THIS chapter continues the threatenings against Judah on account of the prevailing iniquities, with special reference to female pride and luxury.
The Prophet first explains his exhortation at the close of the last chapter, by showing that God was about to take away the leading men of Judah and to let it fall into a state of anarchy, vs. 1-7. He then shows that this was the effect of sin, particularly that of wicked rulers, vs. 8-15. He then exposes in detail the pride and luxury of the Jewish women, and threatens them not only with the loss of that in which they now delighted, but with widowhood, captivity, and degradation, v. 16—4: 1.
The first part opens with a general prediction of the loss of what they trusted in, beginning with the necessary means of subsistence, v. 1. We have then an enumeration of the public men who were about to be removed, including civil, military, and religious functionaries, with the practitioners of certain arts, vs. 2, 3. As the effect of this removal, the government falls into incompetent hands, v. 4. This is followed by insubordination and con fusion, v. 5. At length, no one is willing to accept public office, the people are wretched, and the commonwealth a ruin, vs. 6, 7.
This ruin is declared to be the consequence of sin, and the people rep resented as their own destroyers, vs. 8, 9. God’s judgments, it is true, are not indiscriminate. The innocent shall not perish with the guilty, but the guilty must suffer, vs. 10, 11. Incompetent and faithless rulers must especially be punished, who instead of being the guardians are the spoilers of the vineyard, instead of protectors the oppressors of the poor, vs. 12-15.
As a principal cause of these prevailing evils, the Prophet now denounces female luxury and threatens it with condign punishment, privation and disgrace, vs. 16, 17. This general denunciation is then amplified at great length, in a detailed enumeration of the ornaments which were about to be taken from them and succeeded by the badges of captivity and mourn ing, vs. 18-24. The agency to be employed in this retribution is a disastrous war. by which the men are to be swept off and the country left desolate, vs. 25, 26. The extent of this calamity is represented by a lively exhibition of the disproportion between the male survivors and the other sex, suggesting at the same time the forlorn condition of the widows of the slain, chap. 4:1.
1. This verse assigns as a reason for the exhortation in the one preceding, that God was about to take away from the people every ground of reliance, natural and moral. Cease ye from man, i. e. cease to trust in any human protection, for behold (implying a proximate futurity) the Lord (God considered as a sovereign) Jehovah of Hosts (as self-existent and eternal, and at the same time as the God of revelation and the God of his people) is taking away (or about to take away) from Jerusalem and from Judah (not only from the capital but from, the whole kingdom) the stay and the staff (i. e. all kinds of support, and first of all) the whole stay of bread and the whole stay of water (the natural and necessary means of subsistence). The terms are applicable either to a general famine produced by natural causes, or to a scarcity arising from invasion or blockade, such as actually took place when Judah was overrun by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25: 4. Jer. 52: 6. 38: 9. Lam. 4: 4).—Instead of the whole stay, prose usage would require every stay, the form adopted by Gesenius and the later Germans. But the other construction is sustained by the analogy of the whole head and the whole heart ch. 1: 5, and by the impossibility of expressing this idea otherwise without circumlocution, as the addition of another noun excludes the article.—The old version stay and staff is an approximation to the form of the original, in which a masculine and feminine form of the same noun are combined, by an idiom common in Arabic and not un known in Hebrew (Nah. 2: 13), to denote universality, or rather all kinds of the object named. This form of expression is retained in the Greek ver sions (Sept. Iff^vowtt x«/ iG%vovGav. Aqu. SQeurfta xcu ZQEIGHOV. Symm. GTIgiyfia. xal ffTijQiypov), and the Jewish-Spanish (sustentador y sustentadora). Others imitate it merely by combining synonymes alike in form (Calv. vigorem et vim. Vitr. fulcimentum et fulturam. Hitz. Stiitze und Stutzpunkt. Ew. Stab und Stiitze). Others simply give the sense by reading every stay (Ges.), all stays of every kind (J. D. Mich.), one stay after another (Hk.)? etc.—The last clause is rejected as a gloss by Gesenius in his commentary, on the ground that its explanation of the first clause as denoting food and drink is inconsistent with the subsequent context which explains it to mean public men. This objection is withdrawn in the second edition of his Ger man version, but renewed by Hitzig and Knobel, with the addition of another, viz. that water is not a stay or staff of life. The last is frivolous and the other groundless, as the last clause is not an explanation of the first, but begins a specification of particulars included in it. The stays of which they were to be deprived were first the stay of food, v. 1, and then the stay of government, vs. 2, 3.
2. Next to the necessary means of subsistence, the Prophet enumerates the great men of the commonwealth, vs. 2, 3. The first clause has reference to military strength, the second to civil and religious dignities. In the second clause there is an inverse parallelism, the first and fourth terms denoting civil officers, the second and third religious ones. The omission of the article before the nouns, though not uncommon in poetry, adds much to the rapidity and life of the description. Hero and warrior, judge and prophet., and divine and elder.—That the first is not a generic term including all that follow (the great men, viz. the warriors, etc) is clear from the par allelism, the terms being arranged in pairs as often elsewhere (ch. 11: 2. 19:3,6-9. 22: 12, 13. 42: 19).—The idea here expressed by ^’sa is not simply that of personal strength and prowess (Sept. yfyavta xal ia^vovia), but the higher one of military eminence or heroism (J. D. Mich. Ges. Hn. etc.).—The literal version of the next phrase, man of war, has acquired a different sense in modern English. It may here denote either a warrior of high rank, as synonymous with ii’aa (Vitr. militia clarum) or one of ordinaryrank, as distinguished from it (Cocc. ducem et militem. Kn. Oberste und Gemeine). Compare 2 Sam. 23: 8.—Judge may either be taken in its re stricted modern sense (Hk.) or in the wider one of magistrate or ruler.—To avoid the supposed incongruity of coupling the prophet and diviner together, some take K^i in the bad sense of a false or an unfaithful prophet (J. D. Mich. Ges. Hg.); others take nbp in the good sense of a scribe (Targ.), a prudent man (E. V.), or a sagacious prognosticator or adviser (Sept. Grot. Bar.); while Hendewerk refers both words to the prophet, making the first denote his office as a preacher and the second as a foreteller; all which is arbitrary, contrary to usage, and entirely superfluous. The people are threatened with the loss of all their stays, good or bad, true or false. Vera et falsa a Judaeis pariter auferentur (Jerome).—The last word in the verse is not to be taken in its primary and proper sense of old man (Vulg. senem), much less in the factitious one of sage (Low.) or wise man (Bs.), since all the foregoing terms are titles denoting rank and office, but in its secondary sense of elder (Sept. HQeofivitQOv* Lu. Aeltesten) or hereditary chief, and as such, a magistrate under the patriarchal system. It is here equivalent or parallel to judge, the one term denoting the functions of the office, the other the right by which it was held.—The change of the singulars in this verse for plurals (Luth. J. D. Mich.), though it does not affect the sense, weakens its expression.
3. To persons of official rank and influence, the Prophet adds, in order to complete his catalogue, practitioners of those arts upon which the people set most value. As the prophet and diviner stand together in v. 2, so mechanical and magical arts are put together here. The first clause sim ply finishes the list of public functionaries which had been begun in the preceding verse. The chief of fifty, and the favourite, and the counsellor, and the skilful artificer^ and the expert enchanter.—The first title is derived from the decimal arrangement of the people in the wilderness for judicial purposes (Exod. 18: 25, 26), but is afterwards used only as a military title. Hitzig and Knobel understand it here as denoting an officer of low rank, in opposition to warrior in the verse preceding.—The next phrase literally signifies lifted up in countenance (Vulg. honorabilem vultu), which is commonly understood as a description of an eminent or honourable person. But as the same words are employed to signify respect of persons or judicial partiality, the phrase may here denote one highly favoured by a sovereign, a royal favourite (2 Kings 5: 1. Lev. 9: 15. Deut. 10: 17. Job 13: 10. Mai. 2: 9), or respected, reverenced by the people (Lam. 4: 16. Deut. 18: 50). Luther translates it as a plural or collective by respectable people (ehrliche Leute).—The counsellor here meant is not a private or profes- 42 sional adviser, but a public counsellor or minister of state.—tan is here used in what seems to be its primary sense of skilful, with respect to art (compare <roqpo£ in Passow’s Greek Lexicon).—The explanation of D^E^n as de noting occult arts (Cler. Ges. Hg. Hn. Ewald, Hexenmeister), though countenanced by Chaldee and Syriac analogies, has no Hebrew usage to sup port it, and the expression of the same idea in the other clause is rather a reason for applying this to the mechanical arts, as is done by the Septuagint (ffoopoj’ aQ/iTMTora), Luther (weise Werkleute), Vitringa (mechanicarum artiurn peritum), Knobel, and others. Umbreit seems to apply the term specially to the manufacture of idols, as J. D. Michaelis does to that of arms (gute WafFenschmiede). Gesenius and Hitzig may have been led to reject this old interpretation by a desire to evade the remarkable coincidence be tween this prophecy and the fact recorded in 2 Kings 24: 14, 16.—The last word in the verse is taken strictly, as denoting a < whisper’ or the act of whispering, by Aquila (ovverov yi&vQtapw), Cocceius (prudentem susurrorum), and Hitzig (kundigen des Gefliisters); but in its secondary sense of incantation, with allusion to the mutterings and whisperings which formed a part of magical ceremonies, by Symmachus (opiHa ptOT<*$), the Vulgate (eloquii mystici), and most modern writers. According to J. D. Michaelis and Gesenius, it specially denotes the charming of serpents. The sense of eloquent orator (Lu. Calv. Jun. E. V. Vitr. Low.) seems altogether arbitrary. The analogous phrase ^s*i “p’s; (1 Sam. 16: 18), to which Rosenmiiller refers, is itself of doubtful import and proves nothing.
4. The natural consequence of the removal of the leading men must be the rise of incompetent successors, persons without capacity, experience, or principle, a change which is here ascribed to God’s retributive justice. And I will give children to be their rulers, and childish things shall govern them. Some apply this, in a strict sense, to the weak and wicked reign of Ahaz (Ew. Hg. Hk. Kn.), others in a wider sense to the series of weak kings after Isaiah (Gro. Low.). But there is no need of restricting it to kings at all, as ito denotes a ruler in general, and in v. 3 is applied to rulers of inferior rank. The most probable opinion is that the incompetent rulers are called boys or children not in respect to age but character, non ratione aetatis sed imprudentiae et ineptitudinis’ (J. H. Mich.). Calvin, Cocceius, Lowth, and Gesenius take c^bsn as a simple equivalent to =”•?:?, and J. D. Michaelis translates it sucklings. Hitzig makes it qualify the verb instead of agreeing with it as its subject. < They (the children) shall rule over them with arbitrary cruelty.’ Hendewerk and Knobel give the same meaning to the noun, but retain the usual construction. £ And tyranny shall rule over them.’ Most probably, however, extern is an abstract term used for the concrete, puerilities or childishnesses for childish per sons, or still more contemptuously, childish things (Lu. Ew. Um.). -The Targum has weaklings (srttbri), the Septuagint k^na.Uitu-9 *the Vulgate *cffoeminati, Junius and Tremellius facinorosi.
5. As the preceding verse describes bad government, so this de scribes anarchy, the suspension of all government, and a consequent disorder in the relations of society, betraying itself in mutual violence, and in the dis regard of natural and artificial claims to deference. And the people shall act tyrannically, man against man, and man against his fellow. They shall be insolent, the youth to the old man, and the mean man to the noble. The passive construction, the people shall be oppressed (E. V. Low. Bs.), does not agree so well with the usage of the preposition following as the reflexive one now commonly adopted. The insertion of another verb (man striving against man, Bar.) is wholly unnecessary. The second verb is commonly explained to mean the insolence or arrogance of upstarts to their betters (Calv. insolescet. Fr. Vs. se portera arrogamment); but the best lexicographers give it the stronger sense of acting ferociously (Cocc. Ges. Winer. Fiirst), or, to combine both ideas, with ferocious insolence. (Hitzig, sttirmen. Gesenius,lossturmen. Hendewerk, wiithet. Henderson, outrage.)— The passive participles in the last clause properly signify despised and hon oured, i. e. once despised, once honoured (Cler. qui antea spretus erat); or, according to the common idiomatic usage of passive participles, to be de spised, to be honoured, not so much with reference to moral character as to rank and position in society. The restriction of the first clause to the rigorous exaction of debts (Clericus) is inconsistent with the context and the parallelism. On contempt of old age. as a sign of barbarism, see Lam. 4: 16, Deut. 28: 50. Eight manuscripts and fifteen editions read cs; for teas, but all the ancient versions presuppose the common reading. •
6. Having predicted the removal of those qualified to govern, the rise of incompetent successors, and a consequent insubordination and confusion, the Prophet now describes this last as having reached such a height that no one is willing to hold office, or, as Matthew Henry says, “ the government goes a begging.” This verse, notwithstanding its length, seems to contain only the protasis or conditional clause of the sentence, in which the commonwealth is represented as a ruin, and the task of managing it pressed upon one living in retirement, on the ground that he still possesses decent raiment, a lively picture both of general anarchy and general wretchedness. When a man shall take hold of his brother (i. e. one man of another) in his father’s house (at home in a private station, saying) thou hast raiment, a ruler shalt thou be to us, and this ruin (shall be) under thy hand (i. e. under thy power, control, and management). It is equally consistent with the syntax 44 and the usage of the words to understand the man as addressing his brother, in the proper sense, or in that of a near kinsman, of or belonging to the house of his (the speaker’s) father, i. e. one of the same family (Vulg. domesticum patris sui. J. H. Mich, cognatum. Hendew. Einen von den seinen). But the offer would then seem to be simply that of headship or chieftain ship over a family or house, whereas a wider meaning is required by the connexion. For raiment Henderson reads an abundant wardrobe, and ex plains the phrase as meaning thou art rich, because clothing forms a large part of oriental wealth, and the same explanation is given in substance by Clericus, Hendewerk, Barnes, and Umbreit. But Vitringa, Gesenius, Rosenmuller, Knobel and others, understand the words more probably as meaning ’ thou hast still a garment,’ whereas we have none, implying general distress as well as anarchy. Vitringa and Lowth make rnV a verb, as it is elsewhere, meaning go or come, as a particle of exhortation (vide supra, ch. 2: 3), and connect n^ato with what precedes, but in different ways. Vitringa’s construction is that a man shall lay hold of his brother, in whose paternal house there is raiment, saying come on (agedum), etc.. Lowth’s that a man shall lay hold of his brother by the garment, saying come, etc. All other writers seem to be agreed that fo^ is an unusual mode of writing 5jb (see Ges. Heb. Gr. <§> 35).—The ^3 at the beginning has been variously rendered for, because (Sept. Targ. Vulg. Pesh.), therefore (Lowth), if (Junius), then if (Ros.), then (Lu. Ges. Bs. Kn.). Henderson uses the periphrasis should any one, etc. Hitzig and Ewald agree with Calvin, Vitringa, Clericus, and the English Bible in rendering ttnvhen, and regard ing the two verses as one continuous sentence.—The word saying in the first clause is inserted by two manuscripts, and supplied by most versions ancient and modern.—Thirty-five manuscripts and two editions read tp”i; in the plural. »
7. This verse contains the refisal of the invitation given in the one preceding. In that day he shall lift up (his voice in reply) saying I will not be a healer, and in my house there is no bread, and there is no clothing; ye shall not make me a ruler of the people. In that day may either mean at once, without deliberation, or continue the narrative without special em phasis. Some supply hand after lift up, as a gesture of swearing, or the name of God as in the third commandment, and understand the phrase to mean that he shall swear (Saad. Lu. Calv. E. V., J. D. Mich.). But the great majority of writers supply voice, some in the specific sense of answer ing (Sept. Vulg. Targ. Pesh. Cler.) or in the simple sense of uttering (Cocc. Ges. De W. Ew.), but others with more probability in that of speak ing with a loud voice (Vitr. Ros.), or distinctly and with emphasis, he shall protest (Hn.) or openly declare (Low.). The Vulgate, Luther, and Gesenius have I am not a healer, but if that were the sense the verb would probably be suppressed. The meaning of the words seems to be either I cannot, as a confession of unfitness (Targ. Ros. De W. Hk. Urn.), or I will not, as an expression of invincible aversion (Calv. Cocc. Cler. E. V. Low. Hn. Kn.).—The Septuagint and Clericus take uhn in the sense of prince or prefect. Cocceius translates it literally binding, Ewald Under. Saadias makes it mean one who binds his head with a diadem; Montanus an executioner, like the Latin lictor. The true sense of healer is given by the Vulgate (medicus), Calvin (curator), Luther (Artzt), and most of the later ver sions.—There is no need of reading for in my house (Calv. Cler. Hn. Ew. Kn.), as the words do not directly give a reason for refusing, but simply deny the fact alleged in the request. Clericus, Lowth, and Henderson carry out their interpretation of the previous verse by supposing the excuse here given to be that he was not rich enough to clothe and feast the people as oriental chiefs are expected to do. But the whole connexion seems to show that it is a profession of great poverty, which, if true, shows more clearly the condition of the people, and if false, the general aversion to office. The last clause does not simply mean do not make me, but you must not, or you shall not make me a ruler. Gesenius and all the later Germans except Ewald substitute the descriptive present for the future in this verse.
8. The Prophet here explains his use of the word ruin in reference to the commonwealth of Israel, by declaring that it had in fact destroyed itself by the offence which its iniquities had given to the holiness of God, here compared to the sensitiveness of the human eye. Do not wonder at its being called a rum, for Jerusalem totters and Judah falls (or Jerusalem is tottering and Judah falling), because their tongue and their doings (words and deeds being put for the whole conduct) are against Jehovah (strictly to or towards, but in this connexion necessarily implying opposition and hostility), to resist (i. e. so as to resist, implying both the purpose and effect his holy eyes (and thereby to offend them). The Peshito seems to take these as the words of the man refusing to govern; but they are really those of the Prophet explaining his refusal or rather one of the expressions used in making the offer, as «”^3 clearly involves an allusion to nbizJaa one of its derivatives. The ^3 is therefore not to be taken in the sense of yea (Um.), or surely (Calv.), but in its proper sense of for, because (Sept. Vulg. etc.). Here as in ch.l: 16, tartan is variously rendered adinventiones (Vulg.), studia (Calv.), conata (Mont.), but the only meaning justified by etymology is that of actions. Cocceius, who refers the whole prophecy to the times of the New Testament, understands by their resisting God’s holy eyes the opposition of the Jews to the Son of God when personally present. Totter and fall are supposed by some to be in antithesis, contrasting the calamities of Jerusalem with the worse calamities of Judah (Knobel), or the partial downfall of the kingdom under Ahaz, with its total downfal under Zedekiah (Vitringa); but they are more probably poetical equivalents, asserting the same fact, that Jerusalem and Judah, though peculiarly the Lord’s, were nevertheless to fall and be destroyed for their iniquities.—The present form is adopted here, not only by the modern writers, but by the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Luther.—The emendation of the text by changing ^35 to ^s (Low.) or *& (J. D. Mich.), is needless and without authority.—For the orthography of n:?, see Ewald’s Heb. Gr. § 30.
9. As they make no secret of their depravity, and as sin and suffer ing are inseparably connected, they must bear the blame of their own destruction. The expression of their countenances testifies against them, and their sin, like Sodom, they disclose, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul, for they have done evil to themselves.—The first clause is applied to respect of persons or judicial partiality, by the Targum (j«”n:i), Clericus (habita hominum ratio), Hitzig (ihr Ansehn der Person), and Gesenius in his Thesaurus. This construction is favoured by the usage of the phrase 0^35 ^sn (Deut. 1: 17. 16: 19. Prov. 24: 23. 28: 21); but the context seems to show that the Prophet has reference to general character and not to a specific sin, while the parallel expressions in this verse make it almost certain that the phrase relates to the expression of the countenance. Some explain it accordingly of a particular expression, such as shame (Sept.), impudence (Vulg.), obduracy (Jun.), steadfastness (Lowth), confusion (Ges.), insensibility (Ew.). But the various and even contradictory senses thus put upon the word may serve to show that it is more correctly understood, as denoting the expression of the countenance generally, by Calvin (probatio), Cocceius (adspectus), Gussetius (quod dant cognoscendum), the English Version (show), De Wette (Ausdruck), and other recent writers. The sense is not that their looks betray them, but that they make no effort at concealment, as appears from the reference to Sodom. Quod unum habebant in peccatis bonum perdunt, peccandi verecundiam (Seneca).—The expression of the same idea first in a positive and then in a negative form is not uncommon in Scripture, and is a natural if not an English idiom. Mad ame d’Arblay, in her Memoirs of Dr. Burney, speaks of Omiah, the Tahitian brought home by Captain Cook, as “ uttering first affirmatively and then negatively all the little sentences that he attempted to pronounce.” For examples involving this same verb ins, see Josh. 7: 19. 1 Sam. 3: 17, IS. The explanation of ^a} as meaning recompense, reward (Vulg. Cler. E. V. Um.), is rejected by most of the modern writers, who make it correspond very nearly to the English treat, in the sense of doing either good or evil. f *They have treated themselves ill, or done evil to themselves (Cocc. sibimet ipsis male faciunt. Ewald: sie thaten sich boses). Hengstenberg maintains (Comm. on Psalm 7: 5) that the verb means properly to *do good, and is used in a bad sense only by a kind of irony. The phrase to their soul may be understood strictly (Calv. E. V. Hg. De W.) or as mean ing to their life (Cler. Ges.); but the singular form of the noun seems to imply that it is used as a periphrasis for the reflexive pronoun to themselves. David Kimchi says that his father derived – >3-. from -on to be heard, making the n radical; but the derivation from i?3 is now universally adopted.
10. The righteous are encouraged by the assurance that the judg ments of God shall not ba indiscriminate. Say ye of the righteous that it shall be well, for the fruits of their doings they shall eat. The object of address seems to be not the prophets or ministers of God, but the people at large or men indefinitely. The concise and elliptical first clause may be variously construed — c Say, it is right (or righteous) that (they should eat) good, that they should eat the fruit of their doings.’ — c Say, it is right (or God is righteous), for it is good that they should eat,’ etc. — { *Say (what is) right,’ i. e. pronounce just judgment. The verb is made to govern p*^* directly by Vitringa (justum praedicate beatum), Lowth (pronounce ye a blessing on the righteous), Gesenius (preiset den Gerechten). The preposition *to is supplied by the Targum, Peshito, Vulgate (dicite justo), English Version, Barnes, and Henderson. The construction most agreeable to usage is that given by Luther, J. D. Michaelis, De Wette, Hendewerk, Ewald, Umbreit, Knobel — *( *Say ye of the righteous (or concerning him) that,’ etc. One manuscript reads Pitr in the singular, but the plural form agrees with p*^ as a collective.
11. This is the converse of the foregoing proposition, a threatening corresponding to the promise. Woe unto the wicked, (it shall be) ill (with him), for the. thing done by his hands shall be done to him. — Calvin and Ewald separate sianb from *nK and connect it with sn, ( *woe (or alas)! to the wicked it is (or shall be) ill,’ a construction favoured by the Masoretic accents. Kimchi makes r^ agree with y w in the sense of an *evil wicked man, i. e. one who is wicked both towards God and man. (See Gill ad loc.) This interpretation is adopted by Luther, Cocceius, Vitringa, Clericus, and J. H. Michaelis. De Wette, Hendewerk, and Knobel give the same construction, but take sn in the sense of wretched, ( *woe to the wicked, the unhappy.’ But »i seems evidently parallel to 3-,a in v. 10, and cannot therefore be a mere epithet. Umbreit follows the Vulgate, Clericus, etc., in giving to ^TOS the sense of *recompense. Luther and Henderson explain it to mean merit or desert; Calvin, Lowth, and Gesenius, more correctly work.
12. The Prophet now recurs to the evil of unworthy and incapable rulers, and expresses, by an exclamation, wonder and concern at the result. My people! their oppressors are childish and women rule over them. My people! thy leaders are seducers, and the way of thy paths (the way where thy path lies) they swallow up (cause to disappear, destroy).—^BS is usually construed in the first clause as an absolute nominative; but by making it (as Umbreit does) an exclamation, the parallelism becomes more exact.—Gesenius and Hitzig explain “Piaab as a pluralis majestaticus referring to Ahaz, which is needless and arbitrary. ^”E is in the singular because it is used adjectively, the predicate being often in the singular when the subject is plural. (Ges. Heb. Gr. <§> 144. 6. c.) Instead of thy guides Luther read^s&y comforters; others, those who call thee happy, which is one of the meanings of the Hebrew word, and was perhaps designed to be suggested here, but not directly as the primary idea. The paronomasia introduced into the last clause by Cocceius (qui ducunt te seducunt te), the Dutch Version (die u leyden verleyden u), and Gesenius (deine Fiihrer verfuhren dich), is not found in the original.
13. Though human governments might be overthrown, God still remained a sovereign and a judge, and is here represented as appearing, coming forward, or assuming his position, not only as a judge but as an ad vocate, or rather an accuser, in both which characters he acts at once, implying that he who brings this charge against his people has at the same time power to condemn. Jehovah standeth up to plead, and is standing to judge the nations. The first verb properly denotes a reflexive act, viz. -that of placing or presenting himself. The participle is used to represent the scene as actually passing. The meaning of -*“i is to plead or conduct a cause for another or one’s self.—Some understand the last clause to mean that the judge is still standing, that he has not yet taken his place upon the judgment-seat. According to Clericus, it represents the case as so clear that the judge decides it standing, without sitting down to hear argument or evidence. But these are needless and unnatural refinements.—Vitringa makes n^*} and •j’-‘n synonymous, which is contrary to usage.—Nations here as often elsewhere means the tribes of Israel. See Gen. 49: 10. Deut. 32: 8. 33: 3, 19. 1 Kings 22: 28. Mich. 1: 2. There is no need therefore of reading “is? for D^B?, as Lowth does.
14. This verse describes the parties more distinctly and begins the accusation. Jehovah will enter into judgment (engage in litigation, both as a party and a judge) with the elders of his people (the heads of houses, families and tribes) and the chiefs therof (the hereditary chiefs of Israel, here and elsewhere treated as responsible representatives of the people). And ye (even ye) have consumed the vineyard (of Jehovah, his church or chosen people), the spoil of the poor (that which is taken from him by violence) is in your houses.—Hendewerk regards the last clause as the language of the Prophet, giving a reason why God would enter into judgment with them; but it is commonly regarded as the commencement of the judge’s own address, which is continued through the following verse.—The particle with which the second clause begins is not equivalent to for (Vulg. Lu.) or but (Cocc.), but connects what follows with an antecedent thought not expressed. It may here be rendered even, and so, or so then (Ges.). Lowth has as for you, and the pronoun is certainly emphatic, you from whom it could least have been expected, you who ought to have prevented it.— Henderson thinks that vineyard is here used collectively for vineyards, and that literal spoliation of the poor is the particular offence denounced, or one here chosen to represent the rest. But the common opinion is more probable, viz. that the Prophet here uses the same metaphor which forms the ba sis of his parable in ch. 5.—The proper meaning of ^asn is the afflicted from whatever cause; but it is commonly applied to the poor. Ewald translates rigidly the sufferer’s spoil (des Dulders Raub).
15. The Lord’s address to the elders of Israel is continued in a tone of indignant expostulation. What mean ye (literally what is to you, equivalent in English to what have you, i. e. what right, what reason, what motive, what advantage) that ye crush my people (a common figure for severe oppression, Job 5: 4. Prov. 22: 22) and grind the faces of the poor (upon the ground, by trampling on their bodies, another strong figure for contemptuous and oppressive violence), saith the Lord Jehovah of Hosts (which is added to remind the accused of the sovereign authority, omniscience, and omnipotence of Him by whom the charge is brought against them).—The first verb does not mean merely to weaken (Cocc.), bruise (Calv.), or break (Vitr.), but to break in pieces, to break utterly, to crush (Lowth).—By the faces of the poor some understand their persons or the poor themselves, and by grinding them, reducing, attenuating, by exaction and oppression (Ges. Hg. Hk. Hn.). Others refer the phrase to literal injuries of the face by blows or wounds (Ew. Um.). But the simplest and most natural interpretation is that which applies it to the act of grinding the face upon the ground by trampling on the body, thus giving both the noun and verb their proper meaning, and making the parallelism more exact.—The phrase at the begin ning of the verse cannot constitute an independent clause, what mean ye? (Barnes) but merely serves to introduce the question.
Vs. 16, 17. The Prophet here resumes the thread which had been dropped or broken at the close of v. 12, and recurs to the undue predomi- 4 nance of female influence, but particularly to the prevalent excess of female luxury, not only as sinful in itself, but as a chief cause of the violence and social disorder previously mentioned, and therefore to be punished by disease, widowhood, and shameful exposure. These two verses, like the sixth and seventh, form one continued sentence, the and at the beginning of v. 17 introducing the apodosis, for which reason, and also on account of its relation to because in v. 16, its full force cannot be expressed by a literal translation. And Jehovah said (in addition to what goes before, as if beginning a new section of the prophecy), because the daughters of Zion (the women of Jerusalem, with special reference to those connected with the leading men) are lofty (in their mien and carriage) and walk with outstretched neck (lite rally, stretched of neck, so as to seem taller), and gazing (ogling, leering, looking wantonly) with their eyes, and with a tripping walk they walk, and with their feet they make a tinkling (i. e. with the metallic rings or bands worn around the ankles), therefore the Lord will make bald the crown of the daughters of Zion, and their nakedness Jehovah will uncover (i. e. he will reduce them to a state the very opposite of their present pride and finery).—Jerome speaks of some who understood the daughters of Zion here to mean the souls of men. Eichhorn takes it in the geographical sense of smaller towns dependent on Jerusalem (Jos. 15: 45, 47. 2 Chron. 18: 18). But the obvious meaning is preferred by almost all interpreters.— They are described as stretching out the neck, not by bending forwards, nor by tossing the head backwards (Hn.) but by holding it high (Sept. vipylcp iQaxfto)) j so that the phrase corresponds to lofty in the clause preceding.— Above forty editions and eight manuscripts read rvhjslfla, deceiving, i. e. by a false expression of the eyes (Cocc. mentientes oculis), or by disguising them with paint (Lowth), in allusion to the very ancient fashion (2 Kings 9: 30) oculos circumducto nigrore fucare (Cyprian de Hab. Virg.). This last sense may be put upon the common reading by deriving it from -i£to i. q. Chald. *!£& to stain or dye, which may be the ground of Luther’s version, with painted faces. It is commonly agreed, however, that it comes from the same verb in the sense of looking, looking around, with the accessory idea here suggested by the context of immodest, wanton looks. This idea is expressed by the Septuagint (tv vsvfiaaw ocp&alpwv), the Vulgate (vagantes oculis), Gesenius (frech die Augen werfend), Ewald (schielender Augen), and Henderson (ogling eyes.)—The masculine suffix in fcrnba1! is regarded by Henderson and Knobel as containing an allusion to the unfeminine con duct of these women; but the manner here described is rather childish than masculine, and this form is probably used as the primary one and originally common to both genders. (See Ges. Heb. Gr. <§> 119. 1).—The baldness mentioned in the last clause is variously explained as an allusion to the shaving of the heads of prisoners or captives (Knobel), or as a sign of mourning (Rosenmiiller) or as the effect of disease (Ges. Ew. etc.), and particularly of the disease which bears a name (Lev. 13: 2) derived from the verb here used (Jun. Cocc. E. V.). Neither of these ideas is expressed, though all may be implied, in the terms of the original. For the construction of Sp’ETJi rfin, see Gesen. Heb. Gr. <§> 126. 3. For that of Tha m’^sas, vide supra, ch. 1: 4.
18. Although the prediction in v, 17 implies the loss of all ornaments whatever, we have now a minute specification of the things to be taken away. This specification had a double use; it made the judgment threatened more explicit and significant to those whom it concerned, while to others it gave some idea of the length to which extravagance in dress was carried. There is no need (as Ewald well observes) of supposing that all these articles were ever worn at once, or that the passage was designed to be descriptive of a complete dress. It is rather an enumeration of detached particulars which might or might not be combined in any individual case. As in other cases where a variety of detached particulars are enumerated simply by their names, it is now very difficult to identify some of them. This is the less to be regretted, as the main design of the enumeration was to show the prevalent extravagance in dress, an effect not wholly dependent on an exact interpretation of the several items. The interest of the passage, in its details, is not exegetical but archaeological, in which light it has been separately and elaborately discussed by learned writers, especially by Schroeder in his Commentarius philologico-criticus de vestitu mulierum Hebraearum, ad Jesai. 3: v. 16-24, cum praefatione Alberti Schultens, Lugd. Bat. 1745. Of later date, but less authority, is Hartmann’s Hebraerinn am Putztische und als Braut. Nothing more will be here attempted than to give what is now most commonly regarded as the true meaning of the terms, with a few of the more important variations in the doubtful cases.—In that day (the time appointed for the judgments just denounced) the Lord will take away (literally, cause to depart, from the daughters of Zion) the bravery (in the old English sense of finery) of the ankle-bands (the noun from which the last verb in v. 16 is derived) and the cauls (or caps of net-work) and the crescents (or little moons, metallic ornaments of that shape.)—Schroeder explains di&isti; to mean little suns corresponding to the little moons which follow, and derives the word as a diminutive from caiB, with a permutation of one labial for another. This explanation is adopted by Winer, Ewald and Knobel. According to Henderson, the word means tasselled tresses, i. e. locks of hair braided and hanging to the feet.
19. The pendants (literally, drops, i. e. ear-rings) and the bracelets (for the arm, or according to Ewald, collars for the neck, Halsbande) and the veils (the word here used denoting the peculiar oriental veil, composed of two pieces hooked together below the eyes, one of which pieces is thrown back over the head, while the other hides the face). The first word in the verse is rendered by the English Version, chains, and in the margin, sweetballs, but more correctly by the Septuagint, x«#£/*« or pendant.
20. The caps (or other ornamental head-dresses) and the ankle-chains (connecting the ankle-bands, so as to regulate the length of the step) and the girdles, and the houses (i. e. places or receptacles) of breath, (meaning probably the perfume-boxes or smelling-bottles worn by the oriental women at their girdles) and the amulets (the same word used above in v. 3, in the sense of incantations, but which seems like the Latin fascinum to have also signified the antidote). The first word of this verse is now commonly ex plained to mean turbans, but as these are distinctly mentioned afterwards, this term may denote an ornamental cap, or perhaps a diadem or circlet of gold or silver. (Ewald, Kronen. Eng. Vs. bonnets.) The next word is ex plained to mean bracelets by the Septuagint (t^’Mia) and Ewald (Armspangen), but by the English Version more correctly, though perhaps too vaguely, ornaments of the leg. For girdles, smelling bottles, and amulets, the English Version has head-bands, tablets (but in the margin, houses of the soul), and ear-rings, perhaps on account of the superstitious use which was sometimes made of these (Gen. 35: 4).
21. The rings, strictly signet-rings, but here put for finger-rings or rings in general, and the nose-jewels, a common and very ancient ornament in eastern countries, so that the version, jewels of the face, is unnecessary, as well as inconsistent with the derivation from cts, to perforate.
22. The holiday-dresses, and the mantles and the robes and the purses. The first word is from ybn to pull off, and is almost universally explained to mean clothes that are taken off and laid aside, i. e. the best suit, holiday or gala dresses, although this general expression seems misplaced in an enumeration of minute details. The English version, changeable suits of apparel, though ambiguous, seems intended to express the same idea. The next two words, according to their etymology, denote wide and flowing upper garments. The English version of the last word, Crispin g-pins, sup poses it to relate to the dressing of the hair. The same idea seems to be expressed by Calvin (acus) and Cocceius (acus discriminales.) The word is now commonly explained, from the Arabic analogy, to signify bags or purses probably of metal.
23. The mirrors and the tunics (inner garments made of linen), and the turbans (the common oriental head-dress, from Pjas to wrap) and the veils.—The first word is explained to mean their thin transparent dresses, by the Septuagint (dtacpavij Aax&mxce), Kimchi, Schroeder, Rosenmuller and Ewald (der feinen Zeuge); but most writers understand it to denote the small metallic mirrors carried about by oriental women. Instead of turbans (Eng. Vs. hoods) Henderson supposes nie^s to denote ribands used for binding the hair or fastening the tiara. The same writer explains the veil here spoken of to be the large veil covering all the other garments, and therein differing from the small veil mentioned in v. 19. The same explanation is given by Knobel (Ueberwurfe); but other writers make an opposite dis tinction.
24. The threatening is still continued, but with a change of form, the things to be taken away being now contrasted with those which should succeed them. A.nd it shall be or happen (equivalent in force to then, after all this) that instead of perfume (aromatic odour or the spices which afford it) there shall be stench, and instead of a girdle a rope, and instead of braided work baldness (or loss of hair by disease or shaving, as a sign of captivity or mourning), and instead of a fall robe a girding of sackcloth, burning instead of beauty. The inversion of the terms in this last clause, and its brevity, add greatly to the strength of the expression.—Several of the ancient versions render pa by dust (Sept. Arab. Syr.), but it strictly denotes dissolution, putrefaction, and is here used as the opposite of casa, viz. stench, not specifically that of corpses, wounds, or the disease supposed to be referred to in v. 17 (Ros. Ges. Hg. Hk. Ew.),but stench in generator perhaps with particular allusion to the squalor of captivity or mourning.—napa is ex plained to mean a rent, rent garment, rag or rags, as signs of poverty or grief, by Calvin (laceratio), Cocceius^s (lacerum), Lowth (rags), and Knobel (ein Fetzen). But the meaning, cord or rope, given in the Septuagint (a%oivi(p £aj(7fl) and Vulgate (pro zona funiculus), is adopted by Clericus (funis), Gesenius (einen Strick),and most modern writers.—The Septuagint explains mrpE to mean a golden ornament of the head; Vitringa a solid ornament of gold, perhaps from niBp hard. It is now explained, from an Arabic meaning of the same root, to denote turned work, or a shape produced by turning. (See Gesen. s. v.) The cognate rurps is applied to ornamental work in wood or metal, but this, perhaps in derision, to the laborious braid ing of the hair, as appears from its being in antithesis to baldness.—Ewald reads ^:« ^na as two words, meaning the fulness or wideness (from fina to open) of an ample robe (from b^a to revolve or flow around), contrasted with a tight girding of sackcloth. Gesenius makes the sense the same, but regards b^na as a compound word denoting the full robe itself. The English Version (stomacher) supposes it to be a particular ornamental part of dress.—The ancient versions take ^3 as a conjunction, and connect the last clause with the next verse, ’ for instead of beauty, thy men, &c.’ (Sept. Vulg.), or make it an independent clause, by treating mn as a verb (Targ. Pesh.); but all the modern writers are agreed in making *3 a noun, from rvs, to burn, like ^K, is, from JTIK, r^s. The burning mentioned is supposed to be that of the skin from long exposure, by the French Version (all lieu du beau teint le hale), Clericus (adusta facies), and Lowth (a sun-burnt skin.) But most interpreters understand by it a brand, here mentioned either as a stigma of captivity, or as a self-inflicted sign of mourning. Hitzig gives the noun the general sense of wound or mark; but this is un authorized, and weakens the expression. Sackcloth is mentioned as the coarsest kind of cloth, and also as that usually worn by mourners. The two nouns fitoso and FJCJSB are in apposition, the first denoting artificial adjust ment, the second its precise form.
25. The Prophet now assigns as a reason for the grief predicted in v. 24, a general slaughter of the male population, the effect of which is again described in v. 26, and its extent in chap. 4:1, which belongs more directly to this chapter than the next. In the verse before us, he first ad dresses Zion or Jerusalem directly, but again, as it were, turns away, and in the next verse speaks of her in the third person. Thy men by the sword shall fall and thy strength in war.—T^rjn does not mean thy common people, as opposed to warriors or soldiers of distinction (Luther: dein Pobel); nor does it simply mean thy people or inhabitants (Cocc. homines tui. Fr. Vs. tes gens. Lowth, thy people); but thy men, i. e. thy males (Vulg. viri tui. Ges. deine Manner).—The present form used by Gesenius greatly de tracts from the minatory force of the future, which is retained by Hitzig, DeWette, Hendewerk, Ewald, Umbreit. The abstract strength is resolved into a concrete by the Septuagint (JG%vovrti), Vulgate, Luther, Lowth, and Gesenius; but it is better to retain the original expression, not in the military sense of forces (Hg. Hn.), but as denoting that which constitutes the strength of a community, its male population (Calv. robur tuum, Fr. Vs. ta force. Ewald, deine Mannschaft).
26. The effect of this slaughter on- the community is here described, first by representing the places of chief concourse as vocal with distress, and then by personifying the state or nation as a desolate widow seated on the ground, a sign both of mourning and of degradation. And her gates (those of Zion or Jerusalem) shall lament and mourn, and being emptied (or exhausted) she shall sit upon the ground. The gates are said to mourn, by a rhetorical substitution of the place of action for the agent (Hendewerk), or because a place filled with cries seems itself to utter them (Knobel). The meaning of ^r^s (which maybe either the preterite or participle passive of nj?a is taken in its proper sense of emptied or exhausted by Junius (expurgata), Vitringa (evacuata), and Ewald (ausgeleert). This is ex plained to mean emptied of her strength, i. e. weakened, by Hendewerk (entkr.ftet), emptied of her people, i. e. solitary, desolate, by the Vulgate (desolata), the English Version (desolate), Gesenius (verodet), Hitzig (einsam) etc. The reference of this word to her former condition seems peculiar to Clericus (quae munda erat). She is described not as lying (Calv. Cler.), but sitting on the ground, as on one of Vespasian’s coins a woman is represented, in a sitting posture, leaning against a palm-tree, with the legend Judaea Capta.
Ch. 4: v. 1. The paucity of males in the community, resulting from this general slaughter, is now expressed by a lively figure representing seven women as earnestly soliciting one man in marriage, and that on the most disadvantageous terms, renouncing the support to which they were by law entitled. And in that day (then, after the judgments just predicted) seven women, (i. e. several, this number being often used indefinitely) shall lay hold of one man (earnestly accost him), saying, we will eat our own bread and wear our own apparel, only let thy name be called upon us (an idiomatic phrase meaning let us be called by thy name, let us be recognized as thine), take thou away our reproach, the reproach of widowhood’ (Isai. 54: 4), or celibacy, or rather that of childlessness which they imply, and which was regarded with particular aversion by the Jews before the time of Christ.— This verse appears to have been severed from its natural connexion1 in accordance with an ancient notion that the one man was Christ, and the seven women, souls believing on him. This view of the passage may indeed have been either the cause or the effect of the usual division and arrangement of the text. Some writers think that the Prophet intended to present an accumulation of strange things, in order to show the changed condition of the people; women forsaking their natural modesty, soliciting marriage, with violent importunity, in undue proportion, and on the most disadvantageous terms. But the more probable opinion is the common one, that he simply meant to set forth by a lively figure the disproportion between the sexes introduced by a destructive war. Instead of our own bread, our own clothe, Cocceius would simply read our bread, our clothes, and understand the clause as a promise of domestic diligence. The common interpretation agrees better with the other circumstances and expressions of the verse and context. Luther gives r,bx a subjunctive form, that our reproach may be taken from us. The English Version and Henderson make it an infinitive, to take away; Barnes a participle, talcing away; but the imperative construction, which is given in the margin of the English Bible, and preferred by almost all translators, ancient and modern, agrees best with the absence of a preposition, and adds to the vivacity of the address. To this verse Calvin cites a beautiful parallel from Lucan, which is copied by Grotius, and credited to him by later writers—
Da tantum nomen inane Connubii: liceat turaulo scripsisse CATONIS MAKCIA.
