Tafsiran yang Mengutip untuk Yesaya 50:6

The son of Amoz. There exists an opinion, though a solitary one,²This is the opinion of R. Johanan (comp. Midrash Rabba, Leviticus 6), and Ulla (comp. Talmud Babli, Megilla 15a). that when the father of a prophet is mentioned by name, he also was a prophet; another³R. Levi said, ‘ We know by tradition that Amoz and Amaziah were brothers.’ (Talmud Babli, Megilla 10b.) opinion is, that Isaiah was a member of the royal family, that his father Amoz and Amaziah⁴Amaziah was king of Juda, before Uzziah, 835—806. were brothers, and that the evil-disposed of Israel were unable on that account to do harm to Isaiah, as they did to Jeremiah (vid. Jer. 38); but in fact Isaiah did not escape persecution, for he says, I gave my back to smiters, etc. (1. 6). Irrespectively of all traditional explanations, we may say that the father of a prophet, if mentioned by name, was a man of some distinction, whose character rendered him conspicuous among his fellow-men; sometimes he was himself a prophet, at others not, e.g., David, the son of Jesse (2 Sam. 23:1). David was the man of God (2 Chron. 8:14), Jesse was not. It is with prophecy as with royalty; comp. Jehu, king of Israel, the son of Nimshi (1 Kings 19:16); Nimshi was not a king. We read, it is true, In the vision of Isaiah, the son of Amoz, the prophet⁵A. V. The prophet, the son of Amoz. (2 Chron. 32:32), where the qualifying term, the prophet, may as well be referred to Amoz as to Isaiah; but from the words, To Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz (2 Kings 19:2), we learn that Isaiah was the prophet. ⁶This is not so evident as I. E. seems to believe; since from the same two verses just the opposite inference is made, Midrash Rabba (Leviticus 6); namely, that both Isaiah and Amoz were prophets, because the epithet, the prophet, is in the one verse closely joined to the former, in the other to the latter. Ibn Ezra, who recommends the accents as an excellent guide for the reading and understanding of the Bible (comp. 5:9), should have gathered better evidence from the accents. אמוץ has a disjunctive accent, and is to be separated from the following הנְביא ; were they to be joined, their accents would be in the following way, ישעיה֨ו בן־אמ֣וץ הנביא Thus the forefathers of Zephania are named (Zeph. 1:1), because the king Hezekiah was one of them.

I have thus explained the whole passage, on the supposition that it refers to Israel;¹⁹The explanation given in the whole chapter seems to be only a concession made to the general opinion, that these chapters, from xl.—lxvi., have no inner connexion throughout, and that in this portion עבדי my servant refers to Israel. His own opinion is, that the servant of the Lord is the prophet, who was in Babylon in exile with his brethren, illtreated there and insulted not only by the Babylonians, but also by those Israelites, that did not believe in his divine mission, but ultimately, when his words were proved to be true by facts, honoured and respected by all. but my opinion is, that my servant, mentioned here (52:13), is the same as that of 42:1, 49:3, 53:11, the same who says of himself, I gave my back to the smiters, etc. (50:6). In my commentary on chap. xl., I mentioned briefly the leading principle of my opinion, which considers all these chapters (from xl.) as connected with each other.²⁰Comp. I. E. on 40:1, 49:8, 52:13.

The oppressor. Comp. I gave my back to the smiters (50:6).

With a rod, they strike... on the cheek—Who caused them (Babylon) to succeed? The Israelites deride their prophets and their judges and strike them on the cheek. So were they wont to do, and so we find in Pesikta (d’Rav Kahana, p. 125b), and so does Isaiah say, (Isa. 50:6) “I gave my back to smiters.”