Cornelius a Lapide
Table of Contents
Synopsis of the Chapter
What he separately foretold in chapter 18 about Ethiopia and in chapter 19 about the devastation of Egypt, he here foretells jointly, and threatens both with terrible destruction by the Assyrians. On this account Isaiah is commanded to go about naked, to portend the despoiling of Egypt and Ethiopia, and the nakedness of captives.
Vulgate Text: Isaiah 20:1-6
1. In the year that Tartan came to Ashdod, when Sargon the king of the Assyrians sent him, and he fought against Ashdod and took it: 2. at that time the Lord spoke by the hand of Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying: Go, and loose the sackcloth from your loins, and take your sandals off your feet. And he did so, going about naked and barefoot. 3. And the Lord said: Just as My servant Isaiah has walked naked and barefoot, it will be a sign and a portent for three years over Egypt and over Ethiopia: 4. so the king of the Assyrians will drive away the captivity of Egypt and the exile of Ethiopia, of young and old, naked and barefoot, with buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt. 5. And they will be afraid and confounded because of Ethiopia, their hope, and because of Egypt, their glory. 6. And the inhabitant of this island will say in that day: Behold, this was our hope, to whom we fled for help, that they might deliver us from the face of the king of the Assyrians: and how shall we be able to escape?
Verse 1: In the Year that Tartan Came to Ashdod, When Sargon Sent Him
1. IN THE YEAR THAT TARTAN CAME TO ASHDOD, WHEN SARGON SENT HIM. Sanchez thinks that Sargon is Shalmaneser, the father of Sennacherib, who in the sixth year of Hezekiah devastated Samaria, and then invaded the neighboring Philistines and besieged Ashdod, sending there his general Tartan.
But others generally, as St. Jerome attests, judge that Sargon is Sennacherib, who had several names. For Tartan, who is said here to have been sent by Sargon, is the same one who in 4 Kings 18:17 is said to have been sent by Sennacherib; therefore Sargon is Sennacherib. For it was not Shalmaneser, as all admit, but Sennacherib who devastated Egypt and Ethiopia. Josephus expressly teaches this, book X of Antiquities, chapter 1: "In the fourteenth year of Hezekiah," he says, "Sennacherib attacked him with a most well-equipped army, and took all the cities of Judah and Benjamin, and was about to move his camp against Jerusalem; but Hezekiah made peace with him through ambassadors, on the condition that he pay three hundred talents of silver and thirty of gold. The Assyrian accepted the money but did not keep the agreement. For he himself set out with his forces against the Egyptians and Ethiopians, and left the general Rabshakeh to continue the war against Jerusalem." Josephus cites Berossus at the end of the chapter, who likewise reports that Sennacherib harassed all Asia and Egypt with war. From this you may gather that the Berossus of Annius, in whom there is no mention of Sennacherib, is very different from the true Berossus. Herodotus also teaches the same, book II: but from what he had heard from sacred history, that the camp of Sennacherib was destroyed from heaven, he fabricated the story that he was routed by the Egyptians and Ethiopians through mice, which they had obtained from their gods: "For in one night," he says, "such a multitude of mice appeared in the camp of Sennacherib that they gnawed away the bows and the rest of the enemy's weapons; wherefore the disarmed king withdrew his army from Pelusium." But these are the fables of Gentiles envious of the Jews. From what has been said it is clear that this prophecy of Isaiah occurred in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah.
You will say: Sennacherib, in 4 Kings 18, is said only to have come against Judah. I respond: Directly, and in person he came against Judah, but incidentally he also came against the neighbors: hence while remaining himself in Judea, he sent Tartan to Ashdod with part of his forces. Isaiah therefore prophesies here against the Egyptians and Ethiopians, lest when Sennacherib approaches, Hezekiah and the Jews should flee as usual to their help, but rather should place their hope in God.
Verse 2: Loose the Sackcloth
2. LOOSE THE SACKCLOTH. Those who think this was merely an imaginary vision and that Isaiah did not really go about naked, but only seemed so to himself in a vision, are in error. Note: The sackcloth of Isaiah and the Prophets was a haircloth, woven from the hair of goats or camels, and they wore it upon their bare flesh, as the Capuchins do, just as the king of Israel did, 4 Kings 6:30, and Judith, chapter 8, verse 6 (for it was worn upon bare flesh; for if someone wore the haircloth not upon bare skin but only outwardly, he would be considered a hypocrite); for it was a garment of austerity and penance, so that they might give an example to the people and move them to repentance, and at the same time make satisfaction to God for the sins of the people and obtain pardon and grace for them from God. This is clear from the fact that false prophets, pretending to be Prophets, clothed themselves in haircloth, as Ezekiel says, chapter 13:5: "Nor will they be covered," he says, "with a sackcloth mantle, so as to deceive."
And this was the clothing of the prophet Elijah; for he was "a hairy man, and girded with a leather belt about his loins," 4 Kings 1:8; and of St. John the Baptist, whose garment was rough, made of camel's hair. Cast this habit in the face of soft heretics, who adorn themselves like the suitors of Penelope, and therefore criticize the distinctive habit of the Capuchins and monks. Thus Clement of Alexandria, in book II of the Pedagogue, shows that the clothing of Isaiah and the Prophets was rough: "Elijah," he says, "used a sheepskin as his garment, and bound the sheepskin with a belt made of hair. Isaiah indeed was naked and wore no shoes; but he also often wore sackcloth, which is a garment of humility. And if you also summon Jeremiah, he had only a linen girdle. But just as well-nourished bodies, if they are bare, more openly display their strength and vigor: so also the beauty of character, if it is not wrapped in foolish trifles, more clearly shows greatness and magnificence of soul."
Note second: Hugo, Forerius, and Sanchez think that Isaiah was not entirely naked, but had laid aside his outer garment, which was the haircloth and prophetic garb (without which he went about improperly, as if he were a mere commoner), and retained his inner shorter tunic, which covered his private parts, in the same way that Saul, 1 Kings 19:24, is said to have fallen "naked," that is, having laid aside his royal mantle; and David "naked," that is, having laid aside his royal attire, danced before the ark; for he is said to have been wearing a linen ephod, so he was not entirely naked. The reason is that Isaiah by this nakedness was portending the nakedness of the Ethiopian and Egyptian captives; but they were not going to be entirely naked, but clothed in torn and short garments. A similar mortification would be if a Religious, having laid aside his religious habit, were ordered to go out in public in his shirt and breeches. This opinion is probable, and more chaste and honorable in appearance.
But St. Jerome, St. Cyril (and St. Ambrose indicates the same in Psalm 39), Haymo, Dionysius, and Adam judge that Isaiah was entirely naked, even in those parts which natural modesty especially covers. And this is proven first, because in verse 4 it is said that, just as Isaiah went about naked, "so the king of the Assyrians will drive away the captives of Egypt, etc., with buttocks uncovered (the Chaldean translates, 'private parts') to the shame of Egypt"; therefore likewise Isaiah went about with naked buttocks. If with naked buttocks, what wonder if he went about naked in the rest of his body? Indeed, if his body was covered elsewhere but he went about with naked buttocks, this mockery was all the more shameful, this spectacle of the Prophet all the more ignominious. Therefore that Pintus and Montanus leave Isaiah his undergarments is not only said without proof, but also contradicts this Scripture, as well as the custom of the Hebrews, who do not customarily use undergarments or breeches, but long tunics, in the manner of Orientals. We gather this from the fact that God commanded the priest when sacrificing to wear breeches, as if otherwise the priest, just like laypeople, would lack them according to the custom of the nation; therefore breeches were the garment not of laypeople, but of priests, and a sacred garment; and this was so that, if during the sacrifice the priest's robe should open or spread apart, their bare thighs would not be visible, as I explained in Exodus 28:42.
Second, because sackcloth was a garment of penance worn upon bare flesh, as I said: therefore, taking off the sackcloth or haircloth, he was entirely naked.
Third, because Isaiah is said here to have become a portent to the people: but it is a portent if someone goes about entirely naked, not if in common clothing. And thus Ezekiel became a portent, eating cow dung and lying on one side for 390 days; and Jeremiah, when he went about laden with chains; and Zechariah, when he took up the instruments of a foolish shepherd; and Hosea, when he married a harlot. For God from time to time commanded the Prophets to do certain completely extraordinary things, in order to strike and bend the hard minds of the Jews, which were otherwise immovable and inflexible.
Fourth, because by this nakedness he portended the extreme shame as well as the despoiling and poverty of the Egyptians; therefore he was plainly naked.
Fifth, because allegorically he represented the nakedness of Christ on the cross, which was complete and total, to atone for the sin and concupiscence of Adam, and the shame and embarrassment arising from it: for they were ashamed because they saw themselves entirely naked in those members in which lust and concupiscence rebelling against reason hold sway. For this is what should cause man shame and embarrassment. And to atone for this nakedness and shame of Adam, Christ on the cross took it upon Himself to expiate it, and this was for the virginal Christ an immense ignominy, shame, and cross. Christ therefore hung on the cross entirely naked, just as He had come forth from His Mother's womb. So teach St. Ambrose, Athanasius, St. Bonaventure, and from them Francisco Suarez, Part III, Question 46, article 8, section 4, and Jacob Gretser, book I On the Cross, chapters 22ff., and Francisco Lucas on Matthew 27, and others.
You will say: To go about completely naked is shameful and scandalous, and an incentive to lust; therefore God did not command this of Isaiah. I respond to the premise that this is true if it is done voluntarily and from wantonness, but not if it is done out of necessity, as when someone flees naked from a fire or from the destruction of a city; or if it is done by the will and command of God: for then God's command wipes away all ugliness from this nakedness. But here it was clear to the Jews that Isaiah was a Prophet of God and was going about naked by God's command, and this in order to represent that the people would likewise be stripped by the enemy; hence his nakedness excited them more to fear and dread than to lust: especially because his body, already made hairy, worn out by leanness and fasting, moved horror rather than concupiscence.
Thus God, commanding Hosea the Prophet, an honorable man, to marry a vile harlot (which was shameful and unworthy), wiped away all ugliness from this act. Thus God, granting polygamy to Abraham, Jacob, and others, removed all turpitude from it by this dispensation of His. Thus God commanded not only that the genital parts be bared, but also that they be circumcised.
Note second, with St. Jerome and others, the remarkable obedience and mortification of Isaiah here: that a noble man of royal lineage was not ashamed to go about for three days in a most famous city, preaching at midday, completely naked. For although this was in itself unbecoming and ugly, yet it was made honorable, and was an act of remarkable virtue by God's command: "For nothing is more honorable than the precepts of God," says St. Jerome. And this was so that by that three-day period and his three-day nakedness, by his very action and walking, he might represent the three-year period of captivity, namely, that for three years Egypt and Ethiopia would be devastated and stripped of all things, and people would be led away naked from there to their shame: for here a day of Isaiah, as also of Ezekiel chapter 4, verse 6, was counted for a year. So say St. Jerome and Cyril.
Forerius holds that Isaiah walked naked not merely for three days but for a full three years; and the Septuagint has this according to the Caraffa edition, although the Complutensian edition and others omit the phrase "for three years." But this does not seem true: for by this three-day period of nakedness, he portended that a three-year period of captivity of Egypt was to come; and that was to come not after three years but after three days from this prophecy. For Sennacherib in this same fourteenth year of Hezekiah, in which he attacked Judah, proceeded against Tirhakah and the Ethiopians, as I shall say at verse 3.
Verse 3: Just as He Walked
3. JUST AS HE WALKED. Refer these words to verse 4: "So the king will drive away": for there the comparison is completed by the conclusion. The rest therefore that intervenes, namely, "a sign of three years" up to "so," must be enclosed in a parenthesis.
IT WILL BE A SIGN AND A PORTENT OF THREE YEARS. Supply "which," namely, the walking of Isaiah will be a portent of three years. This can be explained in two ways: first, that this three-day nakedness of Isaiah portends that the devastation of Egypt and Ethiopia will come three years after this prophecy; second, and better, that this devastation will last for three years. For it began in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah, when Sennacherib, hearing that Tirhakah king of the Ethiopians was approaching, marched against him, leaving Rabshakeh in Judea, as Josephus teaches, book X of Antiquities 1, and Scripture, 4 Kings 19:9; and after three years he returned to Jerusalem, where he was struck by the Angel, as is clear from the same passage, verse 35, and Isaiah 37:36. He was therefore absent, occupied with the war and devastation of Egypt and Ethiopia, for three years. So says Sanchez. Therefore what Josephus adds in the same place: "Sennacherib spent much time preparing the siege of Pelusium, and had already nearly raised the siege-mound to the level of the walls, and seemed about to make an assault any day, when he heard that Tirhakah (this is Tarsicem) king of the Ethiopians was approaching to bring aid to the Egyptians: terrified by this rumor, he hastily departed with his men" -- these words, I say, do not sufficiently agree with his previous statements, nor with Scripture, which teaches that Sennacherib heard of the approach of Tirhakah not at Pelusium but in Judea: and it seems that Josephus drew these details from Herodotus, who here is plainly fabulous. Therefore without merit does a learned man, moved by these words of Josephus, refer this destruction of Egypt and Ethiopia here foretold by Isaiah to the times of Esarhaddon, the son of Sennacherib; or rather to Nebuchadnezzar, who three years after the destruction of Jerusalem devastated Egypt and Ethiopia.
NAKED AND BAREFOOT. He expressly specifies, and to "naked" adds "barefoot," because in addition to the shame, walking barefoot caused the Prophet great trouble and affliction in traversing rough and stony ground; and it was to be even greater for the Egyptians and Ethiopians, who would go barefoot from Egypt on the very long and very difficult journey all the way to Babylon.
From this precept and act of Isaiah arose the heresy of the Barefooted, about which St. Augustine, in his book On Heresies, number 68, says: "There is another heresy," he says, "of those who always walk with bare feet, because the Lord said to Moses or to Joshua: Take off your shoes from your feet, Exodus 3, Joshua 5; and because the prophet Isaiah was ordered to walk with bare feet."
Verse 4: So He will Drive Away (like cattle, that
4. SO HE WILL DRIVE AWAY (like cattle, that is, like slaves captured in war: for the victors properly drive these before them, as shepherds drive their flocks) THE CAPTIVITY (the captives) OF EGYPT, AND THE EXILE (those who migrate and are carried off) OF ETHIOPIA, YOUNG AND OLD. For the young administer and defend the state with arms, the old with counsel. "For the counsels of old men are the spears of the young," says Pindar, as cited by Plutarch in his Life of Lycurgus. And Aristotle, book VII of the Politics, chapter 9: "Strength," he says, "is in the young, prudence is in the old." And the Poet:
The works of men, the battles of the young, but the counsels belong to the old.
WITH BUTTOCKS UNCOVERED, TO THE SHAME OF EGYPT. Some explain "with buttocks uncovered" as meaning, that is to say, with garments cut short up to the buttocks, as Hanun did, 2 Kings 10:4. But "cut short" is one thing, "uncovered" is another. Barbarian conquerors were accustomed, either for mockery or for lust, to uncover those parts of their captive enemies which modesty covers. Isaiah teaches this here, and in chapter 47, verse 2, concerning Babylon: "Lay bare," He says, "your shame, uncover your legs," etc.; and Nahum, chapter 3, verse 5: "I will reveal," He says, "your shame to the nations, and your disgrace"; and elsewhere God frequently threatens that He "will uncover the shame, will reveal the private or more modest parts" of this or that nation.
Verse 5: And They will be Afraid, that is to
5. AND THEY WILL BE AFRAID, that is to say: The Jews, who up to now had placed their hope in the Egyptians and Ethiopians, and gloried in their help and forces, will be afraid and confounded when they see them so ignominiously captured and devastated.
Verse 6: And the Inhabitant of this Island will Say
6. AND THE INHABITANT OF THIS ISLAND WILL SAY. Judea is here metaphorically called an island. First, because it was situated between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean. Second, because it was small in comparison with Babylon, which is called a sea in the next chapter, verse 1. Third, and more likely, because, as St. Jerome explains, it was battered by the waves and wars of neighboring nations, especially the Assyrians and Egyptians, just as an island is battered on all sides by the waves of the sea. Fourth, because just as an island alone rises above the sea and lifts its head while the rest is submerged by the sea, so Jerusalem alone raised its head and escaped when Sennacherib overwhelmed the cities of Judea like a sea with his forces: for this is what he said in chapter 8, verse 8: "He will pass through Judah, flooding and overflowing, he will reach even to the neck," that is to say: Sennacherib will overwhelm Judea up to the neck, so that only Jerusalem, which is the head, will rise above and be saved. So says Sanchez. These last two meanings are the most fitting and genuine.