Mga Komentaryo sa Bibliya

“For, behold, the Lord, Jehovah of hosts, takes away from Jerusalem and from Judah supporter and means of support, every support of bread and every support of water.” The divine name given here, “The Lord, Jehovah of hosts,” with which Isaiah everywhere introduces the judicial acts of God (cf., Isaiah 1:24; Isaiah 10:16, Isaiah 10:33; Isaiah 19:4), is a proof that the proclamation of judgment commences afresh here. Trusting in man was the crying sin, more especially of the times of Uzziah-Jotham. The glory of the kingdom at that time carried the wrath of Jehovah within it. The outbreak of that wrath commenced in the time of Ahaz; and even under Hezekiah it was merely suspended, not changed. Isaiah foretells this outbreak of wrath. He describes how Jehovah will lay the Jewish state in ruins, by taking away the main supports of its existence and growth. “Supporter and means of support” ( mash'en and mash'enah ) express, first of all, the general idea. The two nouns, which are only the masculine and feminine forms of one and the same word (compare Micah 2:4; Nahum 2:11, and the examples from the Syriac and Arabic in Ewald, §172, c), serve to complete the generalization: fulcra omne genus (props of every kind, omnigena ). They are both technical terms, denoting the prop which a person uses to support anything, whilst mish'an signifies that which yields support; so that the three correspond somewhat to the Latin fulcrum , fultura , fulcimen . Of the various means of support, bread and wine are mentioned first, not in a figurative sense, but as the two indispensable conditions and the lowest basis of human life. Life is supported by bread and water: it walks, as it were, upon the crutch of bread, so that “breaking the staff of bread” (Leviticus 26:26; Ezekiel 4:16; Ezekiel 5:16; Ezekiel 14:13; Psalms 105:16) is equivalent to physical destruction. The destruction of the Jewish state would accordingly be commenced by a removal on the part of Jehovah of all the support afforded by bread and water, i.e., all the stores of both. And this was literally fulfilled, for both in the Chaldean and Roman times Jerusalem perished in the midst of just such terrible famines as are threatened in the curses in Lev 26, and more especially in Deut 28; and in both cases the inhabitants were reduced to such extremities, that women devoured their own children (Lamentations 2:20; Josephus, Wars of Jews, vi. 3, 3, 4). It is very unjust, therefore, on the part of modern critics, such as Hitzig, Knobel, and Meier, to pronounce Isaiah 3:1 a gloss, and, in fact, a false one. Gesenius and Umbreit retracted this suspicion. The construction of the v. is just the same as that of Isaiah 25:6; and it is Isaiah's custom to explain his own figures, as we have already observed when comparing Isaiah 1:7. and Isaiah 1:23 with what preceded them. “Every support of bread and every support of water” are not to be regarded in this case as an explanation of the general idea introduced before, “supporters and means of support,” but simply as the commencement of the detailed expansion of the idea. For the enumeration of the supports which Jehovah would take away is continued in the next two verses.

return to '

Thus robbed of its support, and torn out of its proper groove, the kingdom of Judah would fall a prey to the most shameless despotism: “And I give them boys for princes, and caprices shall rule over them.” The revived “Solomonian” glory is followed, as before, by the times of Rehoboam. The king is not expressly named. This was intentional. He had sunk into the mere shadow of a king: it was not he who ruled, but the aristocratic party that surrounded him, who led him about in leading strings as unum inter pares . Now, if it is a misfortune in most cases for a king to be a child ( na'ar , Ecclesiastes 10:16), the misfortune is twice as great when the princes or magnates who surround and advise him are youngsters ( ne'ârim , i.e., young lords) in a bad sense. It produces a government of tâlulim . None of the nouns in this form have a personal signification. According to the primary meaning of the verbal stem, the word might signify childishnesses, equivalent to little children (the abstract for the concrete, like τἀπαιδικά amasius ), as Ewald supposes; or puppets, fantocci , poltroons, or men without heart or brain, as Luzzatto maintains. But the latter has no support in the general usage of the language, and the verb yimshelu (shall rule) does not necessarily require a personal subject (cf., Psalms 19:14; Psalms 103:19). The word tâlulim is formed from the reflective verb hithallel , which means to meddle, to gratify one's self, to indulge one's caprice. Accordingly tâlulim itself might be rendered vexationes (Isaiah 66:4). Jerome, who translates the word effeminati , appears to have thought of התעלּל in an erotic sense. The Sept. rendering, ἐμπαῖκται is better, though ἐμπαίγματα would be more exact. When used, as the word is here, along with ne'arim , it signifies outbursts of youthful caprice, which do injury to others, whether in joke or earnest. Neither law nor justice would rule, but the very opposite of justice: a course of conduct which would make subjects, like slaves, the helpless victims at one time of their lust (Judges 19:25), and at another of their cruelty. They would be governed by lawless and bloodstained caprice, of the most despotic character and varied forms. And the people would resemble their rulers: their passions would be let loose, and all restraints of modesty and decorum be snapt asunder.

return to '

“And the people oppress one another, one this and another that; the boy breaks out violently upon the old man, and the despised upon the honoured.” Niggas is the reciprocal niphal, as the clause depicting the reciprocity clearly shows (cf., nilcham , Isaiah 19:2); nagas followed by Beth means to treat as a tyrant or taskmaster (Isaiah 9:3). The commonest selfishness would then stifle every nobler motive; one would become the tyrant of another, and ill-mannered insolence would take the place of that reverence, which is due to the old and esteemed from boys and those who are below them in position, whether we regard the law of nature, the Mosaic law (Leviticus 19:32), or the common custom of society. Nikleh (from kâlâh , the synonym of הקל , Isaiah 9:1; Isaiah 23:9; cf., Isaiah 16:14, kal, to be light or insignificant) was a term used to denote whoever belonged to the lowest stratum of society (1 Samuel 18:23). It was the opposite of nichâd (from Cabed , to be heavy or of great importance). The Septuagint rendering, ὁ ἄτιμος πρὸς τὸν ἔντιμον is a very good one (as the Semitic languages have no such antithetical formations with ἃ στερητικόν ). With such contempt of the distinctions arising from age and position, the state would very soon become a scene of the wildest confusion.

return to '

The prophet then proceeds, in Isaiah 3:8-12, to describe this deep, tragical misery as a just retribution. ”For Jerusalem is ruined and Judah fallen; because their tongue and their doings (are) against Jehovah, to defy the eyes of His glory.” Jerusalem as a city is feminine, according to the usual personification; Judah as a people is regarded as masculine.

(Note: As a rule, the name of a people (apart from the personification of the people as beth , a house) is only used as a feminine, when the name of the land stands for the nation itself (see Gesenius, Lehrbegr. p. 469).)

The two preterites C âs'lah and nâphal express the general fact, which occasioned such scenes of misery as the one just described. The second clause, beginning with “because” ( C hi ) , is a substantive clause, and attributes the coming judgment not to future sin, but to sin already existing. “Again Jehovah:” אל is used to denote a hostile attitude, as in Isaiah 2:4; Genesis 4:8; Numbers 32:14; Joshua 10:6. The capital and the land are against Jehovah both in word and deed, “to defy the eyes of His glory” ( lamroth ‛ēnē C hebodo ). עני is equivalent to עיני ; and lamroth is a syncopated hiphil, as in Isaiah 23:11, and like the niphal in Isaiah 1:12: we find the same form of the same word in Psalms 78:17. The kal m ârâh , which is also frequently construed with the accusative, signifies to thrust away in a refractory manner; the hiphil himrâh , to treat refractorily, literally to set one's self rigidly in opposition, obniti ; mar , stringere , to draw tightly, with which unquestionably the meaning bitter as an astringent is connected, though it does not follow that m ârâh , himrâh , and hemar (Exodus 23:21) can be rendered παραπικραίνειν , as they have been in the Septuagint, since the idea of opposing, resisting, fighting in opposition, is implied in all these roots, with distinct reference to the primary meaning. The Lamed is a shorter expression instead of למען , which is the term generally employed in such circumstances (Amos 2:7; Jeremiah 7:18; Jeremiah 32:29). But what does the prophet mean by “the eyes of His glory?” Knobel's assertion, that C hâbod is used here for the religious glory, i.e., the holiness of God, is a very strange one, since the C hâbod of God is invariably the fiery, bright doxa which reveals Him as the Holy One. but his remark does not meet the question, inasmuch as it does not settle the point in dispute, whether the expression “the eyes of His glory” implies that the glory itself has eyes, or the glory is a quality of the eyes. The construction is certainly not a different one from “the arm of His glory” in Isaiah 52:10, so that it is to be taken as an attribute. But this suggests the further question, what does the prophet mean by the glory-eyes or glorious eyes of Jehovah? If we were to say the eyes of Jehovah are His knowledge of the world, it would be impossible to understand how they could be called holy, still less how they could be called glorious. This abstract explanation of the anthropomorphisms cannot be sustained. The state of the case is rather the following. The glory ( C hâbod ) of God is that eternal and glorious morphē which His holy nature assumes, and which men must picture to themselves anthropomorphically, because they cannot imagine anything superior to the human form. In this glorious form Jehovah looks upon His people with eyes of glory. His pure but yet jealous love, His holy love which breaks out in wrath against all who meet it with hatred instead of with love, is reflected therein.

return to '

But Israel, instead of walking in the consciousness of being a constant and favourite object of these majestic, earnestly admonishing eyes, was diligently engaged in bidding them defiance both in word and deed, not even hiding its sin from fear of them, but exposing them to view in the most shameless manner. - “The look of their faces testifies against them, and their sin they make known like Sodom, without concealing it: woe to their soul! for they do themselves harm.” In any case, the prophet refers to the impudence with which their enmity against God was shamelessly stamped upon their faces, without even the self-condemnation which leads in other cases to a diligent concealment of the sin. But we cannot follow Luzzatto and Jos. Kimchi, who take haccârath as used directly for azzuth (impudence), inasmuch as the Arabic hakara ( hakir‛a ), to which Kimchi appeals, signifies to be astonished and to stare (see at Job 19:3). And in this case there would be nothing strange in the substantive form, which would be a piel formation like בּלּהה חטּאה . But it may be a hiphil formation (Ewald, §156, a); and this is incomparably the more probable of the two, as hiccir panim is a very common phrase. It signifies to look earnestly, keenly, or inquiringly in the face of a person, to fix the eye upon him; and, when used of a judge, to take the part of a person, by favouring him unjustly (Deuteronomy 1:17; Deuteronomy 16:19). But this latter idea, viz., “their acceptance of the person, or partiality” (according to Proverbs 24:23; Proverbs 28:21), is inadmissible here, for the simple reason that the passage refers to the whole nation, and not particularly to the judges. “The look of their faces” ( haccârath p'nēhem ) is to be understood in an objective sense, viz., the appearance ( τὸ εἶδος , Luke 9:29), like the agnitio of Jerome, id quo se agnoscendum dat vultus eorum . This was probably the expression commonly employed in Hebrew for what we designate by a very inappropriate foreign word, viz., physiognomy, i.e., the expression of the face which reveals the state of the mind. This expression of their countenance testified against them ( anah b' , as in Isaiah 59:12), for it was the disturbed and distorted image of their sin, which not only could not be hidden, but did not even wish to be; in a word, of their azzuth (Ecclesiastes 8:1). And it did not even rest with this open though silent display: they spoken openly of their sin ( higgid in its simplest meaning, palam facere , from nâgad , nagâda , to be open, evident) without making any secret of it, like the Sodomites, who publicly proclaimed their fleshly lusts (Gen 19). Jerusalem was spiritually Sodom, as the prophet called it in Isaiah 1:10. By such barefaced sinning they did themselves harm ( gâmal , lit., to finish, then to carry out, to show practically).

(Note: It may now be accepted as an established fact, that the verb gâmal is connected with the Arabic 'gamala , to collect together, 'gamula , to be perfect, kamala , kamula id ., and gâmar , to finish (see Hupfeld on Psalms 7:5, and Fürst, Heb. Lex.).)

return to '

“My people, its oppressors are boys, and women rule over it; my people, thy leaders are misleaders, who swallow up the way of thy paths.” It is not probable that m e‛olel signifies maltreaters or triflers, by the side of the parallel nâshim ; moreover, the idea of despotic treatment is already contained in nogesaiv . We expect to find children where there are women. And this is one meaning of m e‛olel . It does not mean a suckling, however, as Ewald supposes (§160, a), more especially as it occurs in connection with yonek (Jeremiah 44:7; Lamentations 2:11), and therefore cannot have precisely the same meaning; but, like עולל and עולל (the former of which may be contracted from m eolēl ), it refers to the boy as playful and wanton ( Lascivum , protervum ). Böttcher renders it correctly, pueri , lusores , though m eolēl is not in itself a collective form, as he supposes; but the singular is used collectively, or perhaps better still, the predicate is intended to apply to every individual included in the plural notion of the subject (compare Isaiah 16:8; Isaiah 20:4, and Ges. §146, 4): the oppressors of the people, every one without exception, were (even though advanced in years) mere boys or youths in their mode of thinking and acting, and made all subject to them the football of their capricious humour. Here again the person of the king is allowed to fall into the background. but the female rule, referred to afterwards, points us to the court. And this must really have been the case when Ahaz, a young rake, came to the throne at the age of twenty (according to the lxx twenty-five), possibly towards the close of the reign of Jotham. With the deepest anguish the prophet repeats the expression “my people,” as he passes in his address to his people from the rulers to the preachers: for the m eassherim or leaders are prophets (Micah 3:5); but what prophets! Instead of leading the people in a straight path, they lead them astray (Isaiah 9:15, cf., 2 Kings 21:9). This they did, as we may gather from the history of this crowd of prophets, either by acting in subservience to the ungodly interests of the court with dynastic or demagogical servility, or by flattering the worst desires of the people. Thus the way of the path of the people, i.e., the highway or road by whose ramifying paths the people were to reach the appointed goal, had been swallowed up by them, i.e., taken away from the sight and feet of the people, so that they could not find it and walk therein (cf., Isaiah 25:7-8, where the verb is used in another connection). What is swallowed up is invisible, has disappeared, without a grace being left behind. The same idea is applied in Job 39:27 to a galloping horse, which is said to swallow the road, inasmuch as it leaves piece after piece behind it in its rapid course. It is stated here with regard to the prophets, that they swallow up the road appointed by Jehovah, as the one in which His people were to walk, just as a criminal swallows a piece of paper which bears witness against him, and so hides it in his own stomach. Thus the way of salvation pointed out by the law was no longer to be either heard of or seen. The prophets, who ought to have preached it, said m um , m um , and kept it swallowed. It had completely perished, as it were, in the erroneous preaching of the false prophets.

return to '

This was how it stood. There was but little to be expected from the exhortations of the prophet; so that he had to come back again and again to the proclamation of judgment. The judgment of the world comes again before his mind. - “Jehovah has appeared to plead, and stands up to judge the nations.” When Jehovah, weary with His long-suffering, rises up from His heavenly throne, this is described as “standing up” ( kum , Isaiah 2:19, Isaiah 2:21; Isaiah 33:10); and when He assumes the judgment-seat in the sight of all the world, this is called “sitting down” ( yashab , Psalms 9:5, Joel 3:12); when, having come down from heaven (Micah 1:2.), He comes forward as accuser, this is called “standing” ( nizzab or amad , Psalms 82:1: amad is coming forward and standing, as the opposite of sitting; nizzab , standing, with the subordinate idea of being firm, resolute, ready). This pleading ( ribh , Jeremiah 25:31) is also judging ( din ), because His accusation, which is incontrovertible, contains the sentence in itself; and His sentence, which executes itself irresistibly, is of itself the infliction of punishment. Thus does he stand in the midst of the nations at once accuser, judge, and executioner (Psalms 7:8). But among the nations it is more especially against Israel that He contends; and in Israel it is more especially against the leaders of the poor misguided and neglected people that He sets Himself.

return to '

When Jehovah took away all this glory, with which the women of Jerusalem were adorned, they would be turned into wretched-looking prisoners, disfigured by ill-treatment and dirt. - “And instead of balmy scent there will be mouldiness, and instead of the sash a rope, and instead of artistic ringlets a baldness, and instead of the dress-cloak a frock of sackcloth, branding instead of beauty.” Mouldiness, or mother ( mak , as in Isaiah 5:24, the dust of things that have moulded away), with which they would be covered, and which they would be obliged to breathe, would take the place of the bosem , i.e., the scent of the balsam shrub ( bâsâm ), and of sweet-scented pomade in general; and nipâh that of the beautifully embroidered girdle (Proverbs 31:24). The meaning of this word is neither “a wound,” as the Targums and Talmud render it, nor “rags,” as given by Knobel, ed. 1 (from nâkaph , percutere , perforare ), but the rope thrown over them as prisoners (from kâphâh = kâvâh , Contorquere : lxx, Vulg., Syr.).

(Note: Credner ( Joel, p. 147) renders the word “tatters,” from nâkaph , to rub in pieces; but the word has no such meaning, whereas the meaning vulnus , lit., percussio , is admissible (see at Job 19:26), but does not suit the antithesis. Luzzatto connects it with n'kaph , to bind (from which the makkeph derives its name), and understands it as referring to the dressing applied to wounds, to lint into which the girdle was torn. The most plausible derivation is from kâphâh , which is really employed in post-biblical usage to signify not only to congeal and wrinkle, but also to thicken ( Sabbath 21 a, l'hakpoth : “Make the wick thicker, that it may burn the brighter”). It is probably radically akin to the Arabic nukbe (explained in Lamachzari as equivalent to the Persian mijân - bend , a girdle), which is apparently used to denote the coarse girdle worn by peasants or by Arab women of the wandering tribes, resembling a rope of goat's hair, as distinguished from the artistic and costly girdle worn by women of the upper classes in the towns.)

Baldness takes the place of artistic ringlets ( מקשׁה מעשׂה , not מעשׂה , so that it is in apposition: cf., Isaiah 30:20; Ges. §113; Ewald, §287, b). The reference is not to golden ornaments for the head, as the Sept. rendering gives it, although m iksheh is used elsewhere to signify embossed or carved work in metal or wood; but here we are evidently to understand by the “artificial twists” either curls made with the curling-tongs, or the hair plaited and twisted up in knots, which they would be obliged to cut off in accordance with the mourning customs (Isaiah 15:2; Isaiah 22:12), or which would fall off in consequence of grief. A frock of sackcloth ( m achagoreth sak ), i.e., a smock of coarse haircloth worn next to the skin, such as Layard found depicted upon a bas-relief at Kouyunjik, would take the place of the pethigil , i.e., the dress-cloak (either from pâthag , to be wide or full, with the substantive termination ı̄l , or else composed of pethi , breadth, and gil , festive rejoicing); and branding the place of beauty. Branding ( C i = C evi , from C âvâh , καἰειν ), the mark burnt upon the forehead by their conquerors: C i is a substantive,

(Note: It is so understood in b. Sabbath 62 b, with an allusion to the proverb, “The end of beauty is burning” (viz., inflammation). In Arabia, the application of the C ey with a red-hot iron ( m ikwâh ) plays a very important part in the medical treatment of both man and beast. You meet with many men who have been burned not only on their legs and arms, but in their faces as well, and, as a rule, the finest horses are disfigured by the C ey . - Wetzstein.)

not a particle, as the Targum and others render it, and as the m akkeph might make it appear. There is something very effective in the inverted order of the words in the last clause of the five. In this five-fold reverse would shame and mourning take the place of proud, voluptuous rejoicing.

return to '