d) Judgment upon Judah and Jerusalem (Is 3:1–8)
The sacred prophet has set forth a general rule of divine judgment, namely, that human pomp is to be cast down so that God alone may be exalted—and from this he had concluded that trust in human supports must be abandoned (Is 2:22). He now illustrates this warning in a way that most directly concerns his contemporaries, lest those who lived under Azariah and Jotham, dazzled by the splendor of the kingdom, should give themselves over to vain security. Therefore, he strongly reinforces the exhortation already given, saying: Is 3:4 "Behold, for the Lord, the Lord of hosts, will take away from
Jerusalem and from Judah the strong and the mighty, all support of bread
and all support of water, Is 3:2 the mighty man and the man of war, the
judge and the prophet and the diviner and the elder, Is 3:3 the captain of
fifty and the honorable in countenance and the counselor and the wise
among craftsmen and the skilled in mysterious speech"; — the power of
God is described with magnificent titles, so that the impotence of human
frailty may be more deeply felt. The enumeration itself begins
summarily: the Lord will take away every support, prop and stay
(Hebrew)!; then individual items are reviewed; first those things
necessary for sustaining life, food and drink; then those things which
sustain the republic in time of peace and war are set forth in a double
series; for at the beginning of Is 3:3-4 the defenses of war [are
listed], but in the latter part of the verses those things are narrated
by which civil and religious affairs are maintained. If God is said to be taking all these away, it is clear how great the ruin of all things will be.
By the “support” or “staff” of bread—for by bread life, strength, and vigor are upheld and sustained—compare Leviticus 26:26; Ezekiel 4:16; 14:13; Psalm 105:16. That devastation by enemies brings about scarcity and dearth of food is evident; how severe this was during the siege by the Chaldeans may be seen in Lamentations 2:20. From this it also becomes clear how unjustly some modern scholars (Hitzig, Knobel, Cheyne, Reuss, Bredenkamp) reject this clause as a gloss, or others (Ewald, Drechsler) improperly explain it as referring to princes, the supports of the state. Why say more? Abundance of grain and wine was promised in the Old Testament to those who observed God’s commandments; by their removal rebels are justly punished (Deuteronomy 28:20, 48).
Next, since he had reproved the military apparatus in Is 2:8, he now declares how futile such efforts will be: God will take away the strong man… strength and weapons will be of no use. He will also take away those who maintain the proper order of the state, or who at least are thought able to maintain it and to guide private affairs safely; those who are placed in authority, or who are believed to flourish in wisdom and experience because of their age; and also those skilled in the arts who provide various conveniences of life. For if in any city there are lacking those who pronounce judgment, settle disputes, and administer justice (judges); if there are lacking those who promote civil administration with authority and wise counsel (elders, counselors, men of rank); if there are lacking men skilled in warfare to repel the assaults of enemies—then the greatest disturbance and the nearest ruin threaten that city.
Nor will prophets be able to bring any help; for if any exist, they will not find an answer from the Lord (Lamentations 2:9), or no one will listen to them (Jeremiah 43:2)—or God, as a punishment, will allow the prophetic office to cease altogether (cf. Psalm 74:9). Much less will diviners and experts in incantations (or those skilled in whispering spells) be able to heal the ruin; their lies and deceptions do not avert destruction but promote it. Finally, so that the survivors may be oppressed by even greater poverty and baseness of condition, even the prudent craftsmen are taken away—or more precisely, according to the Hebrew, the skilled artisans, that is, those trained in mechanical arts who practiced them skillfully (cf. St. Jerome; Maldonatus; Malvenda; Forerius; Mariana; Sasbout). How carefully the Chaldeans actually carried this out by deporting craftsmen from the land may be read in 2 Kings 24:14; Jeremiah 24; 29:2: “and nothing was left except the poorest people of the land.”
As for the fulfillment, Malvenda rightly notes: “These judgments were not carried out at one single, definite time, but extend to all subsequent times in which the Jews suffered all these evils and changes.” For the prophet sees the destruction, as it were, in a single glance and proposes a general rule. It matters little for a prophetic announcement that is so universal whether these things happen as if in one sudden blow or are brought to completion through a long series of events and repeated disasters. The dissolution and cessation of the whole commonwealth is foretold; although this did not follow immediately, who can deny that in the end it truly came to pass?
But so that the destruction may become even greater and more dangerous, he says that the worst men will be set over the commonwealth as leaders. St. Chrysostom aptly observes: “He who has no ruler is deprived of a guide; but he who has obtained an evil ruler has one who casts him headlong into precipices.” Thus, when the good are removed, as St. Jerome connects it, the Lord gives evil rulers; or, in the words of St. Thomas: “The capable are removed, the unworthy are set in charge.” Thus Is 3:4: “And I will give youths to be their princes, and the effeminate shall rule over them”; or, according to the Hebrew, “mockers” (that is, criminals, scoffers) shall rule over them (cf. Malvenda; Forerius). The abstract noun has greater force.
The administration of affairs is therefore described as being entirely governed by whim, lust, cruelty, and madness; compare Ecclesiastes 10:16: “Woe to you, O land, when your king is a child,” that is, acting childishly. I will give lascivious and dissolute princes, like children in their morals—children in imprudence, folly, cowardice, and recklessness. Thus the reign of Ahaz can be portrayed.
What will follow from this and how great the harm will be to the people themselves he plainly reveals when he immediately adds (as St. Cyril notes), Is 3:9: “And the people will rush together, man against man, and each against his neighbor; the child will rise up against the elder, and the base against the honorable.” Osorius expresses the sense thus: “From this change of affairs (that is, from the recklessness and madness of the rulers) a great disturbance will follow, and from it internal seditions will arise; for neither will the common people restrain their unbridled lust and rashness out of regard for the nobility, nor will the nobility restrain their impotence of spirit out of regard for the people; nor will the young revere old age, nor the old look out for the young. Rather, children will attack the elders, and the populace will plot the ruin and destruction of the nobility; and the whole city, torn apart and scattered by pestilential factional strife, will collapse.”
All piety and reverence will collapse; everything will blaze with mutual hatreds and hostilities, and there will no longer be any honor or reverence for advanced age, nobility, or merit. When these bonds are dissolved, the greatest calamity is usually signified (cf. Micah 1:5–6). According to St. Thomas, three things are indicated: disturbance of the people in universal discord, the dissolution of friendship, and confusion of order.
Hence, as a great sign of common ruin, the utter cheapening of authority will arise (Osorius), and everything will be so desperate and beyond hope that whoever has merely what is required for decent clothing will already be considered fit and worthy to assume rule. Verse 6: “For a man will seize his brother, a member of his father’s household: ‘You have a cloak; be our prince, and let this ruin be under your hand!’ Verse 7: He will answer on that day, saying: ‘I am not a healer, and in my house there is neither bread nor clothing; do not make me a prince of the people.’”
According to the Hebrew: when someone seizes another in his father’s house… In such great disorder of affairs, those who possess any means keep themselves at home; hence one is seized in his father’s house. They wish to make king one who, in the midst of extreme scarcity, is thought powerful, wealthy, and distinguished simply because he has decent clothing (St. Jerome). “This manner of speaking has something proverbial about it, by which it seems to be signified that human fortunes are so exhausted that one is considered worthy or fit for the kingdom who happens to have somewhat more respectable clothing” (Sanctius). They wish, that is, to entrust to him this ruin—that is, a ruined and desperate province—to restore and set in order. But everyone shrinks from such a burden; dignity has become so cheap because of the pressure of circumstances, and the extreme poverty of all prevails so greatly.
St. Chrysostom explains the response by a comparison drawn from common speech: “Just as many say, ‘If it should happen that an entire city were put up for sale for a single coin, I could not buy it,’ thereby showing extreme poverty, so also the prophet says: if the principality were offered for a single garment or a single loaf of bread, there would be no one to buy it.” The prophet most aptly says such things; for the tent of David that has fallen (cf. Amos 9:11) will now be restored by no man; the crown has been cast aside until he comes whose right it is (cf. Ezekiel 21:27 and what I noted on Haggai 1:1). He answers: I cannot heal or cure your wounds (Malvenda); cf. 1:5–6; for I cannot even provide for my own household difficulties, much less take on yours. Thus indeed “your fracture is incurable, your wound grievous” (Jeremiah 30:12).
What is meant by “in his father’s house” is variously understood. Some think it indicates that he has a paternal inheritance and is therefore sufficiently wealthy (cf. Knobel)—but then why is it added, “you have a cloak”? Others think he is the firstborn (Schegg)—but how that would be indicated by this expression is not clear. Others think that the inhabitants of the land will be so few and so downcast in spirit that whoever is to be made king can easily be chosen from a single family and imposed on the rest (cf. Delitzsch); but this too seems far-fetched. For the prophet wishes to depict the dissolution and misery of the whole people. This is seen in the fact that affairs are so desperate that no one wishes to accept the offered dignity, and that the inhabitants are ready to submit to anyone at all, provided he offers even the slightest hope of bringing some relief.
Others think that this verse presents such disorder that everyone wishes to make king someone who is close and familiar to himself; and that in this diverse and multiple election of princes, sedition is seen (cf. Pintus; Sasbout; Lapide). But a kind of contest and struggle, with different people seizing different candidates and proclaiming them king, is by no means indicated by these words. The condition of affairs is sufficiently expressed by Sanctius: “That Jewish commonwealth had two great evils: that it was wounded from the sole of the foot to the crown of the head, and that it either suffered or feared extreme famine. Therefore, to remedy the former evil a physician was needed who might heal the sick body, and one well supplied with money and grain who might refresh a suffering—or rather failing—people.”
And why each person quite justly rejects and dreads the kingship, the reason is given in Is 3:8: “For Jerusalem has stumbled and Judah has fallen, because their tongue and their deeds are against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of his majesty.” By words and deeds they provoke to anger the most holy majesty of God, who dwells among them in a special way in the temple. For the glory (Hebrew: kābôd) of the Lord is gravely insulted, since the entire theocratic people—both the chief city and the land—so shamelessly sin against the Lord who is present in their midst. This shamelessness the prophet sharply rebukes in verse 9: “The expression of their face bears witness against them, and they proclaim their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to their soul, for evils have been repaid to them.” Compare Is 1:10.
If, in the face of prophetic threats, they should wish to object and ask why such things threaten them, the very look of their faces will answer—or testify against them (Hebrew)—that they have deserved this destruction; for there they will read their cause and guilt written plainly. An impudent forehead gives clear testimony of their insolence and wickedness (Lapide). With their eyes, with their whole countenance and bearing, they openly display their sins and even boast of them, all sense of shame cast aside. Therefore, “like Sodom”: just as the Sodomites, sinning with complete license and possessing no sense of shame even in their crimes, said to Lot, “Bring out the men” (Genesis 19:5), so these people openly proclaim their sin and display no restraint in blaspheming (St. Jerome). Such brazen shamelessness—“you have the forehead of a prostitute; you refuse to blush” (Jeremiah 3:3)—provokes the vengeance of God. Hence, “woe,” for they bring evils upon themselves (Hebrew), that is, they afflict themselves.
The prophet has announced judgment upon Judah and Jerusalem (Is 3:1–7) and has given its cause and general rationale (Is 3:8–9). Now, just as earlier after the announcement of judgment (Is 2:22) he explained what lesson for all follows from God’s established rule, so here he teaches what rule God will observe in the ruin and fall of the kingdom. Although the calamity is public and universal, he teaches that God does not lack ways and means by which he can place a great distinction between the lot of the righteous and the wicked. Therefore the prophet proclaims God’s rule in Is 3:10: “Say to the righteous that it shall be well, for they shall eat the fruit of their deeds.” This, then, is announced as consolation for the godly: piety will not be without reward and fruit; it will be well with the righteous, even though all things are filled with ruin. Let them console themselves with this faith and hope; and if perhaps, in doubt, one should ask how this can be, let him entrust himself with full confidence to the omnipotent and faithful God. Therefore, lest the righteous neglect the pursuit of virtue and so that they may be raised up by this hope, this divine rule is to be publicly proclaimed through many voices; hence, “say!” “He issues a general lesson, which by its very brevity signifies that it should be stored deeply in the mind: think this, proclaim this—that to be righteous is good, that is, lovable, pleasant, delightful, useful, and gracious (for this is what ṭôb properly signifies)” (Forerius). And the good things that will come to them are the fruits of their works, that is, they will be repaid to them as a reward for their merits.
But the wicked will reap something altogether different from the evil seed of their crimes, Is 3:11: “Woe to the wicked! It shall be ill; for what his hands have done shall be done to him.” That is, whatever a man sows, that he will also reap (Galatians 6:7). God’s judgments carried out in this world result in true ruin only for those who persist in impiety. This twofold rule—good for the righteous, woe for the wicked—must be prefixed to all judgments that are announced; by it the faith of the righteous is lifted up in distress, and it serves as a continual exhortation for the wicked to abandon their ways and sincerely return to God.
The Septuagint presents a different reading, as St. Jerome carefully notes. At the end of verse 8 they have: “because now their glory has been humbled.” In Is 3:9: “the shame of their face has stood against them,” that is, as St. Jerome explains, they always had their own sins before their eyes; or, according to St. Chrysostom, by their own disgraceful sins they inflicted upon themselves the greatest punishment. The following they render thus: “Woe to their soul, because they have devised an evil counsel against themselves, saying: ‘Let us bind the righteous, for he is useless to us’; therefore they shall eat the fruits of their works” (St. Jerome). This interpretation St. Jerome, Cyril, Basil, and Theodoret explain of the killing of Christ, while St. Chrysostom applies it to any righteous person whom the wicked persecute by treachery.
e) Judgment upon the princes and the women (Is 3:12–4:1)
After announcing judgment upon Judah and Jerusalem, he now turns in a special way to address the leaders and the women, accusing them of crimes and declaring the punishment due to them. Thus the prophet descends more and more from the general sentence of Is 2:11 and following to what is specific and particular, and he gravely and openly makes known the vices of each class and how greatly they conspire toward bringing about the common ruin. Here he notes two classes that are promoters of evil and drivers of calamity, the leaders and the women (Is 3:12). To the former, crimes and punishments are set forth in Is 3L13–15; to the latter, in Is 3:16–4:1.
Who the promoters of evil and authors of ruin are, and in what way, he teaches briefly in Is 3:12: “My people—its oppressors have plundered it, and women have ruled over it. My people, those who call you blessed deceive you and destroy the way of your paths.” In the Hebrew: “its oppressors are children” (cf. Is 3:4), that is, those who tyrannize the people, who in Is 3:14 are called the elders of the people and the princes. Their manner of governing is characterized by wantonness, arrogance, and cruelty; hence they are childish or mockers—not children in age (or even if in age), certainly children in morals, petulance, and madness, neglecting the most serious matters and ruining the people. With them, to the people’s destruction, women conspire. In what way they promote ruin is seen from verse 16 onward.
From this it is also clear that women are meant, not effeminate men, as many suppose (cf. St. Jerome; Haymo; Forerius; Maldonatus; Malvenda; Tirinius; Calmet). There is no reason to assume such a trope, since elsewhere women are rebuked by the prophets (cf. Is 32:9; Amos 4:1; Proverbs 5, etc.), and their authority and influence are certainly not insignificant. Therefore women must be understood in the obvious sense (with Jerome, St. Thomas, Osorius, and more recent commentators), especially since the time of Athaliah and the character of Jezebel show what power women can exercise for evil, and since King Ahaz, given over to pleasures, clearly indulged too much in women’s desires. That women exercised some authority in public affairs may also perhaps be inferred from the fact that in the historical books the name of the king’s mother is so carefully recorded (cf. Jeremiah 52:26; Jer 29:9).
The Hebrew term found here occurs only in this place. The ancients explain it from a verb meaning “to glean” (cf. Leviticus 19:10; Deuteronomy 24:21; Jeremiah 6:9, in the poel form). Thus the Septuagint renders it similarly, and the Syriac does the same; St. Jerome and the Chaldee paraphrase express it periphrastically: “the rulers of my people have plundered them like those who strip a vineyard.” But many prefer to take the word in the same sense as na‘ar, “child, youth,” as above in Is 3:4, as being of the same root and notion. Thus already Pagninus, the Vulgate tradition, Maldonatus, Forerius, Malvenda, Mariana, and later commentators.
Not without a sense of compassion for the wretched people, ill-treated and deceived, the phrase “my people” is repeated twice. Among those counted as plotting ruin are also the false prophets: “those who guide you deceive you” (Hebrew; cf. 1:11). That is, they do not reprove the sins of the people, but promise peace and prosperity and flatter the evil desires of the people; so far are they from drawing them back from sin that they fill them with presumption and false security (cf. Micah 3:5; Jeremiah 23:18; Lamentations 2:14; Ezekiel 13:10, etc.). They are said to “swallow up” the way in which the people should walk (Hebrew), that is, to destroy and corrupt it, to make the straight path impassable and conceal it, so that the miserable people wander and go astray. Most rightly conclude that false prophets are meant (cf. St. Ephrem; Chrysostom; Forerius; Maldonatus; Sanctius; Estius; Calmet; Trochon), and it does not matter that in Is 3:14 they are not explicitly mentioned; for much of the blame laid upon the princes applies also to the false prophets. Moreover, they too can rightly be called leaders and princes of the people, that is, those who wield authority and influence.
Since God grieves that his people are so badly treated, he thereby already declares that judgment must be executed upon their oppressors. Therefore the prophet at once presents God as the judge of all in verse 13: “The Lord stands to judge; he stands to judge the peoples.” That is, nothing escapes his eyes; he administers all things with the most just balance, ever attentive that the rule of justice may stand firm, ready and prepared to vindicate violated rights. Therefore Is 3:14: “The Lord will enter into judgment with the elders of his people and its princes: for you have devoured the vineyard, and the spoil of the poor is in your houses. Is 3:15: What do you mean by crushing my people and grinding the faces of the poor? says the Lord God of hosts.” He will come, that is, to exercise judgment against the elders of the people, that is, the magistrates and princes. He is said to come when he shows in a special way his power, justice, and the like (cf. Micah 1:2). He accuses the magistrates of greed, oppression, and cruelty. The people of God are called a vineyard (cf. Deuteronomy 32:32; Psalm 80:9-17); those who ought to have cultivated and guarded the vineyard have devoured and ravaged it like wild beasts (Hebrew), that is, they unjustly enriched themselves, grievously oppressed the people, and burdened them with exactions. The indignity of the crime is expressed more strongly in Is 3:15 in the Hebrew: “What is wrong with you, that you crush my people?” that is, what is this inhumanity? how do you proceed to such audacity and ferocity (cf. Forerius; Malvenda)? Besides plundering, they also wear down the people with insults and afflictions. See how kindly God takes up the cause of the oppressed and avenges the injuries done to them with punishments. Hence: “Woe to the shepherds of Israel who feed themselves… with harshness you ruled them and with force” (Ezekiel 34:2ff.). Similar leaders and tyrants the people had in Christ’s time; hence “he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and cast down like sheep without a shepherd” (Matthew 9:36). By this, it is also shown how widely iniquity had spread and how shamelessly the laws of God were trampled underfoot; thus there is here a commentary on Is 8:8–9.
After judgment has been announced against the oppressors, he turns to their women (cf. Is 3:12). What part they played in injustice and the oppression of the people is indicated by St. Jerome: “because of whose luxuries and extravagance the oppressors devoured the vineyard of the Lord.” Similarly St. Chrysostom and Cyril; for, as Sanctius notes, while they love sumptuous living and elegance, dominate their husbands excessively, and almost command them imperiously to spend lavishly on those costly trifles, they make tax collectors into robbers and plunderers of the poor, on whose sweat and blood they themselves luxuriate and glitter in wanton display. Such women Amos the prophet also has in view: “you say to your lords, ‘Bring, that we may drink!’” (Amos 4:1). And not unfittingly, with St. Thomas, one may recall how much influence women once had even over Solomon himself.
Here, then, as St. Thomas says, divine judgment is set forth against them: first their guilt is revealed, then their punishment is foretold. They are accused of pride and wantonness, Is 3:16: “And the Lord said: Because the daughters of Zion are haughty and walk with outstretched necks, flirting with their eyes, walking and mincing as they go, tinkling with their feet, Is 3:17 the Lord will strike with scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will lay bare their nakedness.” First, pride and arrogance in general are noted: “they are haughty,” that is, they exalt themselves, are lifted up, taking on lofty and proud dispositions (cf. Is 2:12). Then the way in which pride, pomp, and wantonness manifest themselves is described: they walk with necks stretched out (Hebrew), “like cranes or swans; this posture is that of insolence and impudence” (Lapide). “For the modest and bashful lower their gaze; but the shameless woman, who wishes to appear above others, raising herself on elevated footwear so as not to lose any of that height, stretches her neck as proudly as possible” (Sanctius). The very description is crafted so that, through the chosen words, the disgracefulness and contemptibility of the matter appear.
Moreover, they openly display wantonness by their eyes and gait: “flirting with their eyes” (Hebrew), that is, casting sidelong glances at young men and lovers, petulantly signaling to them and enticing them to shameful pleasure (cf. Sanctius; Lapide; Menochius; Tirinius). “This is proper to courtesans, to turn their pupils and express much softness and wantonness thereby” (St. Chrysostom). Their gait too betrays a harlot’s spirit: “tinkling,” that is, they wore ornaments on their feet (Mariana), and as they walked they produced a clattering sound (cf. Sanctius); their very walk was arranged with artifice and rhythm. “They are said to walk pompously and with measured step, whether for majesty or for elegance and display” (Sanctius). In the Hebrew, literally: “walking and skipping they walk, and with their feet they wear anklets,” that is, they had chains fastened to their feet by which they regulated their steps and produced a jingling sound. “Those who follow nature take nature as their guide, but actors hire instructors” (St. Jerome).
But for pride and lust a fitting punishment is announced: the head which they lift up so proudly with its adornment will be stripped in a shameful manner; indeed, according to the Hebrew text, the Lord will afflict them with scab or scurf (cf. Leviticus 13:2; Lev 14:56; Vatablus; Maldonatus; Malvenda; Lapide; Tirinius; Calmet, and many others), and will uncover their disgrace (cf. Nahum 3:5), that is, they will be afflicted with the greatest ignominy, as the Hebrew expressions are commonly understood (cf. Malvenda; Sanctius; Rosenmüller; Trochon; Delitzsch, etc.).
The prophet therefore declares that these things shall be taken away. First, the ornament of the periscelides or anklets (Hebr. עֲכָסִים ʿăkāsîm, “fetters, ankle-rings”). For women used to wear rings around the joints of their feet, about the ankles, made of silver, gold, or ivory, which were sometimes connected by little chains of gold or silver running from one foot to the other (cf. Jahn, Archaeologia Biblica II, p. 129). Rosenmüller describes them more precisely as thin plates, one or two fingers wide, scarcely more, circular in shape but not forming a complete ring, since they clasp the leg tightly and are open at one side; at one end they are fitted with a small ring or clasp, at the other with a hook fastening into it, and between them a little chain was often inserted. Compare Is 3:16. The word עֲכָס (ʿākās, “anklet, fetter”) also occurs in Proverbs 7:22. Jerome translates here ornamentum calceamentorum (“the ornament of the shoes”); the Chaldee has the same sense, while the Septuagint and the Syriac speak more generally of the adornment of garments.
Secondly are taken away the reticula or calauticae—perhaps a kind of net-work for adorning the head, or head ornaments made of gold threads, silk, or other precious materials woven together. Others understand the word of garments ornamented with small tesserae or eye-like spots. Schroeder explains it from Arabic as a little sun-shaped ornament or solar bulla, that is, a necklace with a medallion fashioned in the image of the sun. This explanation fits what follows about the lunulae, but the derivation from Arabic is very uncertain (cf. Gesenius). The Septuagint renders καὶ τὰ ἐμπλοκία (“the woven ornaments”). The Chaldee retains the Hebrew term, explaining it as a net (cf. Levy).
Third come the lunulae (Hebr. שַׂהֲרֹנִים śaharōnîm, “little moons”); compare Judges 8:21, 26, where the Septuagint likewise renders σεληνίσκους. These were ornaments worn around the neck in the shape of the moon (so Chrysostom and Basil), more precisely crescent-shaped or horned, after the form of the waxing moon. The same sort of ornament appears in Judges 8:21 as hanging from the necks of camels, and perhaps betrays an idolatrous or superstitious usage. The Chaldee again uses a term it explains as a net; cf. Levy.
In Is 3:19 are named, fourth, נְטִפֹת (neṭîp̄ōṯ, literally “drops”), hence pearls, pendants, or earrings. The Septuagint has τὰ περιδέραια (“necklaces”). Basil describes these as an ornament hanging loosely and descending to the breast on light and slack chains. Chrysostom conjectures that the word may refer to a theristrum. The Chaldee, like the Vulgate, translates torques (“necklaces”). Fifth are the armillae, properly little chains worn on the arms, as the Chaldee explains. Sixth comes רְעָלוֹת (reʿālōṯ), which many explain as veils or fluttering pepla, a covering of the head which also veils the face. Rosenmüller describes it as a garment whose front part covers the face, joined near the eyes by little clasps or rings so as to leave a small opening for sight, and which hangs from fine cords and sways to and fro as one walks. The Septuagint speaks generally of facial ornaments, which Basil and Chrysostom understand of cosmetics and pigments. The Chaldee interprets it as face-veils worn to protect the complexion from the sun.
In Is 3:20 are enumerated, seventh, פְּאֵרִים (peʾērîm), which Jerome translates “crowns” in Ezekiel 24:23, 11; Isaiah 61:3, 10; and Ezekiel 44:18, and “fillets” elsewhere. They are diadems or bands bound around the head, tiaras, or tutuli, as the Latins called a head ornament made of a purple band intertwined with the hair and built up high. The Chaldee likewise translates “crowns.” Eighth come the chains of the legs, attached to the anklets of both feet, by which short and measured steps were enforced; see verses 16 and 18. Of these chains and their use much is said in the Talmud; cf. Ugolinus. The Chaldee explains them expressly as chains of the feet. Ninth are the girdles (חֲגוֹרוֹת ḥăgōrōṯ). Jerome renders the same word differently in Jeremiah 2:32, “Can a bride forget her breast-band?” The Chaldee borrows a Greek term (ζωνάρια), explaining it as combs or partings of the hair, or more generally ornaments of the head for binding the hair. Tenth are the “houses of breath,” that is, little scent-boxes or perfume-holders, perhaps worn suspended from the girdle. The Chaldee renders “earrings” or “rings.” Some interpret the Hebrew word of charms against the evil eye, worn to ward off fascination.
Next, eleventh, are the amulets; compare Isaiah 3:3. These were superstitious ornaments, usually precious stones or plates of gold or silver inscribed with magical formulas, and worn suspended from the neck or ears (Gesenius). The Chaldee translates more generally “precious ornaments” or “soft garments.” Sanctius attempts to connect even the Vulgate’s inaures (“earrings”) with this idea, suggesting that earrings were originally regarded as protections against enchantments and imprecatory words; Ibn Ezra also thought that לְחָשִׁים (leḥāšîm, “charms”) were inscriptions or characters engraved on gold or silver. What was first adopted out of necessity or superstition later came to be used for ornament.
In Is 3:21 follow, twelfth, signet rings, and thirteenth, nose-rings, worn for adornment. Some think the nose itself was pierced; others that rings hung from the forehead and dangled over the nostrils. This appears in the Vulgate, gemmas in fronte pendentes. The Septuagint regularly translates the word by ἐνώτια (“earrings”), while Symmachus and Theodotion sometimes render ἐπιρρίνια (“nose-rings”). Jerome says in Ezekiel 16:12 that this ornament is a jewel or ring which hangs from the head and forehead down to the nose; even to this day, he says, among women in the East golden rings are seen hanging from the forehead and hovering over the nostrils.
In Is 3:22 are enumerated, fourteenth, costly garments, perhaps embroidered mantles; fifteenth, outer tunics, longer and with sleeves. The Chaldee has “cloaks.” Sixteenth are the pallia; compare Ruth 3:15, “Spread your cloak over your hand,” which suggests a large wrap or veil worn over other garments. Jerome here translates linteamina, large cloths or coverings; the Chaldee agrees. The Septuagint has τὰ ἐπιβλήματα, perhaps to be connected with Is 3:23. Seventeenth comes כִּיסִים (kîsîm), which in 2 Kings 23 means sacks or pouches for holding money; hence here elegant and ornamental purses. Jerome, however, renders acus (“pins”); the Chaldee has “clasps” or “brooches.”
In Is 3:23 follow, eighteenth, mirrors, as the Vulgate and Chaldee explain; these were plates of polished metal which women carried for adornment. Since the discourse has just mentioned purses worn on the person, the mention of mirrors fits naturally, and there is no need to seek another meaning. The Septuagint has τὰ διαφανῆ Λακωνικά, which some follow, explaining thin, transparent garments, but this is unnecessary. Nineteenth come sindones, that is, linen undergarments or inner tunics, or more generally very fine and precious veils. Twentieth are the vittae or headbands wound around the head; compare Isaiah 62:3, Zechariah 3:5, Job 29:14. Finally, twenty-first, רְדִידִים (redîdîm), which Jerome translates in Canticles 5:7 as pallium, and here as theristra: a wide, delicate, precious outer covering worn over other garments. Some modern interpreters aptly render it as a light over-cloak or wrap worn when going out. The Chaldee seems to understand it as veils or coverings.
Now, “once the ornaments of wantonness have been taken away, a condition of misery is threatened instead” (St. Thomas). Thus Is 3:24 declares: “And instead of sweet fragrance there shall be stench; instead of a girdle, a rope; instead of curled hair, baldness; instead of a breast-band, sackcloth.”
That is to say, in place of the pleasant scent of perfumes and ointments there will be decay and foulness—either, as Sanctius explains, from the squalor and filth of prison life, or from the uncleanness and grime which commonly accompany captivity. Their outward form and appearance will be utterly abject: instead of golden girdles they will be bound only with a coarse rope; they will endure the bareness of the head, namely baldness, though once their hair had been adorned with golden knots; and their clothing will befit captives—coarse and vile garments, which the prophet calls sackcloth, serving in place of purple robes and elegant mantles (St. Cyril).
In the Hebrew text particular emphasis is placed on the excessive care once devoted to the adornment of the hair. “Instead of elaborate workmanship, baldness”—that is, in place of that art by which, like the work of a turner’s lathe or a curling iron (calamistrum), the locks were carefully and artificially curled, they will now appear shamefully shorn. This may occur through the insolence of enemies, through the filth and misery of captivity by which the hair falls out, or through violent plucking of the hair as a sign of the gravest mourning.
The Hebrew text further adds a fifth clause, which Vaticanus, Malvenda, Maldonatus, Sanctius, Forerius, and others correctly translate: “branding instead of beauty.” That is, in place of the care once lavished on facial beauty, marks will be burned into their faces and foreheads by enemies, as was sometimes done to slaves (Gesenius, Rosenmüller, Delitzsch, Naegelsbach). Others explain it as the scorching of the face by the injuries of the weather and the heat of the sun (Maldonatus, Malvenda); others again as the disfiguring of the face by scratching and tearing in despair and mourning (Knobel, Roediger). Perhaps best of all is the explanation taken in a general sense: faces once so carefully adorned will now be darkened and disfigured by wounds, toil, misery, and the injuries inflicted both by men and by the harshness of the elements (cf. Lapide, Drechsler), much as in Lamentations 4:8: “Their visage is blacker than coal.”
The word נִקְפָּה (niqpāh), rendered by the Septuagint, St. Jerome, and the Syriac as “rope” or “cord,” is rightly understood in this way, especially since it stands in clear opposition to the girdle (חֲגוֹרָה, ḥăgōrāh). This interpretation has therefore been adopted by most commentators. Others, deriving the word from its etymology, translate “piercing instead of a girdle,” understanding it either of worn-out garments, or of torn and ulcerated skin, wounds, and sores. The Chaldee already expresses this sense: “in the place where girdles were bound, there shall be the mark of blows.”
St. Jerome, following Symmachus, explains מַעֲטֶה (maʿăṭeh) as a breast-band, noting: “The Septuagint translated it as a purple-striped tunic; Aquila rendered it a girdle of exultation; Theodotion left the Hebrew word as phithigil*, which is a kind of female ornament. The breast-band covers the chest and occupies in women the place which the rational (breastplate) holds among the priests.”* More recent interpreters generally take the word to mean a wide cloak or mantle. In any case, the term is of uncertain meaning and origin, as Malvenda, Gesenius, and Rosenmüller discuss at length. The Chaldee itself seems unsure, paraphrasing: “Because they walked in pride, they shall be girded with sackcloth.” The Syriac uses a word that can mean either “hyacinth” or “fringe” (cf. Exodus 26:1, 31; Matthew 23:5). Doederlein renders the sense succinctly: “White garments shall be changed into mourning attire.”
Even the final clause seems to have left some trace in the Vulgate, since the following verse begins “thy most beautiful ones also…” Similarly, the Septuagint reads “and thy beloved and most beautiful son.” They therefore must have read at least a word signifying beauty. The Syriac, however, reads: “because their beauty shall be corrupted,” evidently understanding כִּי (kî, “because”) and reading a form derived from שָׁחַת (šāḥaṯ, “to corrupt”). The Chaldee paraphrases the whole clause thus: “This vengeance shall be taken upon them because they committed fornication in their beauty.”
Finally, to bring the judgment upon the women to its climax, once their vain and artificial ornaments have been stripped away, they are deprived even of the consolation and support of husbands and are handed over to ignoble widowhood and childlessness. The prophet presents this grief in such a way that the deprivation and sorrow of individual women are gathered up into the mourning of the capital city itself, as though she were the mother of the whole people. Jerusalem is portrayed as lamenting the death of so many sons and warriors, and openly displaying her grief in her disheveled appearance.
Thus the prophet describes the city: “Thy most beautiful men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in battle; and her gates shall lament and mourn, and desolate, she shall sit upon the ground” (Is 3:25–26). Concerning the addition pulcherrimi (“the most beautiful”) in the Vulgate, see what has been noted above on Is 3:24. Zion or Jerusalem mourns like a mother bereaved of her children; she herself is deserted and abandoned; her gates and buildings are destroyed; she sits cast down in the dust, consumed by sorrow. It is a striking depiction of grief and the destruction of an entire people, a hypotyposis such as Jeremiah later employs with great emotional force in his Lamentations (cf. Lamentations 1:1, etc.). Individual griefs are gathered together and intensified by universal ruin: beyond private losses, the public catastrophe must also be lamented.
“She sits on the ground”; compare Isaiah 3:26; Is 47:1; Lamentations 2:10. “And on a silver coin of Vespasian, Judea is depicted in the form of a woman sitting at the roots of a palm, with the inscription: Iudaea capta” (Sanctius, Lapide, Calmet, Rohl, Trochon). Well does Chrysostom observe: “By all these things he amplifies the mourning, increases fear, and renders anguish greater. He places miseries before the eyes, extends the narration of calamity, ranging everywhere, gathering sorrow from every side because of the dullness of the hearers.”
How utterly exhausted and desolate Zion is, is further illustrated by another image of ruin and misery in Is 4:1: “Seven women shall take hold of one man in that day, saying: We will eat our own bread and wear our own clothes; only let us be called by your name; take away our reproach.” The definite number is used for an indefinite one (Maldonatus), yet it is such as clearly indicates the scarcity of men. How many, then, have been consumed by divine judgments! In order not to fall under the curse, “Cursed is the barren and she who does not bear seed in Israel” (cf. Deuteronomy 7:14; Jerome, Basil, Cyril, Chrysostom, Sanctius), and to free themselves from the reproach of solitude and childlessness, these women—shame set aside, such is the terror and horror of misery—earnestly beg one man, seizing him as suppliants do, that they may more easily obtain what they desire.
“We shall not be a burden to you,” they say; “we will provide our own food and clothing; this one thing we ask, that we may be called your wives, and that by the name of husband you remove our reproach and rescue us from solitude, lest we appear utterly forsaken and abandoned” (Osorius). By the Law, it belongs to the husband to provide food and clothing for his wife (Exodus 21:10); but lest that labor and expense deter the man from marriage, the women promise to take that care upon themselves. “Let your name be called upon us,” that is, “that you may be called our husband and we may be called your wives” (Maldonatus, Sa, Mar.).
Thus the pride of the women (Is 3:16) is afflicted with every kind of punishment. Those who before judgment ruled arrogantly (Is 3:12) are now seen overwhelmed by disgrace, abasement, and the stripping away of all things, after the Lord has stood up to judge (Is 3:13). That day of the Lord announced against all arrogance and pride (Is 2:12) is vividly illustrated by this final image of Mother Zion desolate, sitting in the dust, and of women abandoned. Nothing remains but ruins: the loftiness of man is bowed down, “that the Lord alone may be exalted in that day” (Is 2:14).
When, then, was this prophecy fulfilled? The prophet sets forth the rule of divine judgment by which the Jewish state was to be destroyed. And how this has been accomplished through the course of centuries, “even to this day we see with our eyes” (St. Jerome). This judgment was carried out in stages and with repeated blows. Hence those interpreters are not mistaken who refer these words to the Babylonian captivity, nor are those in error who hold that all this looks to the final period of the Jewish polity. The prophet announces a norm of God’s action valid for all times: that Zion must be brought back to the Lord through chastisement and judgment; that human pomp, pride, and wantonness are to be punished with fitting penalties.
That women are intended in this description seems sufficiently clear not only from the name but also from the multitude of distinctly feminine ornaments mentioned. Nevertheless, even among modern scholars some wish to see not women but the cities of Judah, and especially Jerusalem, described under this figure (cf. Hupfeld on Psalm 48:12). This opinion also had some ancient supporters. Thus Jerome notes on verse 16: “Some think these things are said metaphorically of the cities of Judah, which are called the daughters of Zion, that is, the smaller towns, villages, and settlements.” And since in Is 3:26 the discourse clearly concerns Zion, he observes that it can be understood of the soul that has fallen into sin after virtue. Yet the figure of speech by which the metropolis is called a mother is so frequent among the prophets that there is no reason why the preceding discourse should not be directed to women, especially since the transition from addressing women to portraying Mother Zion is so natural, and gathers all grief into a single image.
Forerius understands the reference as extending to princes and magistrates given over to effeminate luxury: “All these things are to be taken figuratively; by all these names that belong to feminine adornment he designates effeminate minds and morals” (similarly Rupert and, in part, Saeb.). In this sense Eusebius had already remarked: “These things may have been said not only of women, but also of soft and effeminate souls.” For further applications of this kind, see Jerome, Hervaeus, and others.
Nevertheless, by far the greater number of interpreters rightly and justly hold that the discourse concerns women in the literal sense (cf. Basil, Cyril, Theodoret, Chrysostom, Ephrem, Thomas, Sanctius, Lapide, and others).
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment