Woe to the rebellious children, saith the
Lord, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not
of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin: That walk to go down into Egypt,
and have not asked at my mouth; to strengthen themselves in the strength of
Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of Egypt! Therefore shall the strength of
Pharaoh be your shame, and the trust in the shadow of Egypt your confusion. For
his princes were at Zoan, and his ambassadors came to Hanes. They were all ashamed
of a people that could not profit them, nor be an help nor profit, but a shame,
and also a reproach. (Isa 30:1-5)
Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help;
and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many; and in
horsemen, because they are very strong; but they look not unto the Holy One of
Israel, neither seek the Lord! Yet he also is wise, and will bring evil, and
will not call back his words: but will arise against the house of the
evildoers, and against the help of them that work iniquity. Now the Egyptians
are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit. When the Lord shall stretch out his hand, both he that helpeth shall fall, and he that is
holpen shall fall down, and they all shall fail together. (Isa 31:1-3)
Commenting
on these texts from Isaiah, Kenton L. Sparks wrote:
The Problem
with Foreign Alliances: Isaiah 30:1-5 and 31:1-3
Hosea’s distaste for Israel’s international alliances
is mirrored in several texts from Isaiah that criticize Judean sympathies with
Egypt. As Clements has pointed out, these texts (Isa 30:1-5 and 31:1-3) are
obviously related . . . The context reflected here is obviously one of the
Egyptian-sponsored rebellions against Assyria dating around either 713-711 or
705-701 B.C.E. Egypt was represented by “the princes of Zoan and Hanes,” that
is, the princes of Tanis and Heracleopolis. The remnants of the 22d Dynasty
were in Tanis, with which Judah was quite familiar, and Heracleopolis was at
this point associated with the new Ethiopian dynasty of Shabako (the 25th Dynasty).
The criticism offered in these oracles is
straightforward: Judah had added ‘sin to sin’ (חתאת על-חתאת, 30:1) by “going down to Egypt for help” (31:1). This act was
understood by the prophet as rebellion against the deity (הוי בנים סוררים) because, in doing so, Judah had substituted
confidence (בתח) in foreign military power for
confidence in Yahweh (ואת-יהוה לא דרשׁו) . . . Hosea [7:8-13] rejected foreign alliances because he
viewed them as ‘covenants’ (ברית) that threatened Yahweh’s
covenantal relationship with Israel. Although the Southern prophets lack any explicit
notions of covenant ideology, Isa 30:1 implies that Hosea and Isaiah shared a
common contempt for international military relationships because of their
religious viewpoint. Isaiah’s polemic presents the parallel accusation that
Judah had sought לעשׂות עצה ולא מני ולנסך מסכה ולא רוחי (30:1). The first phrase, “to carry out a plan, but not mine,” is
clear enough. But the meaning of ולנסך מסכה is obscure primarily because this verb/noun combination occurs
only here in the Hebrew Bible and because מסכה normally refers to ‘molten images’. Most commentators have
translated the phrase along the lines laid out by the RSV, ‘to make a league,’
or ‘an alliance’, which makes sense for several reasons. First, the LXX tradition
actually translated ולנסך מסכה as συνθηκας (‘covenant,
agreement’) which indicates, as Procksch has pointed out, that the Septuagint
must have understood the Hebrew along the lines of σπονδας σπενδεσθαι ‘to pour out a drink offering’ during a covenant
ratification ceremony (Procksch, Jesaias
I, 384-85). Although there appears to be no concrete parallel to this use of
drink offerings in Levantine treaty texts, the covenant renewal of Jacob in
Genesis 35 does feature a libation. All things considered, both the parallelism
in 30:1 (ולנסך מסכה is parallel with “carry out a plan”) and the oracle’s overall
content favor that we read the text as the ritual ratification of a political
alliance. One is at first tempted to suggest on this basis that Isaiah would
have agreed with Hosea’s condemnation of all foreign alliances, but his oracles
were silent on the question of alliances with Assyria . . . .While Isaiah may have
been very familiar with Assyrian propaganda and have resigned himself to its
power, he obviously did so out of a respect for his sovereign God. It would
therefore seem that for both Isaiah and Hosea the issue of foreign alliances
was more religious than political. (Kenton L. Sparks, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel: Prolegomena to the Study of
Ethnic Sentiments and their Expression in the Hebrew Bible [Winona Lake,
Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1998], 208-10)
Isa 31:3 is
sometimes used by critics of Latter-day Saint theology. For a discussion, see:
Isaiah
31:3 and Divine Embodiment
