Isa 3:5-8 | KD | STEP | “And the people oppress one another, one this and another that; the boy breaks out violently upon the old man, and the despised upon the honoured.” Niggas is the reciprocal niphal , as the clause depicting the reciprocity clearly shows (cf., nilcham , ); nagas followed by Beth means to treat as a tyrant or taskmaster ( ). The commonest selfishness would then stifle every nobler motive; one would become the tyrant of another, and ill-mannered insolence would take the place of that reverence, which is due to the old and esteemed from boys and those who are below them in position, whether we regard the law of nature, the Mosaic law ( ), or the common custom of society. Nikleh (from kâlâh , the synonym of הקל, ; ; cf., , kal , to be light or insignificant) was a term used to denote whoever belonged to the lowest stratum of society ( ). It was the opposite of nichâd (from Cabed , to be heavy or of great importance). The Septuagint rendering, ὁ ἄτιμος πρὸς τὸν ἔντιμον is a very good one (as the Semitic languages have no such antithetical formations with ἃ στερητικόν). With such contempt of the distinctions arising from age and position, the state would very soon become a scene of the wildest confusion.

‏ Isaiah 3:5-8

Isa 3:5 “And the people oppress one another, one this and another that; the boy breaks out violently upon the old man, and the despised upon the honoured.” Niggas is the reciprocal niphal, as the clause depicting the reciprocity clearly shows (cf., nilcham, Isa 19:2); nagas followed by Beth means to treat as a tyrant or taskmaster (Isa 9:3). The commonest selfishness would then stifle every nobler motive; one would become the tyrant of another, and ill-mannered insolence would take the place of that reverence, which is due to the old and esteemed from boys and those who are below them in position, whether we regard the law of nature, the Mosaic law (Lev 19:32), or the common custom of society. Nikleh (from kâlâh, the synonym of הקל, Isa 9:1; Isa 23:9; cf., Isa 16:14, kal, to be light or insignificant) was a term used to denote whoever belonged to the lowest stratum of society (1Sa 18:23). It was the opposite of nichâd (from Cabed, to be heavy or of great importance). The Septuagint rendering, ὁ ἄτιμος πρὸς τὸν ἔντιμον is a very good one (as the Semitic languages have no such antithetical formations with ἃ στερητικόν). With such contempt of the distinctions arising from age and position, the state would very soon become a scene of the wildest confusion. 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. ^{▼▼As a rule, the name of a people (apart from the personification of the people as beth, a house) is only used as a feminine, when the name of the land stands for the nation itself (see Gesenius, Lehrbegr. p. 469).}

The two preterites 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.