The Branch of the Lord and the Cleansing Glory Over Zion

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.

Isa 5:1-2 The prophet commenced his first address in chapter 1 like another Moses; the second, which covered no less ground, he opened with the text of an earlier prophecy; and now he commences the third like a musician, addressing both himself and his hearers with enticing words. Isa 1:1 . “Arise, I will sing of my beloved, a song of my dearest touching his vineyard.

” The fugitive rhythm, the musical euphony, the charming assonances in this appeal, it is impossible to reproduce. They are perfectly inimitable. The Lamed in lı̄dı̄dı̄ is the Lamed objecti . The person to whom the song referred, to whom it applied, of whom it treated, was the singer’s own beloved. It was a song of his dearest one (not his cousin, patruelis , as Luther renders it in imitation of the Vulgate, for the meaning of dōd is determined by yâdid , beloved) touching his vineyard.

The Lamed in l'carmo is also Lamed objecti . The song of the beloved is really a song concerning the vineyard of the beloved; and this song is a song of the beloved himself, not a song written about him, or attributed to him, but such a song as he himself had sung, and still had to sing. The prophet, by beginning in this manner, was surrounded (either in spirit or in outward reality) by a crowd of people from Jerusalem and Judah.

The song is a short one, and runs thus in Isa 1:1 , Isa 1:2 : “My beloved had a vineyard on a fatly nourished mountain-horn, and dug it up and cleared it of stones, and planted it with noble vines, and built a tower in it, and also hewed out a wine-press therein; and hoped that it would bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. ” The vineyard was situated upon a keren , i.

e. , upon a prominent mountain peak projecting like a horn, and therefore open to the sun on all sides; for, as Virgil says in the Georgics , “ apertos Bacchus amat colles . ” This mountain horn was ben - shemen , a child of fatness: the fatness was innate, it belonged to it by nature ( shemen is used, as in Isa 28:1, to denote the fertility of a nutritive loamy soil).

And the owner of the vineyard spared no attention or trouble. The plough could not be used, from the steepness of the mountain slope: he therefore dug it up, that is to say, he turned up the soil which was to be made into a vineyard with a hoe ( izzēk , to hoe; Arab. mi‛zak , mi‛zaka ); and as he found it choked up with stones and boulders, he got rid of this rubbish by throwing it out sikkēl , a privative piel , lapidibus purgare , then operam consumere in lapides , sc.

ejiciendos , to stone, or clear of stones: Ges. §52, 2). After the soil had been prepared he planted it with sorek , i. e. , the finest kind of eastern vine, bearing small grapes of a bluish-red, with pips hardly perceptible to the tongue. The name is derived from its colour (compare the Arabic zerka , red wine). To protect and adorn the vineyard which had been so richly planted, he built a tower in the midst of it.

The expression “and also” calls especial attention to the fact that he hewed out a wine-trough therein ( yekeb , the trough into which the must or juice pressed from the grapes in the wine-press flows, lacus as distinguished from torcular ); that is to say, in order that the trough might be all the more fixed and durable, he constructed it in a rocky portion of the ground ( Châtsēb bo instead of Chătsab bo , with a and the accent drawn back, because a Beth was thereby easily rendered inaudible, so that Châtsēb is not a participial adjective, as Böttcher supposes). This was a difficult task, as the expression “and also” indicates; and for that very reason it was an evidence of the most confident expectation.

But how bitterly was this deceived! The vineyard produced no such fruit, as might have been expected from a sorek plantation; it brought forth no ‛anâbim whatever, i. e. , no such grapes as a cultivated vine should bear, but only b'ushim , or wild grapes. Luther first of all adopted the rendering wild grapes , and then altered it to harsh or sour grapes. But it comes to the same thing.

The difference between a wild vine and a good vine is only qualitative. The vitis vinifera , like all cultivated plants, is assigned to the care of man, under which it improves; whereas in its wild state it remains behind its true intention (see Genesis , §622). Consequently the word b'ushim (from bâ'ash , to be bad, or smell bad) denotes not only the grapes of the wild vine, which are naturally small and harsh (Rashi, lambruches , i.

e. , grapes of the labrusca , which is used now, however, as the botanical name of a vine that is American in its origin), but also grapes of a good stock, which have either been spoiled or have failed to ripen. These were the grapes which the vineyard produced, such as you might indeed have expected from a wild vine, but not from carefully cultivated vines of the very choicest kind.

Isa 5:1-2 The prophet commenced his first address in chapter 1 like another Moses; the second, which covered no less ground, he opened with the text of an earlier prophecy; and now he commences the third like a musician, addressing both himself and his hearers with enticing words. Isa 1:1 . “Arise, I will sing of my beloved, a song of my dearest touching his vineyard.

” The fugitive rhythm, the musical euphony, the charming assonances in this appeal, it is impossible to reproduce. They are perfectly inimitable. The Lamed in lı̄dı̄dı̄ is the Lamed objecti . The person to whom the song referred, to whom it applied, of whom it treated, was the singer’s own beloved. It was a song of his dearest one (not his cousin, patruelis , as Luther renders it in imitation of the Vulgate, for the meaning of dōd is determined by yâdid , beloved) touching his vineyard.

The Lamed in l'carmo is also Lamed objecti . The song of the beloved is really a song concerning the vineyard of the beloved; and this song is a song of the beloved himself, not a song written about him, or attributed to him, but such a song as he himself had sung, and still had to sing. The prophet, by beginning in this manner, was surrounded (either in spirit or in outward reality) by a crowd of people from Jerusalem and Judah.

The song is a short one, and runs thus in Isa 1:1 , Isa 1:2 : “My beloved had a vineyard on a fatly nourished mountain-horn, and dug it up and cleared it of stones, and planted it with noble vines, and built a tower in it, and also hewed out a wine-press therein; and hoped that it would bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. ” The vineyard was situated upon a keren , i.

e. , upon a prominent mountain peak projecting like a horn, and therefore open to the sun on all sides; for, as Virgil says in the Georgics , “ apertos Bacchus amat colles . ” This mountain horn was ben - shemen , a child of fatness: the fatness was innate, it belonged to it by nature ( shemen is used, as in Isa 28:1, to denote the fertility of a nutritive loamy soil).

And the owner of the vineyard spared no attention or trouble. The plough could not be used, from the steepness of the mountain slope: he therefore dug it up, that is to say, he turned up the soil which was to be made into a vineyard with a hoe ( izzēk , to hoe; Arab. mi‛zak , mi‛zaka ); and as he found it choked up with stones and boulders, he got rid of this rubbish by throwing it out sikkēl , a privative piel , lapidibus purgare , then operam consumere in lapides , sc.

ejiciendos , to stone, or clear of stones: Ges. §52, 2). After the soil had been prepared he planted it with sorek , i. e. , the finest kind of eastern vine, bearing small grapes of a bluish-red, with pips hardly perceptible to the tongue. The name is derived from its colour (compare the Arabic zerka , red wine). To protect and adorn the vineyard which had been so richly planted, he built a tower in the midst of it.

The expression “and also” calls especial attention to the fact that he hewed out a wine-trough therein ( yekeb , the trough into which the must or juice pressed from the grapes in the wine-press flows, lacus as distinguished from torcular ); that is to say, in order that the trough might be all the more fixed and durable, he constructed it in a rocky portion of the ground ( Châtsēb bo instead of Chătsab bo , with a and the accent drawn back, because a Beth was thereby easily rendered inaudible, so that Châtsēb is not a participial adjective, as Böttcher supposes). This was a difficult task, as the expression “and also” indicates; and for that very reason it was an evidence of the most confident expectation.

But how bitterly was this deceived! The vineyard produced no such fruit, as might have been expected from a sorek plantation; it brought forth no ‛anâbim whatever, i. e. , no such grapes as a cultivated vine should bear, but only b'ushim , or wild grapes. Luther first of all adopted the rendering wild grapes , and then altered it to harsh or sour grapes. But it comes to the same thing.

The difference between a wild vine and a good vine is only qualitative. The vitis vinifera , like all cultivated plants, is assigned to the care of man, under which it improves; whereas in its wild state it remains behind its true intention (see Genesis , §622). Consequently the word b'ushim (from bâ'ash , to be bad, or smell bad) denotes not only the grapes of the wild vine, which are naturally small and harsh (Rashi, lambruches , i.

e. , grapes of the labrusca , which is used now, however, as the botanical name of a vine that is American in its origin), but also grapes of a good stock, which have either been spoiled or have failed to ripen. These were the grapes which the vineyard produced, such as you might indeed have expected from a wild vine, but not from carefully cultivated vines of the very choicest kind.

Isa 5:3-4 The song of the beloved who was so sorely deceived terminates here. The prophet recited it, not his beloved himself; but as they were both of one heart and one soul, the prophet proceeds thus in Isa 5:3 and Isa 5:4 : “And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, between me and my vineyard! What could have been done more to my vineyard that I have not done in it?

Wherefore did I hope that it would bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes? ” The fact that the prophet speaks as if he were the beloved himself, shows at once who the beloved must be. The beloved of the prophet and the lover of the prophet ( yâdid and dōd ) were Jehovah, with whom he was so united by a union mystica exalted above all earthly love, that, like the angel of Jehovah in the early histories, he could speak as if he were Jehovah Himself (see especially Zec 2:12-13).

To any one with spiritual intuition, therefore, the parabolical meaning and object of the song would be at once apparent; and even the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the men of Judah (yoosheeb and iish are used collectively, as in Isa 8:14; Isa 9:8; Isa 22:21, cf. , Isa 20:6) were not so stupefied by sin, that they could not perceive to what the prophet was leading.

It was for them to decide where the guilt of this unnatural issue lay - that is to say, of this thorough contradiction between the “doing” of the vineyard and the “doing” of the Lord; that instead of the grapes he hoped for, it brought forth wild grapes. (On the expression “what could have been done,” quid faciendum est , mah - la'asoth , see at Hab 1:17, Ges.

§132, Anm. 1.) Instead of למה (למּה) we have the more suitable term מדּוּע, the latter being used in relation to the actual cause ( Causa efficiens ), the former in relation to the object ( Causa finalis ). The parallel to the second part, viz. , Isa 50:2, resembles the passage before us, not only in the use of this particular word, but also in the fact that there, as well as here, it relates to both clauses, and more especially to the latter of the two.

We find the same paratactic construction in connection with other conjunctions (cf. , Isa 12:1; Isa 65:12). They were called upon to decide and answer as to this what and wherefore ; but they were silent, just because they could clearly see that they would have to condemn themselves (as David condemned himself in connection with Nathan’s parable, 2Sa 12:5). The Lord of the vineyard, therefore, begins to speak.

He, its accuser, will now also be its judge.

Isa 5:3-4 The song of the beloved who was so sorely deceived terminates here. The prophet recited it, not his beloved himself; but as they were both of one heart and one soul, the prophet proceeds thus in Isa 5:3 and Isa 5:4 : “And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, between me and my vineyard! What could have been done more to my vineyard that I have not done in it?

Wherefore did I hope that it would bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes? ” The fact that the prophet speaks as if he were the beloved himself, shows at once who the beloved must be. The beloved of the prophet and the lover of the prophet ( yâdid and dōd ) were Jehovah, with whom he was so united by a union mystica exalted above all earthly love, that, like the angel of Jehovah in the early histories, he could speak as if he were Jehovah Himself (see especially Zec 2:12-13).

To any one with spiritual intuition, therefore, the parabolical meaning and object of the song would be at once apparent; and even the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the men of Judah (yoosheeb and iish are used collectively, as in Isa 8:14; Isa 9:8; Isa 22:21, cf. , Isa 20:6) were not so stupefied by sin, that they could not perceive to what the prophet was leading.

It was for them to decide where the guilt of this unnatural issue lay - that is to say, of this thorough contradiction between the “doing” of the vineyard and the “doing” of the Lord; that instead of the grapes he hoped for, it brought forth wild grapes. (On the expression “what could have been done,” quid faciendum est , mah - la'asoth , see at Hab 1:17, Ges.

§132, Anm. 1.) Instead of למה (למּה) we have the more suitable term מדּוּע, the latter being used in relation to the actual cause ( Causa efficiens ), the former in relation to the object ( Causa finalis ). The parallel to the second part, viz. , Isa 50:2, resembles the passage before us, not only in the use of this particular word, but also in the fact that there, as well as here, it relates to both clauses, and more especially to the latter of the two.

We find the same paratactic construction in connection with other conjunctions (cf. , Isa 12:1; Isa 65:12). They were called upon to decide and answer as to this what and wherefore ; but they were silent, just because they could clearly see that they would have to condemn themselves (as David condemned himself in connection with Nathan’s parable, 2Sa 12:5). The Lord of the vineyard, therefore, begins to speak.

He, its accuser, will now also be its judge.