Isaiah 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
For the Complete Article
The context of Isaiah 3:12
Isaiah chapter 3 is an oracle of judgement. It foretells the demise of Jerusalem and Judah as a consequence of Judah’s rebellion against God. This rebellion was brought about by the vices and mismanagement of its civil and religious leaders. At the beginning of Isaiah chapter 3 we read that God is about to remove the capable and gifted people from Judah, including, or especially, the ruling classes of Jerusalem. (This is exactly what happened in the early sixth century when the Babylonians invaded Judah and began deporting their best and brightest.)
An English translation of the Septuagint’s version of Isaiah 3:1 reads: “Behold now, the Lord, the Lord of hosts, will take away from Jerusalem and from Judah the mighty man and mighty woman, the strength of bread, and the strength of water” (Isa. 3:1). In the following two verses, God lists what kind of mighty men and women will be removed: “the hero and the warrior, the judge and the prophet, the diviner and the elder, the captain of fifty and the man of rank, the counsellor, skilled craftsman and clever enchanter” (Isa. 3:2-3 NIV).
Israel had previously benefited from the wise counsel, leadership, and heroic actions of certain men and women, but there would come a time when only the poorest, weakest, and least skilled would be left in Judah. Anarchy and extortion would follow as irresponsible leaders gain control.[1] These leaders are described as children and as untrained in Isaiah 3:4. (This idea of children as leaders comes up again in our text Isaiah 3:12.) In Isaiah 3:5-7, God outlines some ways people will be cheated and oppressed by their leaders. These ideas may also be behind Isaiah 3:12.
So what does Isaiah 3:12 mean?
Ok...couldn't resist. This one is mine but I believe I can detect a certain Diehl tendency to stand her ground and stir pots in the future.
There seems to be three ways of understanding God’s words in Isaiah 3:12.
1. Isaiah 3:12 should be interpreted literally.
Some believe that the meaning of Isaiah 3:12a, as it is in the Hebrew text, should be taken literally despite the poetic nature of this verse. If so, Judah will be ruled by young and inexperienced men. This might refer to Ahaz, who was a weak and wicked king. In the year 732 BC, Ahaz began his sixteen-year rule at the age of 20 (2 Kings 16:2 cf. Eccl. 10:16). Or it may refer to later leaders.
According to the literal interpretation, Judah will also be ruled by women, perhaps the queen mother (cf. 2 Kings 11:1-16) and other prominent women in the royal court. These may be the “haughty women of Zion” denounced in Isaiah 3:16-25. The descriptions of these haughty women show that they are wealthy and, therefore, influential.
2. Isaiah 3:12 should be interpreted metaphorically.
A second possible interpretation of Isaiah 3:12, favoured by many scholars, is that metaphors are used in this verse. In this interpretation “children” and “women” are used as metaphors which signify that the leaders will be childish (i.e. inexperienced, capricious, or foolish) and effeminate (i.e. cowardly and ineffective) (cf. Isa. 3:4). In a note in the Geneva Bible (1599), Theodore Beza describes these leaders as “manifest tokens of [God’s] wrath, because they would be fools and effeminate.”[2]
As now, it was an insult in ancient times to call a grown man a “child”. To call a man a “woman” was also, unfortunately, a common insult. One example of this insult is given by the historian Herodotus where he records Xerxes, king of Persia, as saying: “My men have become women, and my women men.” (Histories 8.88.3) Interestingly, both Vashti and Esther risked their lives by standing up for their principles and defying the king’s request and ruling (Esth. 1:12; 4:16 cf. 5:2). But Xerxes’ words here are about his own men who floundered, and about Queen Artemisia I of Caria. Xerxes had a tremendous regard for Artemisia who was his ally, and who had personally and valiantly led her navy in the battle at Salamis (480 BC). Thus Xerxes refers to her as a “man”. The Greek word for courage, andreia, which is used for both valiant men and women in Greek literature and in the Bible, comes from the Greek word for “man” (e.g., Prov. 12:4; 31:10; cf. 1 Cor. 16:13).
In Isaiah 3:12a, it is not clear who, specifically, the inept leaders of Judah are, or will be. But they are certainly being belittled and disparaged in this interpretation of the text.
3. Isaiah 3:12 originally did not contain the word for “women.”
A third possible interpretation, which is favoured by some scholars, is that the word for “women” was not originally part of Isaiah 3:12, the original word being “creditors”. (There is also some doubt about the word “children” in 3:12.) The Hebrew word for women in Isaiah 3:12 is nashim (נשים). With identical consonants, but different vowel points, the word can be noshim (נשים), which means “creditors”. The Aramaic Targum of Isaiah 3:12 has nosim (“creditors”). Accordingly, the New English Bible (NEB) translates the pertinent phrase as “the usurers lord it over them”.[3]
The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek centuries before the Masoretes added their system of vowel points to the Hebrew text. The Septuagint’s version of Isaiah 3:12a (translated into English) reads: “O my people, your extractors strip you, and extortioners rule over you.” The idea of being extorted by creditors fits with the overall context of Isaiah chapter 3, especially verses 5-7, but so does the idea of inappropriate men and women being leaders. Whatever the original word may have been, it is clear that God was saying that Judah would be led, or bullied, by incompetent leaders.
Here are two English translations of Isaiah which favour different sources.
My people—children are their oppressors,
and women rule over them.
O my people, your leaders mislead you,
and confuse the course of your paths. (NRSV)
and women rule over them.
O my people, your leaders mislead you,
and confuse the course of your paths. (NRSV)
Oppressors treat my people cruelly;
creditors rule over them.
My people’s leaders mislead them;
they give you confusing directions. (NET)[4]
creditors rule over them.
My people’s leaders mislead them;
they give you confusing directions. (NET)[4]
Does the Bible show that women leaders are a bad thing?
God’s judgement for Judah’s rebellion, caused by bad leaders, was that Judah would be oppressed by even worse leaders. Some people, however, highlight that having female leaders was part of God’s judgement. They argue that having a woman as a leader is an abhorrent aberration from God’s ideal and norm of male leadership of the community of his people. Is this really the case?
The events in the Old Testament mostly occurred at a time when patriarchy was the pervasive social dynamic, and men ruled women (cf. Gen 3:16b). Nevertheless, some women were leaders of towns: civil leaders (e.g., Sheerah); and some women were prophets: religious leaders (e.g., Miriam). These women held respected and recognized leadership positions in society, and they were not regarded as odd.
Deborah was a judge and a prophet, two of the roles listed in Isaiah 3:1-2ff.
Many men in the Old Testament took advice and directions from women, and they did not see it as either a humiliating affront or as a punishment.
~ Two Israelite spies followed the directions Rahab gave them, to the letter, and they escaped from being caught by the king of Jericho’s men (Josh. 2:16, 22).
~ Barak, an army general, took directions from, and depended on, Deborah (Judg. 4:6, 8).
~ David heeded and praised the advice and prophetic words diplomatically and courageously given by Abigail (1 Sam. 25:23-31).
~ Joab, David’s general, agreed to the negotiations offered by the Wise Woman of Abel Beth Maacah on behalf of her town (2 Sam. 20:15-22).
~ Solomon bowed to his mother Bathsheba and gave her a throne at his right hand, making her a powerful woman, albeit not as powerful as Solomon (1 Kings 2:19).
~ King Lemuel respected the oracles taught to him by his mother, and recorded them. Her words still instruct (Prov. 31:1-9).
~ King Josiah sought out the advice and carried out the instructions of the prophetess Huldah (2 Kings 22:8-20; 23:1-25; 2 Chron. 34:19-33).
~ Mordecai, and others, carried out all the instructions of his niece Esther, Xerxes’ queen (Esth. 4:17 NIV).
~ Two Israelite spies followed the directions Rahab gave them, to the letter, and they escaped from being caught by the king of Jericho’s men (Josh. 2:16, 22).
~ Barak, an army general, took directions from, and depended on, Deborah (Judg. 4:6, 8).
~ David heeded and praised the advice and prophetic words diplomatically and courageously given by Abigail (1 Sam. 25:23-31).
~ Joab, David’s general, agreed to the negotiations offered by the Wise Woman of Abel Beth Maacah on behalf of her town (2 Sam. 20:15-22).
~ Solomon bowed to his mother Bathsheba and gave her a throne at his right hand, making her a powerful woman, albeit not as powerful as Solomon (1 Kings 2:19).
~ King Lemuel respected the oracles taught to him by his mother, and recorded them. Her words still instruct (Prov. 31:1-9).
~ King Josiah sought out the advice and carried out the instructions of the prophetess Huldah (2 Kings 22:8-20; 23:1-25; 2 Chron. 34:19-33).
~ Mordecai, and others, carried out all the instructions of his niece Esther, Xerxes’ queen (Esth. 4:17 NIV).
The Old Testament women mentioned here, and others, were used by God and respected by men.
Being advised or taught or led by godly women is not an act of God’s judgement or punishment. Rather, it is the leadership given by fools and wimps, or corrupt avaricious creditors, that constitutes God’s judgement against Judah given in Isaiah 3:12 (cf. Isa. 3:14-16).
Even by the old-school Armstrongist standard, I can picture the hoary heads at PCG, RCG, LCG, UCG, and COGWA scrambling to explain how in Britain, a woman is about to lose her rule over men, and Britain appears likely to remain in the EU after all. Which approach do you think they will take?
ReplyDeletea) HWA was wrong. Oops!
b) God is mercifully giving the modern-day Israelites more time to repent.
I am a Comanche Indian who had 3 squaws - but none of them were able to bear me a child.
ReplyDeleteA medicine man advised me that animal skins were potent - following his adviseI I slept with my 3 squaws on different animal skins - a hippo skin, a jaguar skin & a leopard skin.
True to prediction, in due course we had children. The squaw with whom I slept on the jaguar & leopard skins presented me with a fine boy each. The squaw who slept on the hippo skin however had twins!
All this goes on to prove what an old Greek philosopher called Pythagoras had been saying all along: --
The squaw of the hippopotamus is equal to the sum of the squaws of the other 2 hides.
the reason aoc unseeded the incumbent is indeed the underlying metaphor for why womens rule is arising, and frankly why a 21 year old thought notbing of invading a couples home, gunning them down and kidnapping their daughter, or why a high school student beat an elderly substitute teacher unconscious, i.e., why the prophecy is being fulfilled? simple: cuz the people what controlled this nation from the beginning have failed to keep Gods Commandments, hence they are losing control...
ReplyDeletec f ben yochanan
Excellent article!
ReplyDeleteIf the original Hebrew did contain the words "children" and "women" in Isaiah 3:12 I definitely would agree to interpretation no. 2 i.e. metaphorically; even though in the past I used to agree with no. 1, primarily I believe due to reading it via the lens of HWA and not knowing there were alternative interpretations.
Another point though is that Israel was a patriarchal kingdom and the Davidic monarchy patrilineal. No woman ever ruled over Israel or on the throne of David. Thus, conforming to the divine rule the husband was to rule the home and men were to rule the nation. To have a woman in a rulership role was unnatural and symbolic of disorder, even subversive not unlike one person commented on the article thus: "The probem here is a topsy-turvy society that was being punished by God and women who were unqualified both in character and doctrine were usurping authority..." I'm not saying it's a "bad" thing anymore than a widowed mother caring for her fatherless children is "bad" or will doom her family to poverty and failure. I'm just saying, imho, the divine and natural order of things as set by God is for wise, righteous and courageous males to be in positions of authority and leadership not wimpish, foolish and godless men and women who rejected their God-given domains.
Having said that it's interesting that under Queen Eizabeth I Britain began solidifying itself as a great and independent nation that grew to a global superpower and empire under Queen Victoria. But, alas it has declined and looks it might fall under Queen Elizabeth II.
Hamish wrote:
ReplyDelete“No woman ever ruled over Israel or on the throne of David.”
What about this?
2Ki 11:3 And he was with her hid in the house of the LORD six years. And Athaliah did reign over the land.
“With the palace cleared of its royal occupants, Athaliah had herself proclaimed sovereign. No other woman, before or since, sat upon the throne of David; and its is a proof of her energy and ability that, in spite of her sex, she was able to keep the throne for six years" ("Athaliah," ISBE, Vol.1, p.349).
Athaliah being an antitype (vertical typology) of Satan; and Joash an antitype of Jesus Christ.
Then commence to implement concrete steps to make these personality traits your own. In your
ReplyDeletefirst couple of chats, ask plenty of questions with the
woman to help you get acquainted with her quickly.
On traditional sites, photos are the cause of
under what subscribers say about themselves.
Yes and No to HWA said: "Hamish wrote: 'No woman ever ruled over Israel or on the throne of David.' What about this? 2Ki 11:3 And he was with her hid in the house of the LORD six years. And Athaliah did reign over the land. 'With the palace cleared of its royal occupants, Athaliah had herself proclaimed sovereign. No other woman, before or since, sat upon the throne of David; and its is a proof of her energy and ability that, in spite of her sex, she was able to keep the throne for six years' ('Athaliah,' ISBE, Vol.1, p.349). Athaliah being an antitype (vertical typology) of Satan; and Joash an antitype of Jesus Christ."
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't classify Athaliah, or as the chronicler describes her, "that wicked woman" (2 Chr 24:7), as a legitimate claimant to the Davidic throne as she was neither male nor of the Davidic line, both of which had to be met to sit on the throne of David. Athaliah's "reign" would be designated as an interregnum not unlike the English Interregnum. The heir apparent throughout this period was Joash who with his crowning as monarch restored the Davidic throne and Athaliah justly executed for her treason.
11.47 PM
ReplyDeleteErr, this article isn't about dating.
I'm puzzled. If Dennis believes the bible nonsense, why post articles like this one?
There are any number of statements made in scripture which appear to be cultural, and to reflect the state of human development during the early, simple, agrarian era of a theocracy, as opposed to being eternal theological paradigms. If we were searching for a modern parallel of this phenomenon, it would be the ways in which women and African-Americans were originally regarded in the founding documents of our own relatively young nation, the USA. We recognize today that although brilliant in some ways, by today’s standards some of the social attitudes of the founding fathers were tremendously ignorant. And that’s relatively recent data, collected over the past 200 years, not the past 2,000.
ReplyDeleteAs Armstrongites, our vision of the future millennium was always a throwback to the conditions of the era in which the Old Testament was written. If we looked for TV programs to exemplify this today, we saw the future from a Little House on the Prairie perspective, and most certainly not a Star Trek or Jetsons state of development.
The potential of humans has surpassed those early and simplistic attitudes, and much has been learned just since the World War II era. Values like love thy neighbor, and do unto others are timeless, but so many other societal norms have undergone transformation, and in many ways for the better. Intelligence and leadership potential are not the exclusive domain of white males, but have manifested themselves amongst all humans. This is something that is acknowledged and recognized by all but the terminally ignorant, who as a group believe that suppressing others is the only key to their own ascent to greatness.
BB
It is far better to have a narcissist, serial adulterer, Russian agent, chronic liar as leader.
ReplyDelete548...Because the article is written by theologians and Christians about the meaning of there own scriptures. If I write it myself in some cases it is dismissed as written by an agnostic or atheist. It is a scripture misused by many fundamentalists to denigrate women and draw ridiculous meaning to promote their mistaken proofs of end time things. I don't really believe any God really said what prophets and priests say God said.. It is themselves who say it.
ReplyDeleteTon to...Truly, this explains every thing. Thankum you!😂
ReplyDeleteWe need to pay close attention to what Byker Bob says: cultures of different eras (and areas) follow different patterns in determining social hierarchies. Human beings are more flexible in that regard than related primate species. In fact, our two closest relatives, the chimpanzees and bonobos, inherited different patterns from our common ancestor. Among chimpanzees, dominance relationships among males structure the social group. *Primate Info Net* says, "There is a distinct linear dominance hierarchy in male chimpanzees, and males are dominant over females (Goldberg & Wrangham 1997)." In contrast, Bonobo males achieve high status in their group through the mediation of females. According to the sam source, "Males ... associate with females for rank acquisition because females dominate the social environment. ... If a male is to achieve alpha status in a bonobo group, he must be accepted by the alpha female."
ReplyDeleteThe wide variety of human social structures implies that our own species did not inherit such a biologically specific set of behaviors. We are hierarchical, sure, but as others have noted here, social groups with either females or males at the top may succeed. Or fail.
Women rule because they have more votes and they vote selfishly--what's good for women not for society. The men are waking up and getting organized to fight the matriarchy. Listen to Paul Elam and Black Pigeon Speaks and a pile of others in the men's rights movement. Women these days have way more rights than men and it's only getting worse.
ReplyDeleteWho cares about chimps? We left them behind 3 million years ago! So much for "modern" psychology.
ReplyDeleteBecause of the dating pool in Armstrongism, and the fact that you had to marry in the church, there ended up being some odd pairings, like a subsistance farmer marrying an accountant. Now, who do you think “God’s” ministers would expect to manage the family finances in a case such as that???
ReplyDeleteStronger partnerships would have been built if the best equipped person for a given task actually performed that task. Unfortunately, women were often forced to hide their skills and intellect. What a waste!
BB
COG preachers who were firm on Isaiah 3 had a tough time when Margaret Thatcher was British Prime Minister.
ReplyDeleteBizarrely it was my impression many stanch WCG men adored Margaret Thatcher.
DeleteI am very happy to have my wife handle the family finances. It takes both intellect and discipline.
ReplyDeleteAlso never had any minister ask how we were handling our personal lives - maybe they used to be nosier a long time ago.
I used to absolutely detest Nancy Pelosi and everything she stood for. Under our current conditions, I’ve come to see her as being perhaps our greatest hope.
ReplyDeleteBB
One chart I saw on our current political climate showed that the tow parties have abandoned the middle which is where most Americans are.
ReplyDeleteI think our biggest hope is a new American party that represents the middle and has safeguards against being hijacked in the primaries by the "true believers" who tend to be far more partisan.
The USA also needs to stop fighting everyone - it seems that between the President and Congress they have declared most countries to be enemies.
Grownups should realize you will have disagreements with other philosophies without going to war over them.
The USA spies and interferes with everyone, why should the USA be so outraged when other nations do the same?
Some say prophecy says we will be destroyed first - guess that is the good news (Gospel) the COGs preach - the good news of the coming obliteration. (I am glad they not preaching bad news....)
7.13 PM
ReplyDeleteI'm curious to know how intrusive the ministers are today compared to Herbs day.
I suspect that the ministers have eased up, since members can bunny hop to another splinter. I wouldn't mind some feedback on this point from members who still attend these churches. Anyone?
Blogger Byker Bob said...
ReplyDeleteI used to absolutely detest Nancy Pelosi and everything she stood for. Under our current conditions, I’ve come to see her as being perhaps our greatest hope.
WOW! This explains a lot! Pelosi is total evil and stupid.
Radical liberals and other pathological rich liars have a stranglehold on the system. The only solution is to break up America into smaller countries, but the killer-abortionist-liberals will never allow freedom for conservatives. The result will be a civil war, or progroms to wipe out the few remaining elements of sanity, integrity, and conservatism.
ReplyDeleteIs Trump controlled by Russians? Watch crosstalk on RT.com.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteIs Trump controlled by Russians? Watch crosstalk on RT.com.
Yea, that's why Trump this March
Poland signed a $4.75 billion contract with the U.S. for the first phase of a Patriot air missile-defense system to soothe concerns over a more assertive Russia, which has been critical of NATO’s increasing presence in the region.
And In May, Congress approved $250m in military assistance to Ukraine in 2019, including lethal weaponry. Congress had voted for military support on a similar scale in the past but was blocked by the Obama administration
And Trump bullied NATO into spending more on Europe's defense.
Just in:
President Trump quietly signed legislation Wednesday that imposes new sanctions on Russia.
Putin must be jumping for joy?!?! NOT!
I never said I liked Pelosi’s policies any more than I like Trump’s. But, I consider her to be a strong force in the opposite evil direction that hopefully will tie up the president as completely as Harry Houdini or Hannibal Lechter, you know, to draw a halt to all the mayhem.
ReplyDeleteWe’ve got federal employees here in my community who are selling plasma so their kids can eat, because their second job alone doesn’t pay enough. What part of airplanes, boats and tunnels does the president not understand? His sainted wall is just an expensive symbol. The minute it’s completed, people will figure out new methods to cross the border. Plus, next election, the Dems will emasculate it.
BB
BB
ReplyDeleteYou come to Banned as self appointed spokesperson for the mainstream media.
Can you give one instance where you disagreed with the MSM?
Straw man: "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."
ReplyDeleteBB - you need to come up with easier arguments! LOL
Yes, TLA, 6:05 does make a strawman out of both the mainstream media and myself. You can’t tell because he’s another one who hides behind the “anonymous” handle, but I believe he’s also the guy that thinks the MSM is controlled by the Jews.
DeleteI tune into an eclectic collection of non-tinfoil resources for a wide variety of information and opinions, and have done so all my life. Not many white guys around who have subscribed to Ebony Magazine, or Latino publications. I also work very closely and successfully with a Japan-based multinational manufacturer.
There are some people who get pissed off at you when their stuff is just so weird that nobody finds it credible enough to even give it a second glance.
BB
The USA has 175 military bases outside its own borders. Russia has two. Who are the aggressors?
ReplyDeleteThe USA has military bases in countries where they were never invited (in other words they invaded these countries). Russia has none. Who are the aggressors?
The USA spends ten times as much on arms as the Russians. Who are the aggressors?
The USA, one country, spends as much on weapons as ALL 200 other countries combined. Who are the aggressors?
Who is hiding this from the public? What kind of "democracy" does that?
8.34 PM
ReplyDelete"What kind of democracy does that?"
Answer: the kind that has taken on the thankless role of world cop, and has maintained the world peace (relatively speaking) since the end of WW2.
Any more questions?
Exactly! @2:07. If Hitler had had a Nancy Pelosi type opponent during the 1930s, and had been unable to silence her, murder her, or send her to one of the camps, there probably would never have been a WW-II.
DeleteAs it was, the USA had to become his Nancy Pelosi, and rid the world of the jack-booted scourge known as Aryanism, the Master Race, the Third Reich, etc.
BB
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteIt is far better to have a narcissist, serial adulterer, Russian agent, chronic liar as leader.
January 16, 2019 at 8:20 AM
****************************
As opposed to Lyndon B. Johnson who had a major fetish with his penis and whipped it out every chance he got?
Or J.F.K. and Ronald Reagan whom Elizabeth Taylor accused of having sex with her when she was only 15 years old?