Isa 3:8-12 | KD | STEP | The prophet then proceeds, in , 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 ; ; 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 , and like the niphal in : 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 ( ) 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 ( ; ; ). 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 , 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.

‏ Isaiah 3:8-12

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