For he saith, Are not my princes altogether kings? Jump to: Barnes • Benson • BI • Calvin • Cambridge • Clarke • Darby • Ellicott • Expositor's • Exp Dct • Gaebelein • GSB • Gill • Gray • Guzik • Haydock • Hastings • Homiletics • JFB • KD • Kelly • King • Lange • MacLaren • MHC • MHCW • Parker • Poole • Pulpit • Sermon • SCO • Teed • TTB • WES • TSK EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE) (8) Are not my princes altogether kings?—So Tiglath-pileser names the twenty-three kings (Ahaz and Pekah among them) who came to do homage and pay tribute at Damascus (Records of the Past, v. 5-26).Isaiah 10:8-10. For he saith, Are not my princes, &c. — Are they not equal for power, and wealth, and glory, to the kings of other nations, though they be my subjects and servants? Is not Calno as Carchemish? — Have I not conquered one place as well as another, the stronger as well as the weaker? Have I not from time to time added new conquests to the old? None of those cities, against which he had turned his arms, had been able to resist him; but he had subjugated them all. Calno, Carchemish, Hamath, and Arpad, were cities of Syria and Israel, which this mighty monarch had subdued. Is not Samaria — Or, Shall not Samaria be, as Damascus? — Shall I not take that as I have done this city? For although Damascus, possibly, was not yet taken by the Assyrians, yet the prophet speaks of it as actually taken, because these words are prophetically delivered, and supposed to be uttered by the king of Assyria, at or about the time of the siege of Samaria, when Damascus was taken. As my hand hath found — Hath taken, as this word is often used, the kingdoms of the idols — Which worshipped their own idols, and vainly imagined that they could protect them from my power. He calls the gods of the nations, not excepting Jerusalem, idols, by way of contempt, because none of them could deliver their people out of his hands, and because he judged them to be but petty gods, far inferior to the sun, which was the god of the Assyrians. Whose graven images did excel them of Jerusalem — Namely, in reputation and power. Which blasphemy of his proceeded from his deep ignorance of the true God.10:5-19 See what a change sin made. The king of Assyria, in his pride, thought to act by his own will. The tyrants of the world are tools of Providence. God designs to correct his people for their hypocrisy, and bring them nearer to him; but is that Sennacherib's design? No; he designs to gratify his own covetousness and ambition. The Assyrian boasts what great things he has done to other nations, by his own policy and power. He knows not that it is God who makes him what he is, and puts the staff into his hand. He had done all this with ease; none moved the wing, or cried as birds do when their nests are rifled. Because he conquered Samaria, he thinks Jerusalem would fall of course. It was lamentable that Jerusalem should have set up graven images, and we cannot wonder that she was excelled in them by the heathen. But is it not equally foolish for Christians to emulate the people of the world in vanities, instead of keeping to things which are their special honour? For a tool to boast, or to strive against him that formed it, would not be more out of the way, than for Sennacherib to vaunt himself against Jehovah. When God brings his people into trouble, it is to bring sin to their remembrance, and humble them, and to awaken them to a sense of their duty; this must be the fruit, even the taking away of sin. When these points are gained by the affliction, it shall be removed in mercy. This attempt upon Zion and Jerusalem should come to nothing. God will be as a fire to consume the workers of iniquity, both soul and body. The desolation should be as when a standard-bearer fainteth, and those who follow are put to confusion. Who is able to stand before this great and holy Lord God?For he saith - This verse, and the subsequent verses to Isaiah 10:11, contain the vaunting of the king of Assyria, and the descriptions of his own confidence of success. Are not my princes altogether kings? - This is a confident boast of his "own" might and power. His own dominion was so great that even his princes were endowed with the ordinary power and "regalia" of kings. The word "princes," may here refer either to those of his own family and court - to the satraps and officers of power in his army, or around his throne: or more probably, it may refer to the subordinate governors whom he had set over the provinces which he had conquered. 'Are they not clothed with royal power and majesty? Are they not of equal splendor with the other monarchs at the earth?' How great, then, must have been his "own" rank and glory to be placed "over" such illustrious sovereigns! It will be recollected, that a common title which oriental monarchs give themselves, is that of King of kings; see Ezekiel 26:7; Daniel 2:37; Ezra 7:12. The oriental princes are still distinguished for their sounding titles, and particularly for their claiming dominion over all other princes, and the supremacy over all other earthly powers. 8-11. Vauntings of the Assyrians. Illustrated by the self-laudatory inscriptions of Assyria deciphered by Hincks.princes … kings—Eastern satraps and governors of provinces often had the title and diadem of kings. Hence the title, "King of kings," implying the greatness of Him who was over them (Eze 26:7; Ezr 7:12). Equal for power, and wealth, and glory to the kings of other nations, though my subjects and servants.For he saith, are not my princes altogether kings? Meaning either the kings which he had conquered, which were become his princes and subjects; or rather, such were the greatness and glory of his nobles, that they were equal in their riches and dominions to kings, and so were able to furnish him with men and money for such an expedition he had in his heart to undertake, even to conquer and subdue all the nations of the earth: and this he said either to his people, boasting of his grandeur; or in his heart, as Kimchi observes, to encourage himself; or rather more openly before others, in order to discourage and inject terror into the nations he meant to destroy, and particularly the inhabitants of Jerusalem. For he saith, Are not my princes altogether kings? EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES) 8. Are not my officers altogether kings?] Many of them really were subjugated kings (2 Kings 25:28), and any one of them excelled in dignity the petty sovereigns of the independent states (see ch. Isaiah 36:9). The title “King of Kings” (Ezekiel 26:7) was already assumed by Assyrian monarchs.8–11. The first speech of the Assyrian. Verse 8. - Are not my princes altogether kings? One mark of the superiority of Assyria to other countries was to be seen in the fact that her king had not mere officers, but vassal kings under him. Hence the title "king of kings" assumed by so many Assyrian monarchs. While conquered territories were by degrees and to a certain extent absorbed into the empire and placed under prefects (see the 'Eponym Canon'), an outer zone of more loosely organized dependencies was always maintained by the Assyrians; and these dependencies continued ordinarily to be administered by their native monarchs (see 'Ancient Monarchies,' vol. 2. pp. 524-526). These are the "princes" who were "altogether kings." Isaiah 10:8Asshur was to be an instrument of divine wrath upon all Israel; but it would exalt itself, and make itself the end instead of the means. Isaiah 10:7 "Nevertheless he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; for it is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few." Asshur did not think so (lo'-cēn), i.e., not as he ought to think, seeing that his power over Israel was determined by Jehovah Himself. For what filled his heart was the endeavour, peculiar to the imperial power, to destroy not a few nations, i.e., as many nations as possible, for the purpose of extending his own dominions, and with the determination to tolerate no other independent nation, and the desire to deal with Judah as with all the rest. For Jehovah was nothing more in his esteem than one of the idols of the nations. Isaiah 10:8-11 "For he saith, Are not my generals all kings? Is not Calno as Carchemish, or Hamath as Arpad, or Samaria as Damascus? As my hand hath reached the kingdoms of the idols, and their graven images were more than those of Jerusalem and Samaria; shall I not, as I have done unto Samaria and her idols, do likewise to Jerusalem and her idols?" The king of Asshur bore the title of the great king (Isaiah 36:4), and indeed, as we may infer from Ezekiel 26:7, that of the king of kings. The generals in his army he could call kings, (Note: The question is expressed in Hebrew phraseology, since sar in Assyrian was a superior title to that of melek, as we may see from inscriptions and proper names.) because the satraps (Note: Satrapes is the old Persian (arrow-headed) khshatra (Sanscr. xatra) pâvan, i.e., keeper of government. Pâvan (nom. pâvâ), which occurs in the Zendik as an independent word pavan (nom. pavao) in the sense of sentry or watchman, is probably the original of the Hebrew pechâh (see Spiegel, in Kohler on Malachi 1:8).) who led their several contingents were equal to kings in the extent and splendour of their government, and some of them were really conquered kings (cf., 2 Kings 25:28). He proudly asks whether every one of the cities named has not been as incapable as the rest, of offering a successful resistance to him. Carchemish is the later Circesium (Cercusium), at the junction of the Chaboras with the Euphrates (see above); Calno, the later Ctesiphon, on the left bank of the Tigris; Arpad (according to Mershid, i. p. 47, in the pashalic of Chaleb, i.e., Aleppo) and Hamath (i.e., Epiphania) were Syrian cities, the latter on the river Orontes, still a large and wealthy place. The king of Asshur had also already conquered Samaria, at the time when the prophet introduced him as uttering these words. Jerusalem, therefore, would be unable to resist him. As he had obtained possession of idolatrous kingdoms (ל מעא, to reach, as in Psalm 21:9 : hâ-'elil with the article indicating the genus), which had more idols than Jerusalem or than Samaria; so would he also overcome Jerusalem, which had just as few and just as powerless idols as Samaria had. Observe there that Isaiah 10:11 is the apodosis to Isaiah 10:10, and that the comparative clause of Isaiah 10:10 is repeated in Isaiah 10:11, for the purpose of instituting a comparison, more especially with Samaria and Jerusalem. The king of Asshur calls the gods of the nations by the simple name of idols, though the prophet does not therefore make him speak from his own Israelitish standpoint. On the contrary, the great sin of the king of Asshur consisted in the manner in which he spoke. For since he recognised no other gods than his own Assyrian national deities, he placed Jehovah among the idols of the nations, and, what ought particularly to be observed, with the other idols, whose worship had been introduced into Samaria and Jerusalem. But in this very fact there was so far consolation for the worshippers of Jehovah, that such blasphemy of the one living God would not remain unavenged; whilst for the worshipers of idols it contained a painful lesson, since their gods really deserved nothing better than that contempt should be heaped upon them. The prophet has now described the sin of Asshur. It was ambitious self-exaltation above Jehovah, amounting even to blasphemy. And yet he was only the staff of Jehovah, who could make use of him as He would. Links Isaiah 10:8 InterlinearIsaiah 10:8 Parallel Texts Isaiah 10:8 NIV Isaiah 10:8 NLT Isaiah 10:8 ESV Isaiah 10:8 NASB Isaiah 10:8 KJV Isaiah 10:8 Bible Apps Isaiah 10:8 Parallel Isaiah 10:8 Biblia Paralela Isaiah 10:8 Chinese Bible Isaiah 10:8 French Bible Isaiah 10:8 German Bible Bible Hub |
|
