2 at that time Yahweh spoke by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, "Go, and loosen the sackcloth from off your waist, and take your shoes from off your feet." He did so, walking naked and barefoot.
*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.
Go and loose the sackcloth from thy loins. In order to confirm this prophecy by the use of a symbol, the Lord commanded Isaiah to walk naked. If Isaiah had done this of his own accord, he would have been justly ridiculed; but when he does it by the command of the Lord, we perceive nothing but what is fitted to excite admiration and to strike awe. In this nakedness, and in the signs of a similar kind, something weighty is implied. Besides, the Lord does nothing either by himself or by his servants without likewise explaining the reason; and therefore the Prophet does not merely walk naked, but points out the design which the Lord had in view in ordering him to do so. In other respects false prophets imitate the true servants of God, and put on varied and imposing shapes, to dazzle the eyes of the multitude, and gain credit to themselves; but those symbols are worthless, because God is not the author of them. This ought to be carefully observed in opposition to the Papists, who bring forward empty ceremonies instead of true sacraments. This is the rule with which we ought to meet them. If they proceed from God, we ought to embrace them, but if not, we may boldly reject them; and, indeed, they cannot be adopted without offering an insult to God, because in such cases men usurp his authority. Besides, God does not bring forward signs without the word, for what would a sacrament be if we beheld nothing but the sign? It is the doctrine alone that makes the sacrament, and therefore let us know that it is mere hypocrisy where no doctrine is taught, and that Papists act wickedly when they lay aside doctrine, and give the name of sacrament to empty ceremonies; for the Lord has connected them in such a manner that no man can separate them without infringing that order which he has enjoined. When the Lord commands him to loose the sackcloth; almost all the commentators infer from it that Isaiah at that time wore a garment of mourning, because he bewailed the distressed condition of Israel; for sackcloth was a mourning dress, as is evident from Joel (Joel 1:13.) Their interpretation is, that this was done in order that, in the dress of culprits, he might supplicate pardon from God, or that it was impossible for his countenance or his dress to be cheerful when his heart was sad, and he could not but be affected with the deepest grief when he beheld so great a calamity. Some think that it was his ordinary dress, because the Prophets, as Zechariah informs us, commonly wore a mantle. (Zechariah 13:4.) But that conjecture rests on exceedingly slight grounds, and has no great probability. It is more probable that he wore sackcloth as expressive of mourning. Judea was at that time sunk into such a state of indifference, that when men saw their brethren wretchedly distressed and wasted, still they were not affected by it, and did not think that the affliction of their brethren was a matter which at all concerned them. They still thought that they were beyond the reach of danger, and mocked at the Prophets when they threatened and foretold destruction. Hence Micah also complains that no man bewails the distresses of Israel. (Micah 1:11.) A question arises, Was this actually done, or was it merely and simply a vision which he told to the people? The general opinion is, that the Prophet never went naked, but that this was exhibited to him in a vision, and only once. They allege as a reason, that on account of heat and cold, and other inconveniences of the weather, he could not have walked naked during the whole period of three years. What if we should say that the Prophet wore clothes at home, and also in public, unless when he wished to come forth to teach, and that on such occasions he was accustomed to present to the people a spectacle of nakedness? I pay little attention to the argument, that he was unable to endure heat and cold; for God, who commanded him to do this, could easily strengthen and protect him. But they assign another reason, that nakedness would have been unbecoming in a Prophet. I answer, this nakedness was not more unbecoming than circumcision, which irreligious men might consider to be the most absurd of all sights, because it made an exposure of the uncomely parts. Yet it must not be thought that the Prophet went entirely naked, or without covering those parts which would present a revolting aspect. It was enough that the people understood what the Lord was doing, and were affected by it as something extraordinary. I am led to form this opinion by what is here said, "By the hand of Isaiah;" for although this mode of expression frequently occurs elsewhere, still we never find it where it does not imply something emphatic, to describe the effect produced. He places himself in the midst between God and his countrymen, so as to be the herald of a future calamity, not only in words, but likewise by a visible symbol. Nor is it superfluous that it is immediately added, He did so. I am therefore of opinion that Isaiah walked naked whenever he discharged the office of a prophet, and that he uncovered those parts which could be beheld without shame. So far as relates to sackcloth, although it was customary for men in private stations of life to express their guilt in this manner in adversity, yet it is probable that it was with a view to his office that Isaiah made use of this symbol to confirm his doctrine, that he might the better arouse the people from their sluggishness. If at any time the Lord chastise ourselves or our brethren, he does not enjoin us to change our raiment, but we are cruel and (astorgoi) without natural affection, if we are not moved by the afflictions of brethren and the ruin of the Church. If we have any feeling towards God, we ought to be in sadness and tears; and if it be our duty to mourn, we ought also to exhort others and stimulate them by our example to feel the calamities of the Church, and to be touched with some (sumpatheia) compassion.
By Isaiah - Margin, 'By the hand of Isaiah.' So the Hebrew. That is, by the instrumentality of Isaiah. He sent him to make known the fate of the Egyptians, and the folly of trusting in them on this occasion.
Go, and loose the sackcloth - For the meaning of the word "sackcloth," see the note at Isaiah 3:24. It was commonly worn as an emblem of mourning. But there is reason to believe that it was worn also by the prophets, and was regarded, in some degree, as their appropriate dress. It was made usually of the coarse hair of the goat, and was worn as a zone or girdle around the loins. That this was the dress of Elijah is apparent from 2-Kings 1:8 : 'He was an hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather;' that is, he was clothed in a garment made of hair. The same was true of John the Baptist Matthew 3:4. That the prophets wore 'a rough garment' is apparent also from Zac 13:4 : 'Neither shall they (the false prophets) wear a rough garment (Hebrew, A garment of hair) to deceive;' that is, the false prophets shall not assume the dress of the true prophets for the purpose of deluding the people, or to make them think that they are true prophets. It is evident, therefore, that this hairy garment was regarded as a dress that pertained particularly to the prophets. It is well known, also, that the ancient Greek philosophers had a special dress to distinguish them from the common people. Probably the custom of wearing "hair cloth" among the monks of later ages took its rise from this example of the prophets. His removing this garment was designed to be a sign or an emblem to show that the Egyptians should be stripped of all their possessions, and carried captive to Assyria.
Walking naked - That is, walking "without this special prophetic garment. It does not mean that he was in a state of entire nudity, for all that he was directed to do was to lay this garment - this emblem of his office - aside. The word "naked," moreover, is used in the Scriptures, not to denote an absolute destitution of clothing, but that the "outer" garment was laid aside (see the note at John 21:7). Thus it is said of Saul 1-Samuel 19:24 that he 'stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel, and lay down naked all that day;' that is, he stripped off his royal robes, and was "naked or unclothed" in that respect. He removed his "special" dress as a king, or military chieftain, and appeared in the ordinary dress. It cannot be supposed that the king of Israel would be seen literally without raiment. So David is said to have danced "naked" before the ark, that is, with his royal robes laid aside. How "long" Isaiah walked in this manner has been a matter of doubt (see the note at Isaiah 20:3). The prophets were accustomed to use symbolic actions to denote the events which they foretold (see the note at Isaiah 8:18). Thus the children of Isaiah, and the names given to them, were significant of important events (Isaiah 8:1-3; compare Jeremiah 18:1-6; Jeremiah 43:8-9); in both of which places he used emblematic actions to exhibit the events concerning which he prophesied in a striking manner. Thus also the prophets are expressly called 'signs and wonders' Zac 3:8; Ezekiel 12:6.
Walking naked and barefoot - It is not probable that the prophet walked uncovered and barefoot for three years; his appearing in that manner was a sign that within three years the Egyptians and Cushites should be in the same condition, being conquered and made captives by the king of Assyria. The time was denoted as well as the event; but his appearing in that manner for three whole years could give no premonition of the time at all. It is probable, therefore, that the prophet was ordered to walk so for three days to denote the accomplishment of the event in three years; a day for a year, according to the prophetical rule, Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6. The words שלש ימים shalosh yamim, three days, may possibly have been lost out of the text, at the end of the second verse, after יחף yacheph, barefoot; or after the same word in the third verse, where, in the Alexandrine and Vatican copies of the Septuagint, and in MSS. Pachom. and 1. D. 2 the words τρια ετη, three years, are twice expressed. Perhaps, instead of שלש ימים shalosh yamim, three days, the Greek translator might read שלש שנים shalosh shanim, three years, by his own mistake, or by that of his copy, after יחף yacheph in the third verse, for which stands the first τρια ετη, three years, in the Alexandrine and Vatican Septuagint, and in the two MSS. above mentioned. It is most likely that Isaiah's walking naked and barefoot was done in a vision; as was probably that of the Prophet Hosea taking a wife of whoredoms. None of these things can well be taken literally.
From thy foot - רגליך ragleycha, thy feet, is the reading of thirty-four of Kennicott's and De Rossi's MSS., four ancient editions, with the Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate, and Arabic.
At the same time spoke the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the (d) sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot.
(d) Which signifies that the prophet lamented the misery that he saw prepared before the three years that he went naked and barefooted.
At the same time spake the Lord by Isaiah the son of Amoz,.... Or, "by the hand of Isaiah", by his means; and it was to him likewise, as the following words show; and so the Septuagint version renders it; he spoke by him, by the sign he used, according to his order, and he spoke to him to use the sign:
saying; so the Arabic version, "with him"; and with these versions Noldius agrees:
go, and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins; a token of mourning, and which the prophet wore, as Kimchi thinks, because of the captivity of the ten tribes; and it may be also on account of the miseries that were coming upon the people of the Jews; though some think this was his common garb, and the same with the royal garment the prophets used to wear, Zac 13:4 but that he had put off, and had put on sackcloth in its room, which he is now bid to take off:
and put off thy shoe from thy foot; as a sign of distress and mourning also, 2-Samuel 15:30,
and he did so, walking naked and barefoot; Kimchi thinks this was only visionally, or in the vision of prophecy, as he calls it, and not in reality; but the latter seems most probable, and best to agree with what follows; for he was obedient to the divine command, not regarding the disgrace which might attend it, nor the danger of catching cold, to which he was exposed; and hence he has the character of a servant of the Lord, in the next words, and a faithful obedient one he was.
by--literally, "by the hand of" (compare Ezekiel 3:14).
sackcloth--the loose outer garment of coarse dark hair-cloth worn by mourners (2-Samuel 3:31) and by prophets, fastened at the waist by a girdle (Matthew 3:4; 2-Kings 1:8; Zac 13:4).
naked--rather, "uncovered"; he merely put off the outer sackcloth, retaining still the tunic or inner vest (1-Samuel 19:24; Amos 2:16; John 21:7); an emblem to show that Egypt should be stripped of its possessions; the very dress of Isaiah was a silent exhortation to repentance.
Sackcloth - Which he wore in token of his grief for the calamities that were already come upon Israel, and were coming upon Judah. Naked - Not wholly naked, but without his upper garment, as slaves and prisoners used to do, whose posture he was to represent. Bare - foot - After the manner of mourners and captives.
*More commentary available at chapter level.