The Lord Removes Judah’s Supports and Judges Corrupt Leadership

Isa 3:6-7 At length there would be no authorities left; even the desire to rule would die out: for despotism is sure to be followed by mob-rule, and mob-rule by anarchy in the most literal sense. The distress would become so great, that whoever had a coat (cloak), so as to be able to clothe himself at all decently, would be asked to undertake the government.

“When a man shall take hold of his brother in his father’s house, Thou hast a coat, thou shalt be our ruler, and take this ruin under thy hand; he will cry out in that day, I do not want to be a surgeon; there is neither bread nor coat in my house: ye cannot make me the ruler of the people. ” “his father’s house” - this is not an unmeaning trait in the picture of misery.

The population would have become so thin and dispirited through hunger, that with a little energy it would be possible to decide within the narrow circle of a family who should be ruler, and to give effect to the decision. “In his father’s house:” Beth âbiv is an acc. loci . The father’s house is the place where brother meets with brother; and one breaks out with the urgent petition contained in the words, which follow without the introductory “saying” (cf.

, Isa 14:8, Isa 14:16, and Isa 22:16; Isa 33:14). לכה for לך with He otians , a form rarely met with (vid. , Gen 27:37). תּהיה, which would be written תּהי before the predicate, is jussive in meaning, though not in form. “This ruin:” macshelah is used in Zep 1:3 for that which occasions a person’s fall; here it signifies what has been overthrown; and as Câshal itself, which means not only to stumble, strip, or slide, but also to fall in consequence of some force applied from without, is not used in connection with falling buildings, it must be introduced here with an allusion to the prosopopeia which follows in Isa 3:8.

The man who was distinguished above all others, or at any rate above many others, by the fact that he could still dress himself decently (even if it were only in a blouse), should be made supreme ruler or dictator (cf. , kâtzin , Jdg 11:6); and the state which lay so miserably in ruins should be under his hand, i. e. , his direction, protection, and care (2Ki 8:20; Gen 41:35, cf.

, Isa 16:9, where the plural is used instead of the ordinary singular yâd .) The apodosis to the protasis introduced with Chi as a particle of time ( when ) commences in Isa 3:7. The answer given by the brother to the earnest petition is introduced with “he will raise (viz. , his voice, Isa 24:14) in that day, saying. ” It is given in this circumstantial manner because it is a solemn protest.

He does not want to be a Chobēsh , i. e. , a binder , namely of the broken arms, and bones, and ribs of the ruined state (Isa 30:26; Isa 1:6; Isa 61:1). The expression ehyeh implies that he does not like it, because he is conscious of his inability. He has not confidence enough in himself, and the assumption that he has a coat is a false cone: he not only has no coat at home (we must remember that the conversation is supposed to take place in his father’s house), but he has not any bread; so that it is utterly impossible for a naked, starving man like him to do what is suggested (“in my house,” ubebethi with a Vav of causal connection: Ges.

155, 1, c ).

Isa 3:6-7 At length there would be no authorities left; even the desire to rule would die out: for despotism is sure to be followed by mob-rule, and mob-rule by anarchy in the most literal sense. The distress would become so great, that whoever had a coat (cloak), so as to be able to clothe himself at all decently, would be asked to undertake the government.

“When a man shall take hold of his brother in his father’s house, Thou hast a coat, thou shalt be our ruler, and take this ruin under thy hand; he will cry out in that day, I do not want to be a surgeon; there is neither bread nor coat in my house: ye cannot make me the ruler of the people. ” “his father’s house” - this is not an unmeaning trait in the picture of misery.

The population would have become so thin and dispirited through hunger, that with a little energy it would be possible to decide within the narrow circle of a family who should be ruler, and to give effect to the decision. “In his father’s house:” Beth âbiv is an acc. loci . The father’s house is the place where brother meets with brother; and one breaks out with the urgent petition contained in the words, which follow without the introductory “saying” (cf.

, Isa 14:8, Isa 14:16, and Isa 22:16; Isa 33:14). לכה for לך with He otians , a form rarely met with (vid. , Gen 27:37). תּהיה, which would be written תּהי before the predicate, is jussive in meaning, though not in form. “This ruin:” macshelah is used in Zep 1:3 for that which occasions a person’s fall; here it signifies what has been overthrown; and as Câshal itself, which means not only to stumble, strip, or slide, but also to fall in consequence of some force applied from without, is not used in connection with falling buildings, it must be introduced here with an allusion to the prosopopeia which follows in Isa 3:8.

The man who was distinguished above all others, or at any rate above many others, by the fact that he could still dress himself decently (even if it were only in a blouse), should be made supreme ruler or dictator (cf. , kâtzin , Jdg 11:6); and the state which lay so miserably in ruins should be under his hand, i. e. , his direction, protection, and care (2Ki 8:20; Gen 41:35, cf.

, Isa 16:9, where the plural is used instead of the ordinary singular yâd .) The apodosis to the protasis introduced with Chi as a particle of time ( when ) commences in Isa 3:7. The answer given by the brother to the earnest petition is introduced with “he will raise (viz. , his voice, Isa 24:14) in that day, saying. ” It is given in this circumstantial manner because it is a solemn protest.

He does not want to be a Chobēsh , i. e. , a binder , namely of the broken arms, and bones, and ribs of the ruined state (Isa 30:26; Isa 1:6; Isa 61:1). The expression ehyeh implies that he does not like it, because he is conscious of his inability. He has not confidence enough in himself, and the assumption that he has a coat is a false cone: he not only has no coat at home (we must remember that the conversation is supposed to take place in his father’s house), but he has not any bread; so that it is utterly impossible for a naked, starving man like him to do what is suggested (“in my house,” ubebethi with a Vav of causal connection: Ges.

155, 1, c ).

Isa 3:8 The prophet then proceeds, in Isa 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.

The two preterites Câs'lah and nâphal express the general fact, which occasioned such scenes of misery as the one just described. The second clause, beginning with “because” ( Chi ), 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 Isa 2:4; Gen 4:8; Num 32:14; Jos 10:6.

The capital and the land are against Jehovah both in word and deed, “to defy the eyes of His glory” ( lamroth ‛ēnē Chebodo ). עני is equivalent to עיני; and lamroth is a syncopated hiphil , as in Isa 23:11, and like the niphal in Isa 1:12 : we find the same form of the same word in Psa 78:17. The kal mârâh , 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 mârâh , himrâh , and hemar (Exo 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 (Amo 2:7; Jer 7:18; Jer 32:29). But what does the prophet mean by “the eyes of His glory? ” Knobel’s assertion, that Châbod is used here for the religious glory, i. e. , the holiness of God, is a very strange one, since the Châbod 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 Isa 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 ( Châbod ) 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.

Isa 3:9 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 (Deu 1:17; Deu 16:19).

But this latter idea, viz. , “their acceptance of the person, or partiality” (according to Pro 24:23; Pro 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, Luk 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 Isa 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 (Ecc 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 Isa 1:10.

By such barefaced sinning they did themselves harm ( gâmal , lit. , to finish, then to carry out, to show practically).

Isa 3:10-11 The prophet’s meaning is evident enough. But inasmuch as it is the curse of sin to distort the knowledge of what is most obvious and self-evident, and even to take it entirely away, the prophet dwells still longer upon the fact that all sinning is self-destruction and self-murder, placing this general truth against its opposite in a palillogical Johannic way, and calling out to his contemporaries in Isa 3:10, Isa 3:11 : “Say of the righteous, that it is well with him; for they will enjoy the fruit of their doings.

Woe to the wicked! it is ill; for what his hands have wrought will be done to him. ” We cannot adopt the rendering “Praise the righteous,” proposed by Vitringa and other modern commentators; for although âmar is sometimes construed with the accusative of the object (Psa 40:11; Psa 145:6, Psa 145:11), it never means to praise, but to declare (even in Psa 40:11).

We have here what was noticed from Gen 1:4 onwards - namely, the obvious antiptôsis or antiphonêsis in the verbs ראה (cf. , Isa 22:9; Exo 2:2), ידע (1Ki 5:17), and אמר (like λέγειν, Joh 9:9): dicite justum quod bonus = dicite justum esse bonum (Ewald, §336, b ). The object of sight, knowledge, or speech, is first of all mentioned in the most general manner; then follows the qualification, or more precise definition.

טוב, and in Isa 3:11 רע (רע without the pause), might both of them be the third pers. pret. of the verbs, employed in a neuter sense: the former signifying, it is well, viz. , with him (as in Deu 5:30; Jer 22:15-16); the latter, it is bad (as in Psa 106:32). But it is evident from Jer 44:17 that הוּא טוב and הוּא רע may be used in the sense of καλῶς (κακῶς) ἔχει, and that the two expressions are here thought of in this way, so that there is no לו to be supplied in either case.

The form of the first favours this; and in the second the accentuation fluctuates between אוי tiphchah לרשׁע munach , and the former with merka , the latter tiphchah . At the same time, the latter mode of accentuation, which is favourable to the personal rendering of רע, is supported by editions of some worth, such as Brescia 1494, Pesaro 1516, Venice 1515, 1521, and is justly preferred by Luzzatto and Bär.

The summary assertions, The righteous is well, the wicked ill, are both sustained by their eventual fate, in the light of which the previous misfortune of the righteous appears as good fortune, and the previous good fortune of the wicked as misfortune. With an allusion to this great difference in their eventual fate, the word “say,” which belongs to both clauses, summons to an acknowledgment of the good fortune of the one and the misfortune of the other.

O that Judah and Jerusalem would acknowledge their to their own salvation before it was too late! For the state of the poor nation was already miserable enough, and very near to destruction.

Isa 3:10-11 The prophet’s meaning is evident enough. But inasmuch as it is the curse of sin to distort the knowledge of what is most obvious and self-evident, and even to take it entirely away, the prophet dwells still longer upon the fact that all sinning is self-destruction and self-murder, placing this general truth against its opposite in a palillogical Johannic way, and calling out to his contemporaries in Isa 3:10, Isa 3:11 : “Say of the righteous, that it is well with him; for they will enjoy the fruit of their doings.

Woe to the wicked! it is ill; for what his hands have wrought will be done to him. ” We cannot adopt the rendering “Praise the righteous,” proposed by Vitringa and other modern commentators; for although âmar is sometimes construed with the accusative of the object (Psa 40:11; Psa 145:6, Psa 145:11), it never means to praise, but to declare (even in Psa 40:11).

We have here what was noticed from Gen 1:4 onwards - namely, the obvious antiptôsis or antiphonêsis in the verbs ראה (cf. , Isa 22:9; Exo 2:2), ידע (1Ki 5:17), and אמר (like λέγειν, Joh 9:9): dicite justum quod bonus = dicite justum esse bonum (Ewald, §336, b ). The object of sight, knowledge, or speech, is first of all mentioned in the most general manner; then follows the qualification, or more precise definition.

טוב, and in Isa 3:11 רע (רע without the pause), might both of them be the third pers. pret. of the verbs, employed in a neuter sense: the former signifying, it is well, viz. , with him (as in Deu 5:30; Jer 22:15-16); the latter, it is bad (as in Psa 106:32). But it is evident from Jer 44:17 that הוּא טוב and הוּא רע may be used in the sense of καλῶς (κακῶς) ἔχει, and that the two expressions are here thought of in this way, so that there is no לו to be supplied in either case.

The form of the first favours this; and in the second the accentuation fluctuates between אוי tiphchah לרשׁע munach , and the former with merka , the latter tiphchah . At the same time, the latter mode of accentuation, which is favourable to the personal rendering of רע, is supported by editions of some worth, such as Brescia 1494, Pesaro 1516, Venice 1515, 1521, and is justly preferred by Luzzatto and Bär.

The summary assertions, The righteous is well, the wicked ill, are both sustained by their eventual fate, in the light of which the previous misfortune of the righteous appears as good fortune, and the previous good fortune of the wicked as misfortune. With an allusion to this great difference in their eventual fate, the word “say,” which belongs to both clauses, summons to an acknowledgment of the good fortune of the one and the misfortune of the other.

O that Judah and Jerusalem would acknowledge their to their own salvation before it was too late! For the state of the poor nation was already miserable enough, and very near to destruction.

Isa 3:12 “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 me‛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 me‛olel . It does not mean a suckling, however, as Ewald supposes (§160, a ), more especially as it occurs in connection with yonek (Jer 44:7; Lam 2:11), and therefore cannot have precisely the same meaning; but, like עולל and עולל (the former of which may be contracted from meolēl ), it refers to the boy as playful and wanton ( Lascivum , protervum ).

Böttcher renders it correctly, pueri , lusores , though meolēl 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 Isa 16:8; Isa 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 meassherim or leaders are prophets (Mic 3:5); but what prophets!

Instead of leading the people in a straight path, they lead them astray (Isa 9:15, cf. , 2Ki 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. , Isa 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 mum , mum , and kept it swallowed. It had completely perished, as it were, in the erroneous preaching of the false prophets.

Isa 3:13 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 , Isa 2:19, Isa 2:21; Isa 33:10); and when He assumes the judgment-seat in the sight of all the world, this is called “sitting down” ( yashab , Psa 9:5, Joe 3:12); when, having come down from heaven (Mic 1:2.)

, He comes forward as accuser, this is called “standing” ( nizzab or amad , Psa 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 , Jer 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 (Psa 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.

Isa 3:14-15 “Jehovah will proceed to judgment with the elders of His people, and its princes. And ye, ye have eaten up the vineyard; prey of the suffering is in your houses. What mean ye that ye crush my people, and grind the face of the suffering? Thus saith the Lord Jehovah of hosts. ” The words of God Himself commence with “and ye” ( v'attem ). The sentence to which this ( et vos = at vos ) is the antithesis is wanting, just as in Psa 2:6, where the words of God commence with “and I” ( va'ani , et ego = ast ego ).

the tacit clause may easily be supplied, viz. , I have set you over my vineyard, but he have consumed the vineyard. The only question is, whether the sentence is to be regarded as suppressed by Jehovah Himself, or by the prophet. Most certainly by Jehovah Himself. The majesty with which He appeared before the rulers of His people as, even without words, a practical and undeniable proof that their majesty was only a shadow of His, and their office His trust.

But their office consisted in the fact that Jehovah had committed His people to their care. The vineyard of Jehovah was His people - a self-evident figure, which the prophet dresses up in the form of a parable in chapter 5. Jehovah had appointed them as gardeners and keepers of this vineyard, but they themselves have become the very beasts that they ought to have warded off.

בּער is applied to the beasts which completely devour the blades of a corn-field or the grapes of a vineyard (Exo 22:4). This change was perfectly obvious. The possessions stolen from their unhappy countrymen, which were still in their houses, were the tangible proof of their plundering of the vineyard. “The suffering:” ani ( depressus , the crushed) is introduced as explanatory of haccerem , the prey, because depression and misery were the ordinary fate of the congregation which God called His vineyard.

It was ecclesia pressa , but woe to the oppressors! In the question “what mean ye? ” ( mallâcem ) the madness and wickedness of their deeds are implied. מה and לכם are fused into one word here, as if it were a prefix (as in Exo 4:2; Eze 8:6; Mal 1:13; vid. , Ges. §20, 2). The Keri helps to make it clear by resolving the chethibh . The word mallâcem ought, strictly speaking, to be followed by chi : “What is there to you that ye crush my people?

” as in Isa 22:1, Isa 22:16; but the words rush forwards (as in Jon 1:6), because they are an explosion of wrath. For this reason the expressions relating to the behaviour of the rulers are the strongest that can possibly be employed. דּכּא (crush) is also to be met with in Pro 22:22; but “grind the face” ( tâchan p'ne ) is a strong metaphor without a parallel.

The former signifies “to pound,” the latter “to grind,” as the millstone grinds the corn. They grind the faces of those who are already bowed down, thrusting them back with such unmerciful severity, that they stand as it were annihilated, and their faces become as white as flour, or as the Germans would say, cheese-white, chalk-white, as pale as death, from oppression and despair.

Thus the language supplied to a certain extent appropriate figures, with which to describe the conduct of the rulers of Israel; but it contained no words that could exhaust the immeasurable wickedness of their conduct: hence the magnitude of their sin is set before them in the form of a question, “What is to you? ” i. e. , What indescribable wickedness is this which you are committing?

The prophet hears this said by Jehovah, the majestic Judge, whom he here describes as Adonai Elohim Zebaoth (according to the Masoretic pointing). This triplex name of God, which we find in the prophetic books, viz. , frequently in Amos and also in Jer 2:19, occurs for the first time in the Elohistic Psalm, Psa 69:7. This scene of judgment is indeed depicted throughout in the colours of the Psalms, and more especially recals the (Elohistic) Psalm of Asaph (Psa 82:1-8).

Isa 3:14-15 “Jehovah will proceed to judgment with the elders of His people, and its princes. And ye, ye have eaten up the vineyard; prey of the suffering is in your houses. What mean ye that ye crush my people, and grind the face of the suffering? Thus saith the Lord Jehovah of hosts. ” The words of God Himself commence with “and ye” ( v'attem ). The sentence to which this ( et vos = at vos ) is the antithesis is wanting, just as in Psa 2:6, where the words of God commence with “and I” ( va'ani , et ego = ast ego ).

the tacit clause may easily be supplied, viz. , I have set you over my vineyard, but he have consumed the vineyard. The only question is, whether the sentence is to be regarded as suppressed by Jehovah Himself, or by the prophet. Most certainly by Jehovah Himself. The majesty with which He appeared before the rulers of His people as, even without words, a practical and undeniable proof that their majesty was only a shadow of His, and their office His trust.

But their office consisted in the fact that Jehovah had committed His people to their care. The vineyard of Jehovah was His people - a self-evident figure, which the prophet dresses up in the form of a parable in chapter 5. Jehovah had appointed them as gardeners and keepers of this vineyard, but they themselves have become the very beasts that they ought to have warded off.

בּער is applied to the beasts which completely devour the blades of a corn-field or the grapes of a vineyard (Exo 22:4). This change was perfectly obvious. The possessions stolen from their unhappy countrymen, which were still in their houses, were the tangible proof of their plundering of the vineyard. “The suffering:” ani ( depressus , the crushed) is introduced as explanatory of haccerem , the prey, because depression and misery were the ordinary fate of the congregation which God called His vineyard.

It was ecclesia pressa , but woe to the oppressors! In the question “what mean ye? ” ( mallâcem ) the madness and wickedness of their deeds are implied. מה and לכם are fused into one word here, as if it were a prefix (as in Exo 4:2; Eze 8:6; Mal 1:13; vid. , Ges. §20, 2). The Keri helps to make it clear by resolving the chethibh . The word mallâcem ought, strictly speaking, to be followed by chi : “What is there to you that ye crush my people?

” as in Isa 22:1, Isa 22:16; but the words rush forwards (as in Jon 1:6), because they are an explosion of wrath. For this reason the expressions relating to the behaviour of the rulers are the strongest that can possibly be employed. דּכּא (crush) is also to be met with in Pro 22:22; but “grind the face” ( tâchan p'ne ) is a strong metaphor without a parallel.

The former signifies “to pound,” the latter “to grind,” as the millstone grinds the corn. They grind the faces of those who are already bowed down, thrusting them back with such unmerciful severity, that they stand as it were annihilated, and their faces become as white as flour, or as the Germans would say, cheese-white, chalk-white, as pale as death, from oppression and despair.

Thus the language supplied to a certain extent appropriate figures, with which to describe the conduct of the rulers of Israel; but it contained no words that could exhaust the immeasurable wickedness of their conduct: hence the magnitude of their sin is set before them in the form of a question, “What is to you? ” i. e. , What indescribable wickedness is this which you are committing?

The prophet hears this said by Jehovah, the majestic Judge, whom he here describes as Adonai Elohim Zebaoth (according to the Masoretic pointing). This triplex name of God, which we find in the prophetic books, viz. , frequently in Amos and also in Jer 2:19, occurs for the first time in the Elohistic Psalm, Psa 69:7. This scene of judgment is indeed depicted throughout in the colours of the Psalms, and more especially recals the (Elohistic) Psalm of Asaph (Psa 82:1-8).

Isa 3:16-17 But notwithstanding the dramatic vividness with which the prophet pictures to himself this scene of judgment, he is obliged to break off at the very beginning of his description, because another word of Jehovah comes upon him. This applies to the women of Jerusalem, whose authority, at the time when Isaiah prophesied, was no less influential than that of their husbands who had forgotten their calling.

“Jehovah hath spoken: Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk about with extended throat, and blinking with the eyes, walk about with tripping gait, and tinkle with their foot-ornaments: the Lord of all makes the crown of the daughters of Zion scabbed, and Jehovah will uncover their shame. ” Their inward pride ( gâbah , as in Eze 16:50; cf. , Zep 3:11) shows itself outwardly.

They walk with extended throat, i. e. , bending the neck back, trying to make themselves taller than they are, because they think themselves so great. The Keri substitutes the more usual form, נטוּית; but Isaiah in all probability intentionally made use of the rarer and ruder form netuvoth , since such a form really existed (1Sa 25:18), as well as the singular nâtu for nâtui (Job 15:22; Job 41:25 : Ges.

§75, Anm. 5). They also went winking the eyes ( mesakkeroth , for which we frequently find the erratum mesakkeroth ), i. e. , casting voluptuous and amatory glances with affected innocence (νεύματα ὀφθαλμῶν, lxx). “Winking:” sâkar is not used in the sense of fucare (Targ. b. Sabbath 62 b , Jome 9 b , Luther) - which is all the more inappropriate, because blackening the eyelids with powder of antimony was regarded in the East of the Old Testament as indispensable to female beauty - but in the sense of nictare (lxx, Vulg.

, Syr. , syn. remaz , cf. , sekar , Syr. to squint; Targ. = shâzaph , Job 20:9). Compare also the talmud ic saying: God did not create woman out of Adam’s ear, that she might be no eavesdropper ( tsaithânith ), nor out of Adam’s eyes, that she might be no winker ( sakrânith ). The third was, that they walked incedendo et trepidando . The second inf. abs. is in this case, as in most others, the one which gives the distinct tone, whilst the other serves to keep before the eye the occurrence indicated in its finite verb (Ges.

§131, 3). They walk about tripping ( tâphop , a wide-spread onomato-poetic word), i. e. , taking short steps, just putting the heel of one foot against the toe of the other (as the Talmud explains it). Luther renders it, “they walk along and waggle” ( schwânzen , i. e. , Clunibus agitatis ). The rendering is suitable, but incorrect. They could only take short steps, because of the chains by which the costly foot-rings ( achâsim ) worn above their ankles were connected together.

These chains, which were probably ornamented with bells, as is sometimes the case now in the East, they used to tinkle as they walked: they made an ankle-tinkling with their feet, setting their feet down in such a manner that these ankle-rings knocked against each other. The writing beraglēhem (masc.) for beraglēhen (fem.) is probably not an unintentional synallage gen .

: they were not modest virgines , but cold, masculine viragines , so that they themselves were a synallage generis . Nevertheless they tripped along. Tripping is a child’s step. Nevertheless they tripped along. Tripping is a child’s step. Although well versed in sin and old in years, the women of Jerusalem tried to maintain a youthful, childlike appearance. They therefore tripped along with short, childish steps.

The women of the Mohammedan East still take pleasure in such coquettish tinklings, although they are forbidden by the Koran, just as the women of Jerusalem did in the days of Isaiah. The attractive influence of natural charms, especially when heightened by luxurious art, is very great; but the prophet is blind to all this splendour, and seeing nothing but the corruption within, foretells to these rich and distinguished women a foul and by no means aesthetic fate.

The Sovereign Ruler of all would smite the crown of their head, from which long hair was now flowing, with scab ( v'sippach , a progressive preterite with Vav apodosis , a denom. verb from sappachath , the scurf which adheres to the skin: see at Hab 2:15); and Jehovah would uncover their nakedness, by giving them up to violation and abuse at the hands of coarse and barbarous foes - the greatest possible disgrace in the eyes of a woman, who covers herself as carefully as she can in the presence of any stranger (Isa 47:3; Nah 3:5; Jer 13:22; Eze 16:37).

Isa 3:16-17 But notwithstanding the dramatic vividness with which the prophet pictures to himself this scene of judgment, he is obliged to break off at the very beginning of his description, because another word of Jehovah comes upon him. This applies to the women of Jerusalem, whose authority, at the time when Isaiah prophesied, was no less influential than that of their husbands who had forgotten their calling.

“Jehovah hath spoken: Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk about with extended throat, and blinking with the eyes, walk about with tripping gait, and tinkle with their foot-ornaments: the Lord of all makes the crown of the daughters of Zion scabbed, and Jehovah will uncover their shame. ” Their inward pride ( gâbah , as in Eze 16:50; cf. , Zep 3:11) shows itself outwardly.

They walk with extended throat, i. e. , bending the neck back, trying to make themselves taller than they are, because they think themselves so great. The Keri substitutes the more usual form, נטוּית; but Isaiah in all probability intentionally made use of the rarer and ruder form netuvoth , since such a form really existed (1Sa 25:18), as well as the singular nâtu for nâtui (Job 15:22; Job 41:25 : Ges.

§75, Anm. 5). They also went winking the eyes ( mesakkeroth , for which we frequently find the erratum mesakkeroth ), i. e. , casting voluptuous and amatory glances with affected innocence (νεύματα ὀφθαλμῶν, lxx). “Winking:” sâkar is not used in the sense of fucare (Targ. b. Sabbath 62 b , Jome 9 b , Luther) - which is all the more inappropriate, because blackening the eyelids with powder of antimony was regarded in the East of the Old Testament as indispensable to female beauty - but in the sense of nictare (lxx, Vulg.

, Syr. , syn. remaz , cf. , sekar , Syr. to squint; Targ. = shâzaph , Job 20:9). Compare also the talmud ic saying: God did not create woman out of Adam’s ear, that she might be no eavesdropper ( tsaithânith ), nor out of Adam’s eyes, that she might be no winker ( sakrânith ). The third was, that they walked incedendo et trepidando . The second inf. abs. is in this case, as in most others, the one which gives the distinct tone, whilst the other serves to keep before the eye the occurrence indicated in its finite verb (Ges.

§131, 3). They walk about tripping ( tâphop , a wide-spread onomato-poetic word), i. e. , taking short steps, just putting the heel of one foot against the toe of the other (as the Talmud explains it). Luther renders it, “they walk along and waggle” ( schwânzen , i. e. , Clunibus agitatis ). The rendering is suitable, but incorrect. They could only take short steps, because of the chains by which the costly foot-rings ( achâsim ) worn above their ankles were connected together.

These chains, which were probably ornamented with bells, as is sometimes the case now in the East, they used to tinkle as they walked: they made an ankle-tinkling with their feet, setting their feet down in such a manner that these ankle-rings knocked against each other. The writing beraglēhem (masc.) for beraglēhen (fem.) is probably not an unintentional synallage gen .

: they were not modest virgines , but cold, masculine viragines , so that they themselves were a synallage generis . Nevertheless they tripped along. Tripping is a child’s step. Nevertheless they tripped along. Tripping is a child’s step. Although well versed in sin and old in years, the women of Jerusalem tried to maintain a youthful, childlike appearance. They therefore tripped along with short, childish steps.

The women of the Mohammedan East still take pleasure in such coquettish tinklings, although they are forbidden by the Koran, just as the women of Jerusalem did in the days of Isaiah. The attractive influence of natural charms, especially when heightened by luxurious art, is very great; but the prophet is blind to all this splendour, and seeing nothing but the corruption within, foretells to these rich and distinguished women a foul and by no means aesthetic fate.

The Sovereign Ruler of all would smite the crown of their head, from which long hair was now flowing, with scab ( v'sippach , a progressive preterite with Vav apodosis , a denom. verb from sappachath , the scurf which adheres to the skin: see at Hab 2:15); and Jehovah would uncover their nakedness, by giving them up to violation and abuse at the hands of coarse and barbarous foes - the greatest possible disgrace in the eyes of a woman, who covers herself as carefully as she can in the presence of any stranger (Isa 47:3; Nah 3:5; Jer 13:22; Eze 16:37).

Isa 3:18-23 The prophet then proceeds to describe still further how the Lord would take away the whole of their toilet as plunder. “On that day the Lord will put away the show of the ankle-clasps, and of the head-bands, and of the crescents; the ear-rings, and the arm-chains, and the light veils; the diadems, and the stepping-chains, and the girdles, and the smelling-bottles, and the amulets; the finger-rings, and the nose-rings; the gala-dresses, and the sleeve-frocks, and the wrappers, and the pockets; the hand-mirrors, and the Sindu-cloths, and the turbans, and the gauze mantles.

” The fullest explanation of all these articles of female attire is to be found in N. W. Schröder’s work, entitled Commentarius de vestitu mulierum Hebraearum ad Jes . Isa 3:16-24, Ludg. Batav 1745 (a quarto volume), and in that of Ant. Theod. Hartmann, consisting of three octavo volumes, and entitled Die Hebräerin am Putztische und als Braut (The Jewess at the Toilet-table, and as Bride, 1809-10); to which we may also add, Saalschütz, Archaeologie , chapter iii.

, where he treats of the dresses of men and women. It was not usually Isaiah’s custom to enter into such minute particulars. Of all the prophets, Ezekiel was the one most addicted to this, as we may see, for example, from Ezek 16. And even in other prophecies against the women we find nothing of the kind again (Isa 32:9. ; Amo 4:1.) But in this instance, the enumeration of the female ornaments is connected with that of the state props in Isa 3:1-3, and that of the lofty and exalted in Isa 2:13-16, so as to form a trilogy, and has its own special explanation in that boundless love of ornament which had become prevalent in the time of Uzziah-Jotham.

It was the prophet’s intention to produce a ludicrous, but yet serious impression, as to the immeasurable luxury which really existed; and in the prophetic address, his design throughout is to bring out the glaring contrast between the titanic, massive, worldly glory, in all its varied forms, and that true, spiritual, and majestically simple glory, whose reality is manifested from within outwards. In fact, the theme of the whole address is the way of universal judgment leading on from the false glory to the true.

The general idea of tiphereth (show: rendered “bravery” in Eng. ver.) which stands at the head and includes the whole, points to the contrast presented by a totally different tiphereth which follows in Isa 4:2. In explaining each particular word, we must be content with what is most necessary, and comparatively the most certain. “Ankle-clasps” ( acâsim ): these were rings of gold, silver, or ivory, worn round the ankles; hence the denom.

verb ( icces ) in Isa 3:16, to make a tinkling sound with these rings. “Head-bands,” or “frontlets” ( shebisim , from shâbas = shâbatz : plectere ), were plaited bands of gold or silver thread worn below the hair-net, and reaching from one ear to the other. There is some force, however, in the explanation which has been very commonly adopted since the time of Schröder, namely, that they were sun-like balls (= shemisim ), which were worn as ornaments round the neck, from the Arabic ‛sumeisa ( ‛subeisa ), a little sun.

The “crescents” ( saharonim ) were little pendants of this kind, fastened round the neck and hanging down upon the breast (in Jdg 8:21 we meet with them as ornaments hung round the camels’ necks). Such ornaments are still worn by Arabian girls, who generally have several different kinds of them; the hilâl , or new moon, being a symbol of increasing good fortune, and as such the most approved charm against the evil eye.

“Ear-rings” ( netiphoth , ear-drops): we meet with these in Jdg 8:26, as an ornament worn by Midianitish kings. Hence the Arabic munattafe , a woman adorned with ear-rings. “Arm-chains:” sheroth , from shâra , to twist. According to the Targum, these were chains worn upon the arm, or spangles upon the wrist, answering to the spangles upon the ankles. “Fluttering veils” ( re'âloth , from râ'al , to hang loose): these were more expensive than the ordinary veils worn by girls, which were called tza'iph .

“Diadems” ( pe'erim ) are only mentioned in other parts of the Scriptures as being worn by men (e. g. , by priests, bride-grooms, or persons of high rank). “Stepping-chains:” tze'âdoth , from tze'âdah , a step; hence the chain worn to shorten and give elegance to the step. “Girdles:” kisshurim , from kâshar ( Cingere ), dress girdles, such as were worn by brides upon their wedding-day (compare Jer 2:32 with Isa 49:18); the word is erroneously rendered hair-pins ( kalmasmezayyah ) in the Targum.

“Smelling-bottles:” botte hannephesh , holders of scent ( nephesh , the breath of an aroma). “Amulets:” lechashim (from lâchash , to work by incantations), gems or metal plates with an inscription upon them, which were worn as a protection as well as an ornament. “Finger-rings:” tabbâ'oth , from tâba , to impress or seal, signet-rings worn upon the finger, corresponding to the Chothâm worn by men upon the breast suspended by a cord.

“Nose-rings” ( nizmê hâaph ) were fastened in the central division of the nose, and hung down over the mouth: they have been ornaments in common use in the East from the time of the patriarchs (Gen 24:22) down to the present day. “Gala-dresses” ( machalâtsoth ) are dresses not usually worn, but taken off when at home. “Sleeve-frocks” ( ma'atâphâh ): the second tunic, worn above the ordinary one, the Roman stola .

“Wrappers” ( mitpâchoth , from tâphach , expandere ), broad cloths wrapped round the body, such as Ruth wore when she crept in to Boaz in her best attire (Rth 3:15). “Pockets” ( Charitim ) were for holding money (2Ki 5:23), which was generally carried by men in the girdle, or in a purse ( Cis ). “Hand-mirrors” ( gilyonim ): the Septuagint renders this διαφανῆ λακωνικὰ, sc.

ἱμάτια, Lacedaemonian gauze or transparent dresses, which showed the nakedness rather than concealed it (from gâlâh , retegere ); but the better rendering is mirrors with handles, polished metal plates (from gâlâh , polire ), as gillâyon is used elsewhere to signify a smooth table. “Sindu-cloths” ( sedinim ), veils or coverings of the finest linen, viz. , of Sindu or Hindu cloth (σινδόνες) - Sindu , the land of Indus, being the earlier name of India.

“Turbans” ( tseniphoth , from tsânaph , Convolvere ), the head-dress composed of twisted cloths of different colours. “Gauze mantles” ( redidim , from râdad , extendere , tenuem facere ), delicate veil-like mantles thrown over the rest of the clothes. Stockings and handkerchiefs are not mentioned: the former were first introduced into Hither Asia from Media long after Isaiah’s time, and a Jerusalem lady no more thought of suing the latter than a Grecian or Roman lady did.

Even the veil ( burko ) now commonly worn, which conceals the whole of the face with the exception of the eyes, did not form part of the attire of an Israelitish woman in the olden time. The prophet enumerates twenty-one different ornaments: three sevens of a very bad kind, especially for the husbands of these state-dolls. There is no particular order observed in the enumeration, either from head to foot, or from the inner to the outer clothing; but they are arranged as much ad libitum as the dress itself.

Isa 3:18-23 The prophet then proceeds to describe still further how the Lord would take away the whole of their toilet as plunder. “On that day the Lord will put away the show of the ankle-clasps, and of the head-bands, and of the crescents; the ear-rings, and the arm-chains, and the light veils; the diadems, and the stepping-chains, and the girdles, and the smelling-bottles, and the amulets; the finger-rings, and the nose-rings; the gala-dresses, and the sleeve-frocks, and the wrappers, and the pockets; the hand-mirrors, and the Sindu-cloths, and the turbans, and the gauze mantles.

” The fullest explanation of all these articles of female attire is to be found in N. W. Schröder’s work, entitled Commentarius de vestitu mulierum Hebraearum ad Jes . Isa 3:16-24, Ludg. Batav 1745 (a quarto volume), and in that of Ant. Theod. Hartmann, consisting of three octavo volumes, and entitled Die Hebräerin am Putztische und als Braut (The Jewess at the Toilet-table, and as Bride, 1809-10); to which we may also add, Saalschütz, Archaeologie , chapter iii.

, where he treats of the dresses of men and women. It was not usually Isaiah’s custom to enter into such minute particulars. Of all the prophets, Ezekiel was the one most addicted to this, as we may see, for example, from Ezek 16. And even in other prophecies against the women we find nothing of the kind again (Isa 32:9. ; Amo 4:1.) But in this instance, the enumeration of the female ornaments is connected with that of the state props in Isa 3:1-3, and that of the lofty and exalted in Isa 2:13-16, so as to form a trilogy, and has its own special explanation in that boundless love of ornament which had become prevalent in the time of Uzziah-Jotham.

It was the prophet’s intention to produce a ludicrous, but yet serious impression, as to the immeasurable luxury which really existed; and in the prophetic address, his design throughout is to bring out the glaring contrast between the titanic, massive, worldly glory, in all its varied forms, and that true, spiritual, and majestically simple glory, whose reality is manifested from within outwards. In fact, the theme of the whole address is the way of universal judgment leading on from the false glory to the true.

The general idea of tiphereth (show: rendered “bravery” in Eng. ver.) which stands at the head and includes the whole, points to the contrast presented by a totally different tiphereth which follows in Isa 4:2. In explaining each particular word, we must be content with what is most necessary, and comparatively the most certain. “Ankle-clasps” ( acâsim ): these were rings of gold, silver, or ivory, worn round the ankles; hence the denom.

verb ( icces ) in Isa 3:16, to make a tinkling sound with these rings. “Head-bands,” or “frontlets” ( shebisim , from shâbas = shâbatz : plectere ), were plaited bands of gold or silver thread worn below the hair-net, and reaching from one ear to the other. There is some force, however, in the explanation which has been very commonly adopted since the time of Schröder, namely, that they were sun-like balls (= shemisim ), which were worn as ornaments round the neck, from the Arabic ‛sumeisa ( ‛subeisa ), a little sun.

The “crescents” ( saharonim ) were little pendants of this kind, fastened round the neck and hanging down upon the breast (in Jdg 8:21 we meet with them as ornaments hung round the camels’ necks). Such ornaments are still worn by Arabian girls, who generally have several different kinds of them; the hilâl , or new moon, being a symbol of increasing good fortune, and as such the most approved charm against the evil eye.

“Ear-rings” ( netiphoth , ear-drops): we meet with these in Jdg 8:26, as an ornament worn by Midianitish kings. Hence the Arabic munattafe , a woman adorned with ear-rings. “Arm-chains:” sheroth , from shâra , to twist. According to the Targum, these were chains worn upon the arm, or spangles upon the wrist, answering to the spangles upon the ankles. “Fluttering veils” ( re'âloth , from râ'al , to hang loose): these were more expensive than the ordinary veils worn by girls, which were called tza'iph .

“Diadems” ( pe'erim ) are only mentioned in other parts of the Scriptures as being worn by men (e. g. , by priests, bride-grooms, or persons of high rank). “Stepping-chains:” tze'âdoth , from tze'âdah , a step; hence the chain worn to shorten and give elegance to the step. “Girdles:” kisshurim , from kâshar ( Cingere ), dress girdles, such as were worn by brides upon their wedding-day (compare Jer 2:32 with Isa 49:18); the word is erroneously rendered hair-pins ( kalmasmezayyah ) in the Targum.

“Smelling-bottles:” botte hannephesh , holders of scent ( nephesh , the breath of an aroma). “Amulets:” lechashim (from lâchash , to work by incantations), gems or metal plates with an inscription upon them, which were worn as a protection as well as an ornament. “Finger-rings:” tabbâ'oth , from tâba , to impress or seal, signet-rings worn upon the finger, corresponding to the Chothâm worn by men upon the breast suspended by a cord.

“Nose-rings” ( nizmê hâaph ) were fastened in the central division of the nose, and hung down over the mouth: they have been ornaments in common use in the East from the time of the patriarchs (Gen 24:22) down to the present day. “Gala-dresses” ( machalâtsoth ) are dresses not usually worn, but taken off when at home. “Sleeve-frocks” ( ma'atâphâh ): the second tunic, worn above the ordinary one, the Roman stola .

“Wrappers” ( mitpâchoth , from tâphach , expandere ), broad cloths wrapped round the body, such as Ruth wore when she crept in to Boaz in her best attire (Rth 3:15). “Pockets” ( Charitim ) were for holding money (2Ki 5:23), which was generally carried by men in the girdle, or in a purse ( Cis ). “Hand-mirrors” ( gilyonim ): the Septuagint renders this διαφανῆ λακωνικὰ, sc.

ἱμάτια, Lacedaemonian gauze or transparent dresses, which showed the nakedness rather than concealed it (from gâlâh , retegere ); but the better rendering is mirrors with handles, polished metal plates (from gâlâh , polire ), as gillâyon is used elsewhere to signify a smooth table. “Sindu-cloths” ( sedinim ), veils or coverings of the finest linen, viz. , of Sindu or Hindu cloth (σινδόνες) - Sindu , the land of Indus, being the earlier name of India.

“Turbans” ( tseniphoth , from tsânaph , Convolvere ), the head-dress composed of twisted cloths of different colours. “Gauze mantles” ( redidim , from râdad , extendere , tenuem facere ), delicate veil-like mantles thrown over the rest of the clothes. Stockings and handkerchiefs are not mentioned: the former were first introduced into Hither Asia from Media long after Isaiah’s time, and a Jerusalem lady no more thought of suing the latter than a Grecian or Roman lady did.

Even the veil ( burko ) now commonly worn, which conceals the whole of the face with the exception of the eyes, did not form part of the attire of an Israelitish woman in the olden time. The prophet enumerates twenty-one different ornaments: three sevens of a very bad kind, especially for the husbands of these state-dolls. There is no particular order observed in the enumeration, either from head to foot, or from the inner to the outer clothing; but they are arranged as much ad libitum as the dress itself.

Isa 3:18-23 The prophet then proceeds to describe still further how the Lord would take away the whole of their toilet as plunder. “On that day the Lord will put away the show of the ankle-clasps, and of the head-bands, and of the crescents; the ear-rings, and the arm-chains, and the light veils; the diadems, and the stepping-chains, and the girdles, and the smelling-bottles, and the amulets; the finger-rings, and the nose-rings; the gala-dresses, and the sleeve-frocks, and the wrappers, and the pockets; the hand-mirrors, and the Sindu-cloths, and the turbans, and the gauze mantles.

” The fullest explanation of all these articles of female attire is to be found in N. W. Schröder’s work, entitled Commentarius de vestitu mulierum Hebraearum ad Jes . Isa 3:16-24, Ludg. Batav 1745 (a quarto volume), and in that of Ant. Theod. Hartmann, consisting of three octavo volumes, and entitled Die Hebräerin am Putztische und als Braut (The Jewess at the Toilet-table, and as Bride, 1809-10); to which we may also add, Saalschütz, Archaeologie , chapter iii.

, where he treats of the dresses of men and women. It was not usually Isaiah’s custom to enter into such minute particulars. Of all the prophets, Ezekiel was the one most addicted to this, as we may see, for example, from Ezek 16. And even in other prophecies against the women we find nothing of the kind again (Isa 32:9. ; Amo 4:1.) But in this instance, the enumeration of the female ornaments is connected with that of the state props in Isa 3:1-3, and that of the lofty and exalted in Isa 2:13-16, so as to form a trilogy, and has its own special explanation in that boundless love of ornament which had become prevalent in the time of Uzziah-Jotham.

It was the prophet’s intention to produce a ludicrous, but yet serious impression, as to the immeasurable luxury which really existed; and in the prophetic address, his design throughout is to bring out the glaring contrast between the titanic, massive, worldly glory, in all its varied forms, and that true, spiritual, and majestically simple glory, whose reality is manifested from within outwards. In fact, the theme of the whole address is the way of universal judgment leading on from the false glory to the true.

The general idea of tiphereth (show: rendered “bravery” in Eng. ver.) which stands at the head and includes the whole, points to the contrast presented by a totally different tiphereth which follows in Isa 4:2. In explaining each particular word, we must be content with what is most necessary, and comparatively the most certain. “Ankle-clasps” ( acâsim ): these were rings of gold, silver, or ivory, worn round the ankles; hence the denom.

verb ( icces ) in Isa 3:16, to make a tinkling sound with these rings. “Head-bands,” or “frontlets” ( shebisim , from shâbas = shâbatz : plectere ), were plaited bands of gold or silver thread worn below the hair-net, and reaching from one ear to the other. There is some force, however, in the explanation which has been very commonly adopted since the time of Schröder, namely, that they were sun-like balls (= shemisim ), which were worn as ornaments round the neck, from the Arabic ‛sumeisa ( ‛subeisa ), a little sun.

The “crescents” ( saharonim ) were little pendants of this kind, fastened round the neck and hanging down upon the breast (in Jdg 8:21 we meet with them as ornaments hung round the camels’ necks). Such ornaments are still worn by Arabian girls, who generally have several different kinds of them; the hilâl , or new moon, being a symbol of increasing good fortune, and as such the most approved charm against the evil eye.

“Ear-rings” ( netiphoth , ear-drops): we meet with these in Jdg 8:26, as an ornament worn by Midianitish kings. Hence the Arabic munattafe , a woman adorned with ear-rings. “Arm-chains:” sheroth , from shâra , to twist. According to the Targum, these were chains worn upon the arm, or spangles upon the wrist, answering to the spangles upon the ankles. “Fluttering veils” ( re'âloth , from râ'al , to hang loose): these were more expensive than the ordinary veils worn by girls, which were called tza'iph .

“Diadems” ( pe'erim ) are only mentioned in other parts of the Scriptures as being worn by men (e. g. , by priests, bride-grooms, or persons of high rank). “Stepping-chains:” tze'âdoth , from tze'âdah , a step; hence the chain worn to shorten and give elegance to the step. “Girdles:” kisshurim , from kâshar ( Cingere ), dress girdles, such as were worn by brides upon their wedding-day (compare Jer 2:32 with Isa 49:18); the word is erroneously rendered hair-pins ( kalmasmezayyah ) in the Targum.

“Smelling-bottles:” botte hannephesh , holders of scent ( nephesh , the breath of an aroma). “Amulets:” lechashim (from lâchash , to work by incantations), gems or metal plates with an inscription upon them, which were worn as a protection as well as an ornament. “Finger-rings:” tabbâ'oth , from tâba , to impress or seal, signet-rings worn upon the finger, corresponding to the Chothâm worn by men upon the breast suspended by a cord.

“Nose-rings” ( nizmê hâaph ) were fastened in the central division of the nose, and hung down over the mouth: they have been ornaments in common use in the East from the time of the patriarchs (Gen 24:22) down to the present day. “Gala-dresses” ( machalâtsoth ) are dresses not usually worn, but taken off when at home. “Sleeve-frocks” ( ma'atâphâh ): the second tunic, worn above the ordinary one, the Roman stola .

“Wrappers” ( mitpâchoth , from tâphach , expandere ), broad cloths wrapped round the body, such as Ruth wore when she crept in to Boaz in her best attire (Rth 3:15). “Pockets” ( Charitim ) were for holding money (2Ki 5:23), which was generally carried by men in the girdle, or in a purse ( Cis ). “Hand-mirrors” ( gilyonim ): the Septuagint renders this διαφανῆ λακωνικὰ, sc.

ἱμάτια, Lacedaemonian gauze or transparent dresses, which showed the nakedness rather than concealed it (from gâlâh , retegere ); but the better rendering is mirrors with handles, polished metal plates (from gâlâh , polire ), as gillâyon is used elsewhere to signify a smooth table. “Sindu-cloths” ( sedinim ), veils or coverings of the finest linen, viz. , of Sindu or Hindu cloth (σινδόνες) - Sindu , the land of Indus, being the earlier name of India.

“Turbans” ( tseniphoth , from tsânaph , Convolvere ), the head-dress composed of twisted cloths of different colours. “Gauze mantles” ( redidim , from râdad , extendere , tenuem facere ), delicate veil-like mantles thrown over the rest of the clothes. Stockings and handkerchiefs are not mentioned: the former were first introduced into Hither Asia from Media long after Isaiah’s time, and a Jerusalem lady no more thought of suing the latter than a Grecian or Roman lady did.

Even the veil ( burko ) now commonly worn, which conceals the whole of the face with the exception of the eyes, did not form part of the attire of an Israelitish woman in the olden time. The prophet enumerates twenty-one different ornaments: three sevens of a very bad kind, especially for the husbands of these state-dolls. There is no particular order observed in the enumeration, either from head to foot, or from the inner to the outer clothing; but they are arranged as much ad libitum as the dress itself.

Isa 3:18-23 The prophet then proceeds to describe still further how the Lord would take away the whole of their toilet as plunder. “On that day the Lord will put away the show of the ankle-clasps, and of the head-bands, and of the crescents; the ear-rings, and the arm-chains, and the light veils; the diadems, and the stepping-chains, and the girdles, and the smelling-bottles, and the amulets; the finger-rings, and the nose-rings; the gala-dresses, and the sleeve-frocks, and the wrappers, and the pockets; the hand-mirrors, and the Sindu-cloths, and the turbans, and the gauze mantles.

” The fullest explanation of all these articles of female attire is to be found in N. W. Schröder’s work, entitled Commentarius de vestitu mulierum Hebraearum ad Jes . Isa 3:16-24, Ludg. Batav 1745 (a quarto volume), and in that of Ant. Theod. Hartmann, consisting of three octavo volumes, and entitled Die Hebräerin am Putztische und als Braut (The Jewess at the Toilet-table, and as Bride, 1809-10); to which we may also add, Saalschütz, Archaeologie , chapter iii.

, where he treats of the dresses of men and women. It was not usually Isaiah’s custom to enter into such minute particulars. Of all the prophets, Ezekiel was the one most addicted to this, as we may see, for example, from Ezek 16. And even in other prophecies against the women we find nothing of the kind again (Isa 32:9. ; Amo 4:1.) But in this instance, the enumeration of the female ornaments is connected with that of the state props in Isa 3:1-3, and that of the lofty and exalted in Isa 2:13-16, so as to form a trilogy, and has its own special explanation in that boundless love of ornament which had become prevalent in the time of Uzziah-Jotham.

It was the prophet’s intention to produce a ludicrous, but yet serious impression, as to the immeasurable luxury which really existed; and in the prophetic address, his design throughout is to bring out the glaring contrast between the titanic, massive, worldly glory, in all its varied forms, and that true, spiritual, and majestically simple glory, whose reality is manifested from within outwards. In fact, the theme of the whole address is the way of universal judgment leading on from the false glory to the true.

The general idea of tiphereth (show: rendered “bravery” in Eng. ver.) which stands at the head and includes the whole, points to the contrast presented by a totally different tiphereth which follows in Isa 4:2. In explaining each particular word, we must be content with what is most necessary, and comparatively the most certain. “Ankle-clasps” ( acâsim ): these were rings of gold, silver, or ivory, worn round the ankles; hence the denom.

verb ( icces ) in Isa 3:16, to make a tinkling sound with these rings. “Head-bands,” or “frontlets” ( shebisim , from shâbas = shâbatz : plectere ), were plaited bands of gold or silver thread worn below the hair-net, and reaching from one ear to the other. There is some force, however, in the explanation which has been very commonly adopted since the time of Schröder, namely, that they were sun-like balls (= shemisim ), which were worn as ornaments round the neck, from the Arabic ‛sumeisa ( ‛subeisa ), a little sun.

The “crescents” ( saharonim ) were little pendants of this kind, fastened round the neck and hanging down upon the breast (in Jdg 8:21 we meet with them as ornaments hung round the camels’ necks). Such ornaments are still worn by Arabian girls, who generally have several different kinds of them; the hilâl , or new moon, being a symbol of increasing good fortune, and as such the most approved charm against the evil eye.

“Ear-rings” ( netiphoth , ear-drops): we meet with these in Jdg 8:26, as an ornament worn by Midianitish kings. Hence the Arabic munattafe , a woman adorned with ear-rings. “Arm-chains:” sheroth , from shâra , to twist. According to the Targum, these were chains worn upon the arm, or spangles upon the wrist, answering to the spangles upon the ankles. “Fluttering veils” ( re'âloth , from râ'al , to hang loose): these were more expensive than the ordinary veils worn by girls, which were called tza'iph .

“Diadems” ( pe'erim ) are only mentioned in other parts of the Scriptures as being worn by men (e. g. , by priests, bride-grooms, or persons of high rank). “Stepping-chains:” tze'âdoth , from tze'âdah , a step; hence the chain worn to shorten and give elegance to the step. “Girdles:” kisshurim , from kâshar ( Cingere ), dress girdles, such as were worn by brides upon their wedding-day (compare Jer 2:32 with Isa 49:18); the word is erroneously rendered hair-pins ( kalmasmezayyah ) in the Targum.

“Smelling-bottles:” botte hannephesh , holders of scent ( nephesh , the breath of an aroma). “Amulets:” lechashim (from lâchash , to work by incantations), gems or metal plates with an inscription upon them, which were worn as a protection as well as an ornament. “Finger-rings:” tabbâ'oth , from tâba , to impress or seal, signet-rings worn upon the finger, corresponding to the Chothâm worn by men upon the breast suspended by a cord.

“Nose-rings” ( nizmê hâaph ) were fastened in the central division of the nose, and hung down over the mouth: they have been ornaments in common use in the East from the time of the patriarchs (Gen 24:22) down to the present day. “Gala-dresses” ( machalâtsoth ) are dresses not usually worn, but taken off when at home. “Sleeve-frocks” ( ma'atâphâh ): the second tunic, worn above the ordinary one, the Roman stola .

“Wrappers” ( mitpâchoth , from tâphach , expandere ), broad cloths wrapped round the body, such as Ruth wore when she crept in to Boaz in her best attire (Rth 3:15). “Pockets” ( Charitim ) were for holding money (2Ki 5:23), which was generally carried by men in the girdle, or in a purse ( Cis ). “Hand-mirrors” ( gilyonim ): the Septuagint renders this διαφανῆ λακωνικὰ, sc.

ἱμάτια, Lacedaemonian gauze or transparent dresses, which showed the nakedness rather than concealed it (from gâlâh , retegere ); but the better rendering is mirrors with handles, polished metal plates (from gâlâh , polire ), as gillâyon is used elsewhere to signify a smooth table. “Sindu-cloths” ( sedinim ), veils or coverings of the finest linen, viz. , of Sindu or Hindu cloth (σινδόνες) - Sindu , the land of Indus, being the earlier name of India.

“Turbans” ( tseniphoth , from tsânaph , Convolvere ), the head-dress composed of twisted cloths of different colours. “Gauze mantles” ( redidim , from râdad , extendere , tenuem facere ), delicate veil-like mantles thrown over the rest of the clothes. Stockings and handkerchiefs are not mentioned: the former were first introduced into Hither Asia from Media long after Isaiah’s time, and a Jerusalem lady no more thought of suing the latter than a Grecian or Roman lady did.

Even the veil ( burko ) now commonly worn, which conceals the whole of the face with the exception of the eyes, did not form part of the attire of an Israelitish woman in the olden time. The prophet enumerates twenty-one different ornaments: three sevens of a very bad kind, especially for the husbands of these state-dolls. There is no particular order observed in the enumeration, either from head to foot, or from the inner to the outer clothing; but they are arranged as much ad libitum as the dress itself.

Isa 3:18-23 The prophet then proceeds to describe still further how the Lord would take away the whole of their toilet as plunder. “On that day the Lord will put away the show of the ankle-clasps, and of the head-bands, and of the crescents; the ear-rings, and the arm-chains, and the light veils; the diadems, and the stepping-chains, and the girdles, and the smelling-bottles, and the amulets; the finger-rings, and the nose-rings; the gala-dresses, and the sleeve-frocks, and the wrappers, and the pockets; the hand-mirrors, and the Sindu-cloths, and the turbans, and the gauze mantles.

” The fullest explanation of all these articles of female attire is to be found in N. W. Schröder’s work, entitled Commentarius de vestitu mulierum Hebraearum ad Jes . Isa 3:16-24, Ludg. Batav 1745 (a quarto volume), and in that of Ant. Theod. Hartmann, consisting of three octavo volumes, and entitled Die Hebräerin am Putztische und als Braut (The Jewess at the Toilet-table, and as Bride, 1809-10); to which we may also add, Saalschütz, Archaeologie , chapter iii.

, where he treats of the dresses of men and women. It was not usually Isaiah’s custom to enter into such minute particulars. Of all the prophets, Ezekiel was the one most addicted to this, as we may see, for example, from Ezek 16. And even in other prophecies against the women we find nothing of the kind again (Isa 32:9. ; Amo 4:1.) But in this instance, the enumeration of the female ornaments is connected with that of the state props in Isa 3:1-3, and that of the lofty and exalted in Isa 2:13-16, so as to form a trilogy, and has its own special explanation in that boundless love of ornament which had become prevalent in the time of Uzziah-Jotham.

It was the prophet’s intention to produce a ludicrous, but yet serious impression, as to the immeasurable luxury which really existed; and in the prophetic address, his design throughout is to bring out the glaring contrast between the titanic, massive, worldly glory, in all its varied forms, and that true, spiritual, and majestically simple glory, whose reality is manifested from within outwards. In fact, the theme of the whole address is the way of universal judgment leading on from the false glory to the true.

The general idea of tiphereth (show: rendered “bravery” in Eng. ver.) which stands at the head and includes the whole, points to the contrast presented by a totally different tiphereth which follows in Isa 4:2. In explaining each particular word, we must be content with what is most necessary, and comparatively the most certain. “Ankle-clasps” ( acâsim ): these were rings of gold, silver, or ivory, worn round the ankles; hence the denom.

verb ( icces ) in Isa 3:16, to make a tinkling sound with these rings. “Head-bands,” or “frontlets” ( shebisim , from shâbas = shâbatz : plectere ), were plaited bands of gold or silver thread worn below the hair-net, and reaching from one ear to the other. There is some force, however, in the explanation which has been very commonly adopted since the time of Schröder, namely, that they were sun-like balls (= shemisim ), which were worn as ornaments round the neck, from the Arabic ‛sumeisa ( ‛subeisa ), a little sun.

The “crescents” ( saharonim ) were little pendants of this kind, fastened round the neck and hanging down upon the breast (in Jdg 8:21 we meet with them as ornaments hung round the camels’ necks). Such ornaments are still worn by Arabian girls, who generally have several different kinds of them; the hilâl , or new moon, being a symbol of increasing good fortune, and as such the most approved charm against the evil eye.

“Ear-rings” ( netiphoth , ear-drops): we meet with these in Jdg 8:26, as an ornament worn by Midianitish kings. Hence the Arabic munattafe , a woman adorned with ear-rings. “Arm-chains:” sheroth , from shâra , to twist. According to the Targum, these were chains worn upon the arm, or spangles upon the wrist, answering to the spangles upon the ankles. “Fluttering veils” ( re'âloth , from râ'al , to hang loose): these were more expensive than the ordinary veils worn by girls, which were called tza'iph .

“Diadems” ( pe'erim ) are only mentioned in other parts of the Scriptures as being worn by men (e. g. , by priests, bride-grooms, or persons of high rank). “Stepping-chains:” tze'âdoth , from tze'âdah , a step; hence the chain worn to shorten and give elegance to the step. “Girdles:” kisshurim , from kâshar ( Cingere ), dress girdles, such as were worn by brides upon their wedding-day (compare Jer 2:32 with Isa 49:18); the word is erroneously rendered hair-pins ( kalmasmezayyah ) in the Targum.

“Smelling-bottles:” botte hannephesh , holders of scent ( nephesh , the breath of an aroma). “Amulets:” lechashim (from lâchash , to work by incantations), gems or metal plates with an inscription upon them, which were worn as a protection as well as an ornament. “Finger-rings:” tabbâ'oth , from tâba , to impress or seal, signet-rings worn upon the finger, corresponding to the Chothâm worn by men upon the breast suspended by a cord.

“Nose-rings” ( nizmê hâaph ) were fastened in the central division of the nose, and hung down over the mouth: they have been ornaments in common use in the East from the time of the patriarchs (Gen 24:22) down to the present day. “Gala-dresses” ( machalâtsoth ) are dresses not usually worn, but taken off when at home. “Sleeve-frocks” ( ma'atâphâh ): the second tunic, worn above the ordinary one, the Roman stola .

“Wrappers” ( mitpâchoth , from tâphach , expandere ), broad cloths wrapped round the body, such as Ruth wore when she crept in to Boaz in her best attire (Rth 3:15). “Pockets” ( Charitim ) were for holding money (2Ki 5:23), which was generally carried by men in the girdle, or in a purse ( Cis ). “Hand-mirrors” ( gilyonim ): the Septuagint renders this διαφανῆ λακωνικὰ, sc.

ἱμάτια, Lacedaemonian gauze or transparent dresses, which showed the nakedness rather than concealed it (from gâlâh , retegere ); but the better rendering is mirrors with handles, polished metal plates (from gâlâh , polire ), as gillâyon is used elsewhere to signify a smooth table. “Sindu-cloths” ( sedinim ), veils or coverings of the finest linen, viz. , of Sindu or Hindu cloth (σινδόνες) - Sindu , the land of Indus, being the earlier name of India.

“Turbans” ( tseniphoth , from tsânaph , Convolvere ), the head-dress composed of twisted cloths of different colours. “Gauze mantles” ( redidim , from râdad , extendere , tenuem facere ), delicate veil-like mantles thrown over the rest of the clothes. Stockings and handkerchiefs are not mentioned: the former were first introduced into Hither Asia from Media long after Isaiah’s time, and a Jerusalem lady no more thought of suing the latter than a Grecian or Roman lady did.

Even the veil ( burko ) now commonly worn, which conceals the whole of the face with the exception of the eyes, did not form part of the attire of an Israelitish woman in the olden time. The prophet enumerates twenty-one different ornaments: three sevens of a very bad kind, especially for the husbands of these state-dolls. There is no particular order observed in the enumeration, either from head to foot, or from the inner to the outer clothing; but they are arranged as much ad libitum as the dress itself.

Isa 3:18-23 The prophet then proceeds to describe still further how the Lord would take away the whole of their toilet as plunder. “On that day the Lord will put away the show of the ankle-clasps, and of the head-bands, and of the crescents; the ear-rings, and the arm-chains, and the light veils; the diadems, and the stepping-chains, and the girdles, and the smelling-bottles, and the amulets; the finger-rings, and the nose-rings; the gala-dresses, and the sleeve-frocks, and the wrappers, and the pockets; the hand-mirrors, and the Sindu-cloths, and the turbans, and the gauze mantles.

” The fullest explanation of all these articles of female attire is to be found in N. W. Schröder’s work, entitled Commentarius de vestitu mulierum Hebraearum ad Jes . Isa 3:16-24, Ludg. Batav 1745 (a quarto volume), and in that of Ant. Theod. Hartmann, consisting of three octavo volumes, and entitled Die Hebräerin am Putztische und als Braut (The Jewess at the Toilet-table, and as Bride, 1809-10); to which we may also add, Saalschütz, Archaeologie , chapter iii.

, where he treats of the dresses of men and women. It was not usually Isaiah’s custom to enter into such minute particulars. Of all the prophets, Ezekiel was the one most addicted to this, as we may see, for example, from Ezek 16. And even in other prophecies against the women we find nothing of the kind again (Isa 32:9. ; Amo 4:1.) But in this instance, the enumeration of the female ornaments is connected with that of the state props in Isa 3:1-3, and that of the lofty and exalted in Isa 2:13-16, so as to form a trilogy, and has its own special explanation in that boundless love of ornament which had become prevalent in the time of Uzziah-Jotham.

It was the prophet’s intention to produce a ludicrous, but yet serious impression, as to the immeasurable luxury which really existed; and in the prophetic address, his design throughout is to bring out the glaring contrast between the titanic, massive, worldly glory, in all its varied forms, and that true, spiritual, and majestically simple glory, whose reality is manifested from within outwards. In fact, the theme of the whole address is the way of universal judgment leading on from the false glory to the true.

The general idea of tiphereth (show: rendered “bravery” in Eng. ver.) which stands at the head and includes the whole, points to the contrast presented by a totally different tiphereth which follows in Isa 4:2. In explaining each particular word, we must be content with what is most necessary, and comparatively the most certain. “Ankle-clasps” ( acâsim ): these were rings of gold, silver, or ivory, worn round the ankles; hence the denom.

verb ( icces ) in Isa 3:16, to make a tinkling sound with these rings. “Head-bands,” or “frontlets” ( shebisim , from shâbas = shâbatz : plectere ), were plaited bands of gold or silver thread worn below the hair-net, and reaching from one ear to the other. There is some force, however, in the explanation which has been very commonly adopted since the time of Schröder, namely, that they were sun-like balls (= shemisim ), which were worn as ornaments round the neck, from the Arabic ‛sumeisa ( ‛subeisa ), a little sun.

The “crescents” ( saharonim ) were little pendants of this kind, fastened round the neck and hanging down upon the breast (in Jdg 8:21 we meet with them as ornaments hung round the camels’ necks). Such ornaments are still worn by Arabian girls, who generally have several different kinds of them; the hilâl , or new moon, being a symbol of increasing good fortune, and as such the most approved charm against the evil eye.

“Ear-rings” ( netiphoth , ear-drops): we meet with these in Jdg 8:26, as an ornament worn by Midianitish kings. Hence the Arabic munattafe , a woman adorned with ear-rings. “Arm-chains:” sheroth , from shâra , to twist. According to the Targum, these were chains worn upon the arm, or spangles upon the wrist, answering to the spangles upon the ankles. “Fluttering veils” ( re'âloth , from râ'al , to hang loose): these were more expensive than the ordinary veils worn by girls, which were called tza'iph .

“Diadems” ( pe'erim ) are only mentioned in other parts of the Scriptures as being worn by men (e. g. , by priests, bride-grooms, or persons of high rank). “Stepping-chains:” tze'âdoth , from tze'âdah , a step; hence the chain worn to shorten and give elegance to the step. “Girdles:” kisshurim , from kâshar ( Cingere ), dress girdles, such as were worn by brides upon their wedding-day (compare Jer 2:32 with Isa 49:18); the word is erroneously rendered hair-pins ( kalmasmezayyah ) in the Targum.

“Smelling-bottles:” botte hannephesh , holders of scent ( nephesh , the breath of an aroma). “Amulets:” lechashim (from lâchash , to work by incantations), gems or metal plates with an inscription upon them, which were worn as a protection as well as an ornament. “Finger-rings:” tabbâ'oth , from tâba , to impress or seal, signet-rings worn upon the finger, corresponding to the Chothâm worn by men upon the breast suspended by a cord.

“Nose-rings” ( nizmê hâaph ) were fastened in the central division of the nose, and hung down over the mouth: they have been ornaments in common use in the East from the time of the patriarchs (Gen 24:22) down to the present day. “Gala-dresses” ( machalâtsoth ) are dresses not usually worn, but taken off when at home. “Sleeve-frocks” ( ma'atâphâh ): the second tunic, worn above the ordinary one, the Roman stola .

“Wrappers” ( mitpâchoth , from tâphach , expandere ), broad cloths wrapped round the body, such as Ruth wore when she crept in to Boaz in her best attire (Rth 3:15). “Pockets” ( Charitim ) were for holding money (2Ki 5:23), which was generally carried by men in the girdle, or in a purse ( Cis ). “Hand-mirrors” ( gilyonim ): the Septuagint renders this διαφανῆ λακωνικὰ, sc.

ἱμάτια, Lacedaemonian gauze or transparent dresses, which showed the nakedness rather than concealed it (from gâlâh , retegere ); but the better rendering is mirrors with handles, polished metal plates (from gâlâh , polire ), as gillâyon is used elsewhere to signify a smooth table. “Sindu-cloths” ( sedinim ), veils or coverings of the finest linen, viz. , of Sindu or Hindu cloth (σινδόνες) - Sindu , the land of Indus, being the earlier name of India.

“Turbans” ( tseniphoth , from tsânaph , Convolvere ), the head-dress composed of twisted cloths of different colours. “Gauze mantles” ( redidim , from râdad , extendere , tenuem facere ), delicate veil-like mantles thrown over the rest of the clothes. Stockings and handkerchiefs are not mentioned: the former were first introduced into Hither Asia from Media long after Isaiah’s time, and a Jerusalem lady no more thought of suing the latter than a Grecian or Roman lady did.

Even the veil ( burko ) now commonly worn, which conceals the whole of the face with the exception of the eyes, did not form part of the attire of an Israelitish woman in the olden time. The prophet enumerates twenty-one different ornaments: three sevens of a very bad kind, especially for the husbands of these state-dolls. There is no particular order observed in the enumeration, either from head to foot, or from the inner to the outer clothing; but they are arranged as much ad libitum as the dress itself.

Isa 3:24 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 Isa 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 (Pro 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.) Baldness takes the place of artistic ringlets (מקשׁה מעשׂה, not מעשׂה, so that it is in apposition: cf.

, Isa 30:20; Ges. §113; Ewald, §287, b ). The reference is not to golden ornaments for the head, as the Sept. rendering gives it, although miksheh 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 (Isa 15:2; Isa 22:12), or which would fall off in consequence of grief.

A frock of sackcloth ( machagoreth 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 ( Ci = Cevi , from Câvâh , καἰειν), the mark burnt upon the forehead by their conquerors: Ci is a substantive, not a particle, as the Targum and others render it, and as the makkeph 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.

Isa 3:25 The prophet now passes over to a direct address to Jerusalem itself, since the “daughters of Zion” and the daughter of Zion in her present degenerate condition. The daughter of Zion loses her sons, and consequently the daughters of Zion their husbands. - “Thy men will fall by the sword, and thy might in war. ” The plural methim (the singular of which only occurs in the form methu , with the connecting vowel ū as a component part of the proper names) is used as a prose word in the Pentateuch; but in the later literature it is a poetic archaism.

“Thy might” is used interchangeably with “thy men,” the possessors of the might being really intended, like robur and robora in Latin (compare Jer 49:35).

Isa 3:26 What the prophet here foretells to the daughter of Zion he sees in Isa 3:26 fulfilled upon her: “Then will her gates lament and mourn, and desolate is she, sits down upon the ground. ” The gates, where the husbands of the daughters of Zion, who have now fallen in war, sued at one time to gather together in such numbers, are turned into a state of desolation, in which they may, as it were, be heard complaining, and seen to mourn (Isa 14:31; Jer 14:2; Lam 1:4); and the daughter of Zion herself is utterly vacated, thoroughly emptied, completely deprived of all her former population; and in this state of the most mournful widowhood or orphanage, brought down from her lofty seat (Isa 47:1) and princely glory (Jer 13:18), she sits down upon the ground, just as Judaea is represented as doing upon Roman medals that were struck after the destruction of Jerusalem, where she is introduced as a woman thoroughly broken down, and sitting under a palm-tree in an attitude of despair, with a warrior standing in front of her, the inscription upon the medal being Judaea capta , or devicta .

The Septuagint rendering is quite in accordance with the sense, viz. , καὶ καταλειφθἠση μόνη καὶ εἰς την̀ γῆν ἐδαφισθήση (cf. , Luk 19:44), except that תּשׁב is not the second person, but the third, and נקּתה the third pers. pret. niph . for נקּתה - a pausal form which is frequently met with in connection with the smaller distinctive accents, such as silluk and athnach (here it occurs with tiphchah , as, for example, in Amo 3:8).

The clause “sits down upon the ground” is appended ἀσυνδἔτως - a frequent construction in cases where one of two verbs defines the other in a manner which is generally expressed adverbially (vid. , 1Ch 13:2, and the inverted order of the words in Jer 4:5; cf. , Isa 12:6): Zion sits upon the earth in a state of utter depopulation.

Isa 4:1 When war shall thus unsparingly have swept away the men of Zion, a most unnatural effect will ensue, namely, that women will go in search of husbands, and not men in search of wives. “And seven women lay hold of one man in that day, saying, We will eat our won bread, and wear our own clothes; only let thy name be named upon us, take away our reproach.

” The division of the chapters is a wrong one here, as this v. is the closing v. of the prophecy against the women, and the closing portion of the whole address does not begin till Isa 4:2. The present pride of the daughters of Zion, every one of whom now thought herself the greatest as the wife of such and such a man, and for whom many men were now the suitors, would end in this unnatural self-humiliation, that seven of them would offer themselves to the same man, the first man who presented himself, and even renounce the ordinary legal claim upon their husband for clothing and food (Exo 21:10).

It would be quite sufficient for them to be allowed to bear his name (“let thy name be named upon us:” the name is put upon the thing named, as giving it its distinctness and character), if he would only take away their reproach (namely, the reproach of being unmarried, Isa 54:4, as in Gen 30:23, of being childless) by letting them be called his wives. The number seven (seven women to one man) may be explained on the ground that there is a bad seven as well as a holy one (e.

g. , Mat 12:45). In Isa 4:1 the threat denounced against the women of Jerusalem is brought to a close. It is the side-piece to the threat denounced against the national rulers. And these two scenes of judgment were only parts of the general judgment about to fall upon Jerusalem and Judah, as a state or national community. And this again was merely a portion, viz.

, the central group of the picture of a far more comprehensive judgment, which was about to fall upon everything lofty and exalted on the earth. Jerusalem, therefore, stands here as the centre and focus of the great judgment-day. It was in Jerusalem that the ungodly glory which was ripe for judgment was concentrated; and it was in Jerusalem also that the light of the true and final glory would concentrate itself.

To this promise, with which the address returns to its starting-point, the prophet now passes on without any further introduction. In fact it needed no introduction, for the judgment in itself was the medium of salvation. When Jerusalem was judged, it would be sifted; and by being sifted, it would be rescued, pardoned, glorified. The prophet proceeds in this sense to speak of what would happen in that day, and describes the one great day of God at the end of time (not a day of four-and-twenty hours any more than the seven days of creation were), according to its general character, as opening with judgment, but issuing in salvation.

Isa 4:2 “In that day will the sprout of Jehovah become an ornament and glory, and the fruit of the land pride and splendour for the redeemed of Israel. ” The four epithets of glory, which are here grouped in pairs, strengthen our expectation, that now that the mass of Israel has been swept away, together with the objects of its worthless pride, we shall find a description of what will become an object of well-grounded pride to the “escaped of Israel,” i.

e. , to the remnant that has survived the judgment, and been saved from destruction. But with this interpretation of the promise it is impossible that it can be the church of the future itself, which is here called the “sprout of Jehovah” and “fruit of the land,” as Luzzatto and Malbim suppose; and equally impossible, with such an antithesis between what is promised and what is abolished, that the “sprout of Jehovah” and “fruit of the earth” should signify the harvest blessings bestowed by Jehovah, or the rich produce of the land.

For although the expression zemach Jehovah (sprout of Jehovah) may unquestionably be used to signify this, as in Gen 2:9 and Psa 104:14 (cf. , Isa 61:11), and fruitfulness of the land is a standing accompaniment of the eschatological promises (e. g. , Isa 30:23. , compare the conclusion of Joel and Amos), and it was also foretold that the fruitful fields of Israel would become a glory in the sight of the nations (Eze 34:29; Mal 3:12; cf.

, Joe 2:17); yet this earthly material good, of which, moreover, there was no lack in the time of Uzziah and Jotham, was altogether unsuitable to set forth such a contrast as would surpass and outshine the worldly glory existing before. But even granting what Hofmann adduces in support of this view - namely, that the natural God-given blessings of the field do form a fitting antithesis to the studied works of art of which men had hitherto been proud - there is still truth in the remark of Rosenmüller, that “the magnificence of the whole passage is at variance with such an interpretation.

” Only compare Isa 28:5, where Jehovah Himself is described in the same manner, as the glory and ornament of the remnant of Israel. But if the “sprout of Jehovah” is neither the redeemed remnant itself, nor the fruit of the field, it must be the name of the Messiah. And it is in this sense that it has been understood by the Targum, and by such modern commentators as Rosenmüller, Hengstenberg, Steudel, Umbreit, Caspari, Drechsler, and others.

The great King of the future is called zemach , ἀνατολή in the sense of Heb 7:14, viz. , as a shoot springing out of the human, Davidic, earthly soil - a shoot which Jehovah had planted in the earth, and would cause to break through and spring forth as the pride of His congregation, which was waiting for this heavenly child. It is He again who is designated in the parallel clause as the “fruit of the land” (or lit.

, fruit of the earth), as being the fruit which the land of Israel, and consequently the earth itself, would produce, just as in Eze 17:5 Zedekiah is called a “seed of the earth. ” The reasons already adduced to show that “the sprout of Jehovah” cannot refer to the blessings of the field, apply with equal force to “the fruit of the earth. ” This also relates to the Messiah Himself, regarded as the fruit in which all the growth and bloom of this earthly history would eventually reach its promised and divinely appointed conclusion.

The use of this double epithet to denote “the coming One” can only be accounted for, without anticipating the New Testament standpoint, from the desire to depict His double-sided origin. He would come, on the one hand, from Jehovah ; but, on the other hand, from the earth , inasmuch as He would spring from Israel. We have here the passage, on the basis of which zemach (the sprout of “Branch”) was adopted by Jeremiah (Jer 23:5 and Jer 33:15) and Zechariah (Zec 3:8; Zec 6:12) as a proper name for the Messiah, and upon which Matthew, by combining this proper name zemach (sprout) with nezer (Isa 11:1, cf.

, Isa 53:2), rests his affirmation, that according to the Old Testament prophecies the future Messiah was to be called a Nazarene. It is undoubtedly strange that this epithet should be introduced so entirely without preparation even by Isaiah, who coined it first. In fact, the whole passage relating to the Messiah stands quite alone in this cycle of prophecies in chapters 1-6.

But the book of Isaiah is a complete and connected work. What the prophet indicates merely in outline here, he carries out more fully in the cycle of prophecies which follows in chapters 7-12; and there the enigma, which he leaves as an enigma in the passage before us, receives the fullest solution. Without dwelling any further upon the man of the future, described in this enigmatically symbolical way, the prophet hurries on to a more precise description of the church of the future.

Isa 4:3 “And it will come to pass, whoever is left in Zion and remains in Jerusalem, holy will he be called, all who are written down for life in Jerusalem. ” The leading emphasis of the whole v. rests upon kadosh (holy). Whereas formerly in Jerusalem persons had been distinguished according to their rank and condition, without any regard to their moral worth (Isa 3:1-3, Isa 3:10-11; cf.

, Isa 32:5); so the name kadosh (holy) would now be the one chief name of honour, and would be given to every individual, inasmuch as the national calling of Israel would now be realized in the persons of all (Exo 19:6, etc.) Consequently the expression “he shall be called” is not exactly equivalent to “he shall be,” but rather presupposes the latter, as in Isa 1:26; Isa 61:6; Isa 62:4.

The term kadosh denotes that which is withdrawn from the world, or separated from it. The church of the saints or holy ones, which now inhabits Jerusalem, is what has been left from the smelting; and their holiness is the result of washing. הנוּתר is interchanged with נהנּשׁאר. The latter, as Papenheim has shown in his Hebrew synonyms, involves the idea of intention, viz.

, “that which has been left behind;” the former merely expresses the fact, viz. , that which remains. The character of this “remnant of grace,” and the number of members of which it would consist, are shown in the apposition contained in Isa 4:3 . This apposition means something more than those who are entered as living in Jerusalem, i. e. , the population of Jerusalem as entered in the city register (Hofmann); for the verb with Lamed does not mean merely to enter as a certain thing, but (like the same verb with the accusative in Jer 22:30) to enter as intended for a certain purpose.

The expression להיּים may either be taken as a noun, viz. , “to life” (Dan 12:2), or as an adjective, “to the living” (a meaning which is quite as tenable; cf. , Psa 69:29; 1Sa 25:29). In either case the notion of predestination is implied, and the assumption of the existence of a divine “book of life” (Exo 32:32-33; Dan 12:1; cf. , Psa 139:16); so that the idea is the same as that of Act 13:48 : “As many as were ordained to eternal life.

” The reference here is to persons who were entered in the book of God, on account of the good kernel of faith within them, as those who should become partakers of the life in the new Jerusalem, and should therefore be spared in the midst of the judgment of sifting in accordance with this divine purpose of grace. For it was only through the judgment setting this kernel of faith at liberty, that such a holy community as is described in the protasis which comes afterwards, as in Psa 63:6-7, could possibly arise.

Isa 4:4 “When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged away the bloodguiltinesses of Jerusalem from the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment and by the spirit of sifting. ” “When,” followed by a preterite (equivalent to a fut. exact . as in Isa 24:13; Ges. §126, 5), introduces the circumstance, whose previous occurrence would be the condition of all the rest.

The force of the future yâdiach (“shall have purged”) is regulated by that of the preterite râchatz , as in Isa 6:11; for although, when regarded simply by itself, as in Isa 10:12, the future tense may suggest the idea of a future prefect, it cannot have the force of such a future. The double purification answers to the two scenes of judgment described in chapter 3.

The filth of the daughters of Zion is the moral pollution hidden under their vain and coquettish finery; and the murderous deeds of Jerusalem are the acts of judicial murder committed by its rulers upon the poor and innocent. This filth and these spots of blood the Sovereign Ruler washes and purges away (see 2Ch 4:6), by causing His spirit or His breath to burst in upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, both male and female.

This breath is called “the spirit of judgment,” because it punishes evil; and “the spirit of sifting,” inasmuch as it sweeps or cleans it away. בּער is to be explained, as in Isa 6:13, in accordance with Deu 13:6 (5, Eng. Ver. ; “put the evil away”) and other passages, such especially as Isa 19:13; Isa 21:9. The rendering given in the Septuagint and Vulgate, viz.

, “in the spirit of burning,” is founded upon the radical meaning of the verb, which signifies literally to burn up, and hence to clear away or destroy (see Comm. on Job , at Job 31:12, Eng. Tr.) Nevertheless, “burning” in connection with judgment is not definite enough, since every manifestation of divine judgment is a manifestation of fire; but it is not every judgment that has connected with it what is here implied - namely, the salutary object of burning away or, in other words, of winnowing.

The “spirit” is in both instances the Spirit of God which pervades the world, not only generating and sustaining life, but also at times destroying and sifting (Isa 30:27-28), as it does in the case before us, in which the imperishable glory described in Isa 3:5 is so prepared.

Isa 4:6 Thus would Zion be a secure retreat from all adversities and disasters. "And it will be a booth for shade by day from the heat of the sun, and for a refuge and covert from storm and from rain. ” The subject to “will be” is not the miraculous roofing; for ânân (cloud) is masculine, and the verb feminine, and there would be no sense in saying that a Chuppâh or canopy would be a succâh or booth.

Either, therefore, the verb contains the subject in itself, and the meaning is, “There will be a booth” (the verb hâyâh being used in a pregnant sense, as in Isa 15:6; Isa 23:13); or else Zion (Isa 4:5) is the subject. We prefer the latter. Zion or Jerusalem would be a booth, that is to say, as the parallel clause affirms, a place of security and concealment ( mistor , which only occurs here, is used on account of the alliteration with machseh in the place of sether , which the prophet more usually employs, viz.

, in Isa 28:17; Isa 32:2). “By day” ( yōmâm , which is construed with לצל in the construct state, cf. , Eze 30:16) is left intentionally without any “by night” to answer to it in the parallel clause, because reference is made to a place of safety and concealment for all times, whether by day or night. Heat, storm, and rain are mentioned as examples to denote the most manifold dangers; but it is a singular fact that rain, which is a blessing so earnestly desired in the time of Chōreb , i.

e. , of drought and burning heat, should also be included. At the present day, when rain falls in Jerusalem, the whole city dances with delight. Nevertheless rain, i. e. , the rain which falls from the clouds, is not paradisaical; and its effects are by no means unfrequently destructive. According to the archives of Genesis, rain from the clouds took the place of dew for the first time at the flood, when it fell in a continuous and destructive form.

The Jerusalem of the last time will be paradise restored; and there men will be no longer exposed to destructive changes of weather. In this prediction the close of the prophetic discourse is linked on to the commencement. This mountain of Zion, roofed over with a cloud of smoke by day and the shining of a flaming fire by night, is no other than the mountain of the house of Jehovah, which was to be exalted above all the mountains, and to which the nations would make their pilgrimage; and this Jerusalem, so holy within, and all glorious without, is no other than the place from which the word of Jehovah was one day to go forth into all the world.

But what Jerusalem is this? Is it the Jerusalem of the time of final glory awaiting the people of God in this life, as described in Rev 11 (for, notwithstanding all that a spiritualistic and rationalistic anti-chiliasm may say, the prophetic words of both Old and New Testament warrant us in expecting such a time of glory in this life); or is it the Jerusalem of the new heaven and new earth described in Rev 20:1-15 :21?

The true answer is, “Both in one. ” The prophet’s real intention was to depict the holy city in its final and imperishable state after the last judgment. But to his view, the state beyond and the closing state here were blended together, so that the glorified Jerusalem of earth and the glorified Jerusalem of heaven appeared as if fused into one. It was a distinguishing characteristic of the Old Testament, to represent the closing scene on this side the grave, and the eternal state beyond, as a continuous line, having its commencement here.

The New Testament first drew the cross line which divides time from eternity. It is true, indeed, as the closing chapters of the Apocalypse show, that even the New Testament prophecies continue to some extent to depict the state beyond in figures drawn from the present world; with this difference, however, that when the line had once been drawn, the demand was made, of which there was no consciousness in the Old Testament, that the figures taken from this life should be understood as relating to the life beyond, and that eternal realities should be separated from their temporal forms.