecy was delivered. Thus Nah_3:8 :
Ethiopia and Egypt were her strength, and it was infinite;
Put and Lubim were thy helpers.
To the shame of Egypt - It shall be a disgrace to them to be subdued, and to be carried
captive in so humiliating a manner. It is remarked by Belzoni (‘Operations and Recent
Discoveries in Egypt and Nubia’), that in the figures on the remains of their temples, prisoners
are often represented as naked, or only in aprons, with disheveled hair, and with their hands
chained. He also remarks, that on a “bas-relief,” on the recently-discovered graves of the kings of
Thebes, a multitude of “Egyptian and Ethiopian prisoners” are represented - showing that Egypt
and Ethiopia were sometimes “allied,” alike in mutual defense and in bondage (compare
Isa_47:2, and Nah_3:5).
2. PULPIT, “So shall the King of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians
captives. In Sennacherib's annals for the year B.C. 701, twelve years after this prophecy was given, we
find the following passage: "The kings of Egypt, and the archers, chariots, and horsemen of the King of
Meroe, a force without number, gathered and came to the aid of Ekron. In the neighborhood of Eltekeh
their ranks were arrayed before me, and they urged on their soldiers. In the service of Asshur, my lord, I
fought with them, and I accomplished their overthrow. The charioteers and sons of the kings of
Egypt, and the charioteers of the King of Meroe, alive in the midst of the battle, my hand
captured". Young and old. The intermixture of young and old, of full-grown males with women leading
children by the hand or carrying them upon the shoulder, in the Assyrian sculptures, strikes us even on
the most cursory inspection of them. Naked and barefoot. Assyrian captives are ordinarily represented
"barefoot." Most commonly they wear a single tunic, reaching from the neck to the knees, or sometimes to
the ankles, and girt about the waist with a girdle. It is probable that Egyptian and Ethiopian prisoners
would be even more scantily clad, since the ordinary Egyptian tunic began at the waist and ended
considerably above the knee.
3. GILL, “So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the
Ethiopians captives,.... As beasts are led or driven, being taken prisoners, and carried captive
by the king of Assyria, namely Sargon, whoever is intended by him:
young and old; without any regard to age, sparing none for their tender years or gray hairs:
naked and barefoot; as prisoners of war commonly are, being stripped by their conquerors of
their clothes, and having only a few rags given them to cover their nakedness with, and obliged
to travel without shoes on their feet:

23. even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt; having no clothes on them
to cover those parts; or the skirts of their garments cut off, as David's servants were by the
Ammonites, 2Sa_10:4 and this to humble and mortify the pride of the Egyptians.
4. JAMISON, “buttocks uncovered — Belzoni says that captives are found represented thus
on Egyptian monuments (Isa_47:2, Isa_47:3; Nah_3:5, Nah_3:8, Nah_3:9), where as here,
Egypt and Ethiopia are mentioned as in alliance.
5. KRETZMANN, “ so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the
Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, as foretold by the symbolic act of
Isaiah, even with their buttocks uncovered, as a sign of extreme disgrace, 2Sa_10:4-5, to the shame
of Egypt.
6. POOLE, “Lead away, like beasts, of which this word is commonly used.
Their buttocks uncovered; having their garments cut off by the middle, to the discovery of their
buttocks and their secret parts. Compare 2Sa_10:4 Isa_47:2.
7. CALVIN, “4.The captivity of Egypt and the removal of Ethiopia. (61) The words “” and “” are taken
collectively, to denote the multitude of captives and emigrants. Next, he shews that there will be no
distinction of age, declaring that the old, as well as the young, shall be led into captivity.
5
Those who trusted in Cush and boasted in Egypt will
be dismayed and put to shame.
1.BARNES, “And they shall be afraid - The Jews, or the party or faction among the Jews,
that were expecting aid from allied Ethiopia and Egypt. When they shall see them vanquished,
they shall apprehend a similar danger to themselves; and they shall be ashamed that they ever
confided in a people so little able to aid them, instead of trusting in the arm of God.
Egypt their glory - Their boast, as if Egypt was able to save them. The word rendered here
‘glory’ (‫תפארת‬ tiph'ereth) means properly, “ornament, praise, honor;” and then it may mean the
“object” of glory, or that in which people boast or confide. That is its sense here (compare
Isa_10:12; Isa_13:19; Zec_12:7).

24. 2. PULPIT, “They shall be afraid and ashamed. Those who have resorted to Egypt and Ethiopia for aid
shall be "ashamed" of their folly in doing so, and "afraid" of its consequences (see the last clause
of Isa_20:6).
2B. PULPIT, “The bitter experience of all who trust in man.
The sin of Judah, in its latter days, was its reliance on Egypt for help rather than on God. In alarm at the
advance of Assyria, the natural alliance was with Egypt; but alliance with any world-power was unworthy
of a nation whose history had been so full of Divine deliverings and defendings as that of the Jews. And
Egypt could not help. It was a broken reed. A type of all merely human helpers; for "cursed is the man
that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord." Hoses
represents Israel as finding out how vain is the help of man, and turning to God with this penitential
promise, "Asshur shall not save us; we will not ride upon horses: neither will we say any more to the work
of our hands, Ye are our gods." The following three points open up lines of thought and illustration, and
should be sufficiently suggestive without detailed treatment.
I. WE CANNOT TRUST MAN, FOR WE CANNOT BE SURE OF HIS GOOD WILL. These two dangers
are ever before us:
1. The man who seems willing to serve us may be deceiving us, and really serving his own ends, setting
his interests before ours.
2. And if a man begins sincerely to serve us, we have no security that his good will is maintained, and
presently he may take advantage of us. We cannot read hearts. And hearts do not always keep steadfast.
So "put not your trust in princes, nor in the sons of men, in whom there is no help."
II. WE CANNOT TRUST MAN, FOR WE CANNOT BE SURE THAT HIS ABILITY MATCHES HIS WILL.
So often we find in life that men who could, will not help us, and men who would, cannot. With this sort of
feeling in his mind the sufferer came to the "Man Christ Jesus," saying, "Ifthou wilt, thou canst make me
clean."
III. WE CAN NEVER RECKON ON MAN IF HE IS AGAINST GOD. Such a man can never be any help to
us. The Jews forsook God to seek help from a godless nation, and it was bound to prove a bitter and

25. humiliating experience. Man may be, and often is, God's agent for helping us; but then our trusting is in
God who sends, and not in the man who may be sent to do his bidding.—R.T.
3. GILL, “And they shall be afraid and ashamed,.... That is, those that trusted and
depended upon the Egyptians and Ethiopians, particularly the Jews after mentioned, shall be
"afraid" that it will be their turn next, that they also shall be taken and carried captive; and they
shall be "ashamed" that they have put their trust and confidence in those nations, and not in the
Lord:
of Ethiopia their expectation; from whom they expected assistance and protection,
particularly when Tirhakah king of Ethiopia went out against the king of Assyria, that he would
have been a match for him, and have overcome him, and so have freed them from such a
powerful enemy:
and of Egypt their glory; who was their ally, and a very potent one, and in whom they
gloried; but now should be ashamed, when both those people on whom they relied were carried
captive.
4. HENRY, “The use and application of this, Isa_20:5, Isa_20:6. 1. All that had any
dependence upon, or correspondence with, Egypt and Ethiopia, should now be ashamed of
them, and afraid of having any thing to do with them. Those countries that were in danger of
being overrun by the Assyrians expected that Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia, with his numerous
forces, would put a stop to the progress of their victorious arms, and be a barrier to his
neighbours; and with yet more assurance they gloried that Egypt, a kingdom so famous for
policy and prowess, would do their business, would oblige them to raise the siege of Ashdod and
retire with precipitation. But, instead of this, by attempting to oppose the king of Assyria they
did but expose themselves and make their country a prey to him. Hereupon all about them were
ashamed that ever they promised themselves any advantage from two such weak and cowardly
nations, and were more afraid now than ever they were of the growing greatness of the king of
Assyria, before whom Egypt and Ethiopia proved but as briers and thorns put to stop a
consuming fire, which do but make it burn the more strongly. Note, Those who make any
creature their expectation and glory, and so put it in the place of God, will sooner or later be
ashamed of it, and their disappointment in it will but increase their fear. See Eze_29:6,
Eze_29:7.
5. JAMISON, “they — the Philistine allies of Egypt who trusted in it for help against Assyria. A
warning to the party among the Jews, who, though Judah was then the subordinate ally of
Assyria, were looking to Egypt as a preferable ally (Isa_30:7). Ethiopia was their “expectation”;
for Palestine had not yet obtained, but hoped for alliance with it. Egypt was their “glory,” that is,
boast (Isa_13:19); for the alliance with it was completed.
6. BI, “Unreasonable expectations

26. A great deal of the discomfort, a large proportion of the disappointments of the world, may be
traced to unreasonable expectations—to the fact that men will persist in expecting what they
have no right to expect at all, or to expect in that precise form or degree.
Indeed, so many of the expectations cherished in this world are so vain and unreasonable,
involving those who entertain them in such necessary disappointment, that someone has
sardonically observed, “Blessed is the man who expects nothing, for he shall never be
disappointed.” But, while we would not take so gloomy a view of human life as this, we cannot
help feeling that much of the worry and mortification of life may be accounted for by our
expecting what we have no right to expect. We all suffer from the same complaint, in larger or
lesser degree. The symptoms differ in different individuals; the disease is radically the same.
Young and old, rich and poor, learned and ignorant, masters and servants, buyers and sellers,
husbands and wives, parents and children, pastors and people—all, in some way or other, and to
some extent or other, are the victims of unreasonable expectations. Life with all of them would
be a brighter, smoother, pleasanter thing, if they expected less. As we grow older we ought to
grow wiser in this respect. Having regard only to the ordinary intercourse and social
relationships of life—how many complaints would be hushed, how much irritation would be
allayed, how much needless mortification be averted, how much resentment cease, how many
fancied slights and injuries appear inconsiderable, if, instead of brooding over our rights, which
we imagine have been withheld or invaded, we were to sit down, and quietly, dispassionately
consider what, living in a world like this, we might, on the whole, reasonably expect. If we were
thus to inquire we should find that we were getting more than we deserved; and that, for the
most part, we were being treated by others quite as fairly, honourably, and tenderly as we were
in the habit of treating them. (T. M. Morris.)
Unreasonable expectations in relation to religion
The subject of unreasonable expectations is of almost illimitable extent, and in further dwelling
upon it I would limit my remarks to three points—
I. THE THINGS WHICH GOD’S PEOPLE UNREASONABLY EXPECT. Nothing can be more
plain than that our expectations as Christians should be limited by the teaching and promise of
God’s Word. We are safe so long as we rest in the promise of God.
I. It is unreasonable to expect that you can place yourselves in any false position, form any
unworthy association, engage in any questionable occupation, and be saved from the natural
consequences of so doing. Lot was a very good man, but he made a very great mistake. If, in your
legitimate business,—if, in sustaining any of the just relationships of life, you meet with danger
or temptation, you may reasonably expect that God will grant you all the necessary assistance
and protection. But if the danger or temptation be of your own seeking, it is likely that God will
teach you wisdom by leaving you to endure the consequences of your rashness or perversity. It is
unreasonable for you to expect that you can touch pitch and not be defiled, take fire in your
bosom and not be burned, nourish a viper and not be stung.
2. It is unreasonable to expect that you should grow in grace, or realise any very high degree
of enjoyment in the Divine life, if all the while you are neglecting or insufficiently using the
means of growth, the sources of enjoyment which are placed within your reach.
3. It is unreasonable to expect in Christian life what our Master expressly warns us against
expecting. Many seem disappointed because they do not find the way of Christian pilgrimage
perfectly smooth and pleasant from its commencement to its close. Your Master tells you
plainly that you have to lay your account with suffering and trial, with disappointment and
danger. The Christian life is never represented as one of ease and self-indulgence, but rather

27. as a state of warfare. You are treading in the footsteps of those who, in uninterrupted
succession, have walked in the same rough way.
4. I might easily enumerate many other unreasonable expectations in which Christians are
tempted to indulge. It is unreasonable to expect results from unassisted human nature which
can only flow from Divine grace. It is unreasonable to expect from an attempted conformity
to the law what can only be secured by a simple dependence on the Gospel. It is
unreasonable to expect that we shall find on earth what can be only realised in heaven, or
that we can derive from any inferior and created source what can only be found in the centre
and sum of all excellency, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
II. THE THINGS WHICH ARE UNREASONABLY EXPECTED OF GOD’S PEOPLE.
1. There are those who make it a matter of reproach against religion, and prefer it as an
excuse for their unbelief, that the Gospel, the religion of the Cross, does not come up in
sundry particulars to their idea of what a religion which claims man’s acceptance and
confidence ought to be. Such objections we may dismiss as the fruit of unreasonable
expectations, for all, save the most shallow and pretentious of such objectors, are ready to
confess that there are “more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in their
philosophy.”
2. There are those who do not go so far as to object against religion as unreasonable, who
seem to resent it as an injury that any measure of mystery should attach to any of the
statements of Scripture. In reply to this, several things may be said. It might be said that,
taking into account what this revelation professes to be, it was reasonable to expect that the
truths communicated, while intelligible on the one side, should lose themselves in mystery
on the other. And it might be further remarked, in reference to many of those who thus
object, that they make but very little use of such light as they confessedly have. Is it not the
part of reason first of all to inquire whether the Bible be an authentic and authoritative
revelation from heaven to earth, and then, if its claims to be so regarded are substantiated to
the satisfaction of reason, is it not the very part and office of reason to sit submissively at the
feet of the Divine Teacher and learn of Him?
3. There are many who but very slightly interest themselves in the truth which Christians
hold, who seem to take much pleasure in narrowly scrutinising the lives which Christians
live. The real or alleged inconsistencies of professing Christians do not afford any ground of
reasonable objection against the Gospel, or any valid excuse for its continued rejection. In
judging of any practical system, we must have reference to what it professes to be, and to
accomplish. If you confine attention to those who are the sincere and genuine followers of
the Lamb, it is unreasonable to expect that they should manifest in this world an absolute
perfection of character. Such perfection, we believe, can be only realised when this body of
sin and death shall have been laid aside.
III. THE THINGS WHICH THOSE WHO ARE NOT GOD’S PEOPLE UNREASONABLY
EXPECT FOR THEMSELVES.
1. It is unreasonable to expect that anything which the world contains can meet the need, or
satisfy the desire, of man’s immortal soul.
2. It is unreasonable to expect that in religion anyone can serve two masters. No such thing
as neutrality is possible in religion, and, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as
indecision.
3. It is unreasonable to expect that sinful men can satisfy the requirements of the law, and
avert its penalty, by any obedience they can render, by any penance they can endure.

28. 4. It is unreasonable to expect that those who, enjoying Gospel light, die despising Gospel
grace, will be in any wise benefited by the uncovenanted mercies of God.
5. It is unreasonable to expect that you can spend a sinful, worldly life, and men have a
comfortable death and a happy eternity.
6. It is unreasonable to expect that, because you pass muster in this world, and occupy a
moderately creditable position among your fellow men, that therefore you will do
moderately well ]n another world; and that, if you do not shine forth conspicuously with the
best, you will go through the gates into the city, unnoticed among the crowd.
7. It is unreasonable to expect that, because sentence is not speedily executed against an evil
work, that therefore it never will be; and that, because the present order of things has
continued so long, that therefore it will continue forever. (T. M. Morris.).
7. PULPIT, “The insufficiency of the stronger.
Assyria attacked Ashdod with designs on Judaea. Judaea rested on Egypt and Ethiopia; but these
"powers" would be utterly defeated by Assyria, and their citizens led away into captivity with every
circumstance of humiliation and shame. In that hour of fear and humiliation (Isa_20:5) the inhabitants of
Judaea would be constrained to argue from the insufficiency of Egypt and Ethiopia to their own
helplessness. If such strong nations as these are ignominiously overthrown, "how shall we escape?" We
conclude—
I. THAT TIMES OF SEVERE TRIAL AWAIT US ALL. Not only collectively but individually considered. As
separate, individual souls we must anticipate that the future has in store for us not only the pleasant, the
gratifying, the successful, but also the unpleasant, the painful, even the overwhelming. Some of the more
crushing sorrows it may be our fortune to escape, but every one of us will have his share. Sickness which
threatens to be fatal; bitter disappointment which appears to throw the whole future path into darkest
shadow; bereavement which takes away the very light of our eyes; the sudden loss which strips the tree
of branch as well as bloom; the financial or (what is a thousand times worse) the moral failure of beloved
friend or near relation; the last illness unexpectedly arriving and extinguishing many a cherished purpose;
the powerful temptation inviting and almost constraining to folly, or vice, or crime;—one or more el these
things, or things as bad as these, will certainly overtake us all.
II. THAT THOSE WHO ARE STRONGER THAN WE ARE SOMETIMES FOUND TO BREAK BENEATH
THE BLOW. We hear or read of men who in mental capacity, in educational advantages, in worldly
endowments, or in the number of their friends, are superior to ourselves, but who cannot stand the strain
of their trial. Either their health breaks down, or their sanity seriously suffers, or their faith fails, or their

29. courage and energy succumb, or their moral character is lost, and consequently their reputation is
shattered, never to be restored.
III. THAT IF THESE STRONGER SOULS ARE BEATEN, WE MUST BE IN DANGER OF DEFEAT. If
Egypt and Ethiopia are led into captivity, how shall Judaea be delivered—"how shall we escape?" The
storm in which such noble vessels founder will wreck our fragile bark. On any ordinary human calculations
we cannot hope to be victorious where spirits so much stronger and wiser than we are have been
crushed. But we need not yield to despondency; if we are the disciples and followers of Jesus Christ, and
if, therefore, "the Lord is on our side," we may find relief and rest in the thought—
IV. THAT WE HAVE A SAFE REFUGE IN AN ALMIGHTY SAVIOR. So long as Judea was faithful to
Jehovah, she had no need to be afraid of Assyria, and she could afford to witness the overthrow of the
Egyptian and Ethiopian armies. So long as we are loyal to our Divine Lord we may go fearlessly forward
into the future. If the good Shepherd—"the great Shepherd of the sheep"—be our Guardian, we will "fear
no evil," though we walk through the valley of the shadow of death, though the darkest shadows shut us
round.—C.
8. KRETZMANN, “And they, the inhabitants of Palestine, also the Jews, who looked to Egypt as a
possible ally against Assyria, shall be afraid and ashamed of Ethiopia, their expectation, finding
themselves disappointed in their hopes of help from this quarter, and of Egypt, their glory, of whose
power they had boasted and on whose strength they had relied.
9. POOLE, “They; all they that shall trust to them, and glory in them, as appears from the following
words; the pronoun they being put indefinitely here, as it is Isa_2:19, and elsewhere. But under this
general expression the Israelites not only are comprehended, but seem to be principally intended,
because to them this prophecy was delivered, and they were eminently guilty of this sin; of which
see Isa_30:2 31:1.
10. CALVIN, “5.And they shall be afraid. He now shews for whose benefit he had foretold these things
about the Egyptians and Ethiopians. It was in order that the Jews might learn amidst their afflictions to
hope in God, and might not have recourse to foreign aid, which the Lord had forbidden.

30. 6
In that day the people who live on this coast will say,
‘See what has happened to those we relied on, those we
fled to for help and deliverance from the king of
Assyria! How then can we escape?’”
1.BARNES, “And the inhabitant - The dwellers generally.
Of this isle - The word ‫אי‬ 'iy “isle” is used here in the sense of “coast, or maritime” country,
and is evidently applied to Palestine, or the land of Canaan, which is a narrow coast lying on the
Mediterranean. That the word is often used in this sense, and may be applied to a maritime
country, see the notes at Isa_13:22; Isa_41:1. The connection here requires us to understand it
of Palestine.
Shall say ... - Shall condemn their own folly in trusting in Egypt, and seeking deliverance
there.
And how shall we escape? - They shall be alarmed for their own safety, for the very nation
on which they had relied had been made captive. And when the “stronger” had been subdued,
how could the feeble and dependent escape a similar overthrow and captivity? All this was
designed to show them the folly of trusting in the aid of another nation, and to lead them to put
confidence in the God of their fathers.
2. PULPIT, “The inhabitant of this isle; rather, of this coast (Knobel, Hitzig, Kay); i.e. of Palestine
generally, which was a mere strip of coast compared with Egypt and Ethiopia. Sargon speaks of all the
four powers who at this time "sought to Egypt," as "dwelling beside the sea". Such is our expectation;
rather, so hath it gone with our expectation; i.e; with Egypt and Ethiopia.
3. GILL, “And the inhabitants of this isle shall say, in that day,.... Not of Ashdod,
Isa_20:1 or the isle of Caphtor, Jer_47:4 but the land of Israel, as both Jarchi and Kimchi
interpret it; so called, because it bordered on the sea, as such countries are sometimes called
isles; see Jer_25:22. Ben Melech interprets it of Jerusalem, and observes that the word signifies
a place or country, whether it has a river or sea encompassing it, or not; besides, the land of
Canaan had the Mediterranean sea on one side of it, and the sea of Galilee and Tiberias on the
other, and was moreover separated from all other countries by the power, providence, and
presence of God:

31. behold, such is our expectation, whither we flee for help, to be delivered from the
king of Assyria; signifying that it was vain and foolish, and they had acted a very weak, as well
as a wicked part, in having recourse to the Egyptians and Ethiopians to help them against the
Assyrians, as it plainly appeared by both nations now being conquered by them:
and how shall we escape? seeing they had not, who were more powerful than they were; and
how could they think that they could save them, who could not save themselves? and so the
Targum,
"if they have not delivered their souls (themselves), how shall we be delivered?''
4. HENRY, “The Jews in particular should be convinced of their folly in resting upon such
broken reeds, and should despair of any relief from them (Isa_20:6): The inhabitants of this isle
(the land of Judah, situated upon the sea, though not surrounded by it), of this country (so the
margin); every one shall now have his eyes opened, and shall say, “Behold, such is our
expectation, so vain, so foolish, and this is that which it will come to. We have fled for help to the
Egyptians and Ethiopians, and have hoped by them to be delivered from the king of Assyria; but,
now that they are broken thus, how shall we escape, that are not able to bring such armies into
the field as they did?” Note, (1.) Those that confide in creatures will be disappointed, and will be
made ashamed of their confidence; for vain is the help of man, and in vain is salvation hoped
for from the hills or the height and multitude of the mountains. (2.) Disappointment in creature
confidences, instead of driving us to despair, as here (how shall we escape?), should drive us to
God; for, if we flee to him for help, our expectation shall not be frustrated.
5. JAMISON, “isle — that is, coast on the Mediterranean - Philistia, perhaps Phoenicia
(compare Isa_23:2; Isa_11:11; Isa_13:22; Psa_72:10).
we — emphatical; if Egypt, in which we trusted, was overcome, how shall we, a small weak
state, escape?
6. KRETZMANN, “ And the inhabitants of this isle, of the coastal country along the Mediterranean,
including Philistia, Phenicia, and the kingdom of Judah, shall say in that day, Behold, such is our
expectation, whither we flee for help to be delivered from the king of Assyria, that is, such was the
lot of those to whom they looked for help and deliverance from the power of Assyria; and how shall we
escape? The nation which they considered strong and mighty had proved itself powerless against the
common enemy; how, then, could the weaker states hope to escape? It is but another instance of the folly
of men in placing their trust in the power of flesh and believing that they can escape the Lord.
7. POOLE, “Of this isle; of this land, in which the prophet was, and to whose inhabitants these words
were uttered. For the title of isles or islands in Scripture is frequently given not only to lands

32. encompassed with the sea, but also to such countries as lay upon the sea-coasts,
as Psa_72:10Eze_26:15,18, as Palestine or Canaan did, yea, to such countries as are remote or
separated from that place in or of which the words are spoken, as Est_10:1 Isa_24:15 42:4,10, &c, as
Canaan was from Egypt, or at least from Ethiopia. Add to this, that Canaan had some resemblance with
an isle, either because it was almost encompassed with the Midland Sea on one side, and with the Dead
Sea, and the Sea of Galilee or Tiberius and Jordan on the other side; or because, as isles are separated
from other lands by the sea, so this land and people were seoarated from all the rest of the world by
God’s special providence, and presence, and worship.
Such is our expectation; so vain is our hope placed upon such a people as are unable to deliver
themselves, and much more to deliver us.
Whither we flee for help; to whom we now and usually trust; for this was the common disease of the
people of Israel, although Hezekiah was in a good measure free from it, as we read, 2Ki_18:5.
How shall we escape? either by their help, who cannot defend themselves; or by our own strength,
seeing they who were much more potent than we are could not escape.
8. CALVIN, “6.Lo, what is become of our expectation? He calls them expectation, or lurking, because
the Jews turned towards them, whenever they were oppressed by any calamity, and placed their hope in
them. We are accustomed to turn our eyes to that quarter from which we expect any assistance. Hence
also, to “” often signifies, in the Hebrew language, to “” (Psa_34:5.) Now, they ought to have looked to
God alone. Their wandering levity is therefore censured. And the same thing must happen to us, and
deservedly, that when we have been invited by God, and refuse the sure refuge which he offers to us,
and allow ourselves to be captivated by the delusions of Satan, we may lie down naked and destitute with
shame and disgrace.
And the inhabitants of the island shall say. He gives the name island not only to Jerusalem, but to the
whole of Judea; and it is generally thought that the name is given because its shores are washed by the
Mediterranean sea. But I think that there is a different reason for this metaphor, for it is but a small portion
of the sea that washes it; but as an island is separated from other lands, so the Lord separated Judea
from other countries. It was kept apart from all the nations, which cherished a mortal hatred towards the
Jews; for there was a “” between them, as Paul says, (Eph_2:14,) which Christ at length threw down.
Here again Isaiah confirms his prophecy. If you are not now moved by my nakedness, you shall one day

33. be taught by the event, that these words were not spoken to you in vain. Thus, at a late hour, obstinate
and rebellious men are constrained by God to confess their guilt, so that they are struck with amazement,
and argue within themselves how they could be so greatly blinded by their own stubbornness.
Footnotes:
a. Isaiah 20:3 That is, the upper Nile region; also in verse 5
New International Version (NIV)
Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica,
Inc.®Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.