Charles Ellicott Commentary Isaiah 3

For, behold, the Lord, the Lord of hosts, does take away from Jerusalem ... — From the general picture of the state of Judah as a whole, of the storm of Divine wrath bursting over the whole land, Isaiah turns to the Holy City itself, and draws the picture of what he saw there of evil, of that which would be seen before long as the punishment of the evil.

The stay and the staff ... — In the existing Hebrew text the words receive an immediate interpretation, as meaning the two chief supports of life—bread and water. So we have the “staff of bread” in Leviticus 26:26; Psalms 105:16; Ezekiel 4:16; Ezekiel 5:16.

Possibly, however, the interpretation is of the nature of a marginal gloss, which has found its way into the text, and “the stay and staff” (in the Hebrew the latter word is the feminine form of the former) are really identified with the “pillars of the state,” the great women as well as the great men who are named afterwards. On the other hand, Isaiah 3:7 implies the pressure of famine, and the prophet may have intended to paint the complete failure of all resources, both material and political.

The mighty man, and the man of war. —The first word points to the aristocracy of landed proprietors, the latter to those who, whether of that class or not, had been prominent as leaders in the king’s armies.

The judge, and the prophet. —Each is named as the representative of a class. The latter was that to which Isaiah himself belonged, but in which he found, as Jeremiah did afterwards, his chief opponents.

The prudent, and the ancient. —The former word has the more definite meaning of “diviners,” those who had a real gift of wisdom, but who by their abuse of that gift had become as degenerate prophets. In the “ancient” we have the “elders” who were prominent in the municipal politics of the East, and formed at least the nucleus of the king’s council (Ruth 4:4; 2 Samuel 19:11; 1 Kings 20:7; 1 Kings 21:8; and elsewhere).

The captain of fifty, and the honourable man. —The first title implies a division like that of Exodus 18:21, of which “fifty” was all but the minimum unit. So we have the three “captains of fifty” in 2 Kings 1:9–15. The “honourable man” (literally, eminent in countenance) would seem to occupy a position in the civil service of the State analogous to that of the “captain of fifty” in the military.

The counsellor, and the cunning artificer. —From the modern standpoint the two classes seem at opposite extremes of the social order. The latter, however (literally, masters in arts), would seem to have occupied a higher position in the East, like that of military or civil engineers or artists with us. So in 2 Kings 24:14, Jeremiah 24:1, the “craftsmen and the smiths” are grouped with the “men of might” who were carried to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, and contrasted with the poor who were left behind. The military works of Uzziah had doubtless given a prominence to the “cunning men” who were employed on them (2 Chronicles 26:15). By some critics, however, the word is taken as equal to “magician.”

The eloquent orator. —Literally, skilled in speech. The Authorised Version suggests the idea of the power of such skill in controlling the debates of popular assemblies. Here, however, the thought is rather that of one who says the right words at the right time; or possibly the enchanter who has his formulas (the word implies the whisper of incantations, as in Isaiah 8:19) ready at command for all occasions.

I will give children to be their princes. —Better, youths. The words may point obliquely to Ahaz, who had ascended the throne at the age of twenty (2 Chronicles 28:1). Manasseh was only twelve when he became king; Josiah only eight (2 Chronicles 33:1; 2 Chronicles 34:1). In an Eastern monarchy the rule of a young king, rash and without experience, guided by counsellors like himself, was naturally regarded as the greatest of evils, and the history of Rehoboam had impressed this truth on the mind of every Israelite. (Compare to Ecclesiastes 10:16.)

The people shall be oppressed ... —The words paint the worst form of the decadence of an Eastern kingdom. All is chaotic and anarchic; a fierce struggle for existence; the established order of society subverted; the experience of age derided by the petulance of youth. The picture of the corruption of a monarchy is as vivid and complete in its way as that which Thucydides (3:82-84) draws of the corruption of a democracy. It might seem to have been drawn from the Turkey or the Egypt of our own time.