Father Cornelius a lapide on Isaiah 1:1-4

1. VISION of Isaiah, the son of Amos, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

This is the beginning of the book containing the name of the author or Prophet and the people to whom he prophesied, and the time when he prophesied, namely under Uzziah or Azariah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

First, a vision, that is, a sight or vision, such as a prophecy, which Isaiah saw with the eyes not of the body, but in a phantasm or rather in the mind and intellect, where to see and hear are often the same, since he perceived the thing clearly.

Even though Isaiah sometimes saw certain symbols, as, for example, he saw God on the throne with the Seraphim, yet he commonly only heard God speaking to him.

Second, he says vision rather than prophecy, both to indicate the certainty of the prophet, because, as St. Basil says, sight is the most certain of the senses, and so that we may know that in this divine enlightenment, Isaiah did not receive a foreknowledge of future events, but a clear inspection of present things. For in God’s prescience and foreknowledge, all things, even future ones, are as if present. Thus Cyril, referring to St. Gregory the Great in Dialogues, Book 2, Chapter 35, about St. Benedict, who in prayer was raised up in mind to God in such a way that under Him he saw the whole world like a small globe gathered in the rays of the sun. When asked how this could happen, he replied, explaining the cause and manner, saying: “Because every creature is narrow to see God and the mind of St. Benedict, raised up to God, saw it like a kind of globe.” Similarly, our prophets were elevated in the Spirit to God, so that they could discern even distant things as if before them, and for this reason their prophecies are called Vision, and they are called Seers, as in the book of the Seer, that is, the Prophet. Saul also asked Samuel: “Where is the house of the seer?” To which Samuel replied: “I am a Seer, that is, a Prophet,” 1 Kings 9:9.

God communicated this foreknowledge to the prophets, especially Isaiah. For what Isaiah prophesied, he so distinctly and clearly proposed that whoever reads it perceives that it is more of a present thing than a future one. So Thales, when asked how far truth is from falsehood, replied, “As far as the eyes are from the ears.” A wise man felt that the things which are perceived by human eyes are as indubitable as the things that are heard by the ears.

Third, prophets often accept these terms for the same thing, namely, vision, word, burden, namely for prophecy, about which see Canon 1, Chapter 13.

Fourth, it is said to be a vision, not mine but Isaiah’s, not for modesty but for historical reasons, namely, that future generations know this to be the book of Isaiah and not someone else’s; for this reason the writers of books that they publish attach their own names.

Son of Amos. This Amos is different from the Amos who is third among the minor Prophets, as I mentioned in the Introduction. Both are considered to have been prophets by the Hebrews who provide themselves with this rule: whenever in the superscription of a Prophet a father is named, or a grandfather, or a great-grandfather, it signifies that they themselves were also Prophets: but this rule is unreliable, as it is doubtful and perceived as false, about which matter I will discuss elsewhere.

Isaiah saw (that is, heard from God) towards Judah and Jerusalem. That is to say against Judah and Jerusalem. Indeed, the Hebrew עַל־ can mean “over” and “against”: here you should rather translate “over,” for Isaiah predicted not only adversities but also blessings for Judah. Under Judah, include also the tribe of Benjamin: for in the schism of the ten tribes under Jeroboam, it adhered to Judah and the house of David. That is, this book of Isaiah contains both prosperous and adverse events, which he foresaw in the spirit during the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, to happen to the descendants of Judah and Benjamin, and especially to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, partly under those kings, partly after them. For “in the days of Uzziah” refers to the vision, as it is clear: for although Isaiah in chapters 13 and following also prophesies against the Babylonians, Medes, Syrians, Egyptians, etc., he mainly and most commonly prophesies to the Jews. Hence, he addresses his prophecy to them.

St. Jerome notes, however: What is stated in the title, that Isaiah prophesied under Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, is not to be understood confusedly as with other Prophets, as if we do not know what was said under which specific king; but it is written in the book what was separately said under Uzziah, namely from chapter 1 to chapter 6 verse 1, and what under Jotham, namely chapter 6, and what under Ahaz, namely from chapter 7 verse 1 to chapter 14 verse 28, and what was revealed by the Lord under Hezekiah, namely the rest from chapter 14 verse 28 to the end of the book. Thus he says. This is generally true; however, it admits exceptions, as will be clear in chapter 17 verse 1.

Isa 1:2. “Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth, for the Lord has spoken.” Isaiah seeks attention by invoking heaven and earth to hear the words, not his, but the Lord’s. Now Haymo interprets heaven to mean pious, spiritual, and celestial men: by earth, the more ignorant and earthly men, or even wicked and unbelieving. But here the sense is tropological.

Literally, therefore, St. Basil, Jerome, and Cyril take heaven to mean the inhabitants of heaven, namely Angels: by earth, the inhabitants of earth, namely men, as it is a metonymy.

Secondly, more literally and genuinely Cyril and Procopius understand heaven and earth properly: for Isaiah uses prosopopoeia to address inanimate creatures, so that the speech may be more serious and full of indignation, firstly to signify that the Jews received all their goods from heaven and earth through God, yet they were so ungrateful; secondly, because the Jews worshipped the sun, moon, stars in heaven, and on earth beasts and stones, he now invokes these as their judges.

Thirdly, because when rational men, such as the Jews, were unwilling to listen to God and the prophets, Isaiah therefore calls upon inanimate creatures, which always obey God, so that the complaint and reproach are most grave. He calls upon them, I say, as mute and eternal witnesses, so that indeed heaven and earth may be witnesses both of the covenant made by God with the Jews in the past (Deuteronomy 30:19: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse”) and of the present perfidy of the Jews, by which they have violated this covenant: for these words of Isaiah precisely correspond to those already cited from Moses. Also, of their future punishment, so that heaven and earth may not only be witnesses but also avengers of their creator. For the world shall fight with him against the senseless, Wisdom 5:21. Similar words are found in Psalm 50 and Deuteronomy 32:1: “Hear, O heavens, and I will speak, and let the earth hear the words of my mouth.” Thus, St. Ambrose says in his sermon on Psalm 118: “God calls the elements to witness against those who refuse to observe divine precepts, so that he may block all excuses.” And St. Chrysostom here, who also adds examples: “For this reason,” he says, “the prophet sent to Jeroboam, ignoring the king to whom he was sent, very wisely addressed his speech to the altar, 1 Kings 13. And Jeremiah called upon the earth itself, saying: ‘O earth, earth, earth, write this man down as childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days,’ Jeremiah 22.” Therefore, he says: because the impiety of men is so great that they harden themselves against the words of God, I will speak to heaven and earth. Heaven, though it is very remote, will hear; earth, though it is stony and dense, will listen. But the ears of men are deaf.

The sense, therefore, is as follows: You, heavens, insensible and inanimate, and you, brute and deaf earth, hear from me what my people do not want to hear, hear my just complaint against them: so that, just as you were mute and eternal witnesses of my covenant with the Jews and the law I gave them, so now you may be witnesses both of their disobedience, ingratitude, and rebellion, and of my just complaint and threats against them; and in the future, you may be witnesses to the deserved punishment that I will carry out against them, as I have here threatened them, and I will inflict upon them: and not only witnesses, but also executioners and avengers, that is, you, earth, show yourself as iron to the impious Jews; you, heaven, be as brass to them. Again, and more so, on the day of judgment, you, heaven, hurl thunder and lightning against them, you, earth, open up against them. Thus Rupert. See the words of Deuteronomy 31:26. The same preacher may say in the name of God to any sinner: Hear, O heavens, hear, O elements, hear, O stones, hear, O brutes, a new thing for you, hear an unheard-of crime, hear a wonder of the ages: This sinner whom I created, redeemed, endowed with my grace and all good things, has despised me, blasphemed me, placed Venus before me, placed Bacchus before me: he has considered his belly his god, and thus deprived me of my divinity, and transferred it to his Venus and his belly: why then, O heavens, O lightnings, do you not rush upon this wicked one? Why do you not avenge this injury to your creator? Why do you not afflict, strike down, torment, and destroy this traitor to divine majesty? Allegorically, this was fulfilled in the Lord’s passion, where heaven lost its light at midday, and the earth trembled greatly. From this we may estimate what is reserved for those whose practice such funeral rites (i.e., pagan rites) seeing what nature underwent with that fatal darkness (i.e., the darkness at Christ’s Passion),Says Zeno, Bishop of Verona.

Since the Lord has spoken. He prepares attention by the dignity of the speaker, as if to say, “Not I, but the sacred and divine majesty proclaims these things through me: for my tongue is the pen of a divine scribe, that is, of the Holy Spirit, and my throat is a trumpet filled with and sounding by the divine breath.”

I have nourished and brought up sons: but they have despised me. Sons properly and primarily refer to the Jews of his time, not those who were in the time of Christ, as Jerome wishes, although these words can indeed be extended and applied to them, and to all men, by analogy: for the ingratitude of all is here censured. Therefore, you, my people, I have raised as a son, and, as Theodotion translates, brought up; the Septuagint translates, begotten, as in creating you, a servant by calling and adoption, I have adopted you as a son, Exodus 4:22. In Hebrew, it is הגדלתיך (higdalticha), meaning I have magnified, that is, nourished you, allowed you to grow, to mature. For I nourished you when you were small and few, through Joseph in the land of Goshen, so that you might grow into an immense multitude. Again, I nourished you with manna in the desert and with milk and honey in Canaan. Secondly, and more importantly, I nourished you with spiritual food, namely by giving the law at Sinai, with so many prophets, so many sacred books, so many admonitions, so many promises. This is what Hosea says in 11:3: “I taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by their arms;” and Isaiah 46:3: “Who are carried by me from birth.” Finally, I exalted you, that is, I endowed you with wealth, miracles, victories, a kingdom, a temple, and other gifts, making you elevated, glorious, and formidable to other nations.

But they have despised me. He does not say, They have forgotten me, or they have neglected me, but positively, They have despised me, as if directly despising me and my commands, scorning, violating, and transgressing them, as the Hebrews have it, and finally crucifying me, says Zeno of Verona in his first sermon on Isaiah. How great is this, O Jew, O Christian, your impudence, your ingratitude, your arrogance? These words of Isaiah again correspond as an antistrophe to the words of Moses in Deuteronomy 32:6: “Do you thus repay the Lord, O foolish and unwise people? Is He not your Father who bought you? Has He not made and established you?” Lycurgus did not wish to pass a law against ingrates because it would be a monstrous thing not to recognize a benefit. Therefore, the ingratitude of a son towards his father is a double monstrosity: a triple one towards a generous and beneficent father.

Isa 1:3 The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master’s crib; but Israel does not know me. This is an argument from the lesser to the greater, that is, from animals to humans, and it is meant to evoke strong emotions. St. Jerome notes that the rebellious and ungrateful people are here compared not to a noble horse or a sagacious and grateful dog, but to a stupid ox and a donkey; for what is more stupid than an ox? What is more senseless than a donkey? Yet the Jews and all ingrates are more foolish than these. Conversely, Plato called Aristotle a mule: for a mule, when it is sated with its mother’s milk, kicks at its mother; so also, Aristotle, stuffed with the best doctrines of Plato, opened a school against him in the Lyceum, and, moreover, he desired to be a perpetual adversary, as it is written (Psalms 111:10).

Secondly, note this: the ox knows, that is, it recognizes, its owner, and also presents itself to him pleasantly and gratefully by plowing, threshing, and carrying his burdens. Likewise, the donkey recognizes the manger of its master, that is, the master of its manger, or the master who feeds it in the manger (this is a hypallage); it serves and obeys him, whether by plowing or carrying his burdens.

In Hebrew, it is אֲלוּף (alluf), meaning “ox,” and in Chaldean תּוֹר (tor), which the Chaldeans change from shin to tau (hence the Latin *taurus*). Francis Forerius interprets *sachar* as “a wild ox,” which leads the herd like a commander and is wild and impatient of the yoke, meaning to say, “Here, this wild ox recognizes its master and leads the herd of cows back to its master’s fold. But Israel does not recognize me as its Lord and Master; instead, my people lead me to idols.”

The Hebrew *schor* not only signifies a wild ox but any tame and domesticated ox, which seems to be what Isaiah is talking about. Do you want an example of a wild animal recognizing and repaying a human’s kindness? Take the account narrated by Aulus Gellius in his fifth book, chapter 14, as told by the eyewitness Appion. I have abbreviated his words to avoid prolixity.

In Rome, in the circus, a fight between men and beasts was being held: among them was a huge and terrifying lion. A Dacian slave of a consul was brought in among many other captives for the beast fight. This slave’s name was Androcles (or Androclus, as Aelian writes). When the lion saw him from a distance, it suddenly stood still as if in astonishment; then, slowly and gently, as if recognizing the man, it approached him. It then began to move its tail gently and affectionately, like a dog wagging its tail, and it started licking the man’s hands and legs, who was almost fainting with fear.

Amid these caresses from the dreadful beast, Androcles recovered his senses and gradually looked at the lion. Then, as if by mutual recognition, the man and the lion seemed to greet each other joyfully. This event stirred such admiration that it provoked the loudest shouts from the crowd. Androcles was summoned by Caesar and asked why the most ferocious of lions had spared him. Androcles then narrated an astonishing story: “I fled from my cruel master and came to a cave where I found a lion showing its paw, seeking help. I extracted a huge thorn from its paw, squeezed out the pus, and bandaged the wound. The lion, relieved, rested its paw in my hands and lay down peacefully. From that day on, for three whole years, the lion and I lived together in the same cave, sharing the same food. The lion would hunt, bringing me the choicest parts of its prey, which I would cook in the midday sun due to lack of fire. But when I grew tired of that wild life, I left the cave while the lion was hunting, and after three days of walking, I was captured by soldiers, taken to my master in Africa, and sent back to Rome to be condemned to the beasts. I now understand that this same lion was also captured separately and now repays me for the kindness and healing I provided.”

Appion claims Androcles said this, and all these details were recorded on a tablet displayed to the people. Consequently, everyone demanded Androcles’ release, which was granted, and he was freed from punishment. The lion was then set free by the votes of the people. Afterwards, Androcles and the lion, gently bound by a leash, were seen wandering all over the city. Androcles was given gifts, and the lion was adorned with flowers. Nearly everyone who met them would say, “This man is the lion’s guest-friend; this is the man who healed the lion.” The lion, a wild and fierce beast, recognized the kindness and spared, caressed, and served Androcles. Yet a rational man does not recognize his Creator, does not obey, and does not serve Him, to whom he owes his very soul.

No less rare and remarkable is what Demetrius and his son Lilius Giraldus recount about a dragon in Arcadia. Thoas, they say, raised a dragon from infancy. When it had grown, fearing its nature and size, he took it to the wilderness. When he later fell into the hands of robbers and cried out, the dragon, recognizing his voice as that of its caretaker Thoas, immediately ran to him and rescued him from the robbers.

Similarly, Demetrius Physcon narrates about a panther, a very fierce animal: when her cubs fell into a pit and she couldn’t rescue them by herself, she remained there until she saw a passing man. She gently pulled on his clothes with her claws, gesturing and signaling the plight of her cubs and requesting his help. With his assistance, she rescued her cubs from the pit. To show her gratitude, the panther accompanied the man with her cubs through the wilderness until she led him back to safety.

But surpassing all these stories is what Phylarchus recounts about an asp. He says that an asp, raised by an Egyptian man, gave birth in his house. One of the cubs bit the man’s son, killing him with its venomous bite. When the asp, which had been away, returned and saw the boy dead from her cub’s bite, she felt it unjust. Not wanting to seem ungrateful and to punish the ingratitude, she killed her own cub.

Consider the lion of St. Gerasimus the Abbot (people mistakenly believe it was St. Jerome, which is why painters depict a lion with St. Jerome). This lion, grateful for having a thorn removed by St. Gerasimus, faithfully served him for the rest of its life and, upon the saint’s death, died of grief. Sophronius recounts this in “The Spiritual Meadow.”

Thirdly, note this: this passage generally refers to oxen, donkeys, and their masters. The ancients, as St. Augustine against the Jews (chapter 13), St. Ambrose in his second book on Luke (chapter 2), Origen in his 13th homily, and others cited by Leo Castrius  adapted these words to Christ, the child and Lord in the manger, lying between the ox and the donkey. They recognized and adored Him with either ordinary and natural obedience or perhaps even extraordinary and miraculous reverence, as St. Bonaventure suggests. If St. Francis’ lamb knelt at the Eucharist; if larks and birds reverently listened to St. Francis preaching to them; if wild beasts revered and honored Antony, Paul, Hilarion, and others approaching the primeval innocence of Adam; if bees more than once carried the Eucharist, then why not an ox and a donkey in the manger recognize and adore the present Lord?… and they believed that the recently born, most innocent Christ, their Lord and ours, was honored with some special reverence, bowing to Him, covering Him with hay, warming Him with their breath, and serving Him in other ways? Especially since not only did the angels and shepherds serve Him, but even a star served Him, calling and guiding the Magi to Him in Bethlehem. Certainly, in the literal sense, the holy oxen, horses, and donkeys revered and honored Christ. A notable account is found in the Life of St. Kilian, Apostle of Franconia: when he reproached Geila, the wife of Duke Gozbert of Franconia, for her illicit marriage, executioners were sent against him. He said, “You will fulfill the command, and we will complete our course.” Thus, being killed by them, Geila ordered a stable for horses to be made where the martyr had been buried; the animals in the stable did not defecate or urinate over the martyr’s tomb, as if showing honor to the martyr. Thus, what the prophet Isaiah foretold about the ox knowing its owner and the donkey its master’s crib was also seen in the case of St. Kilian. As the author of St. Kilian’s Life, published by our Serarius, and referenced by Baronius in the year 681 A.D., said: “Israel does not know me,” the literal sense applies to both oxen and donkeys, as well as to the Jews of Isaiah’s time, as taught by St. Jerome, Basil, Cyril, and St. Thomas.

ISRAEL DOES NOT KNOW ME. This is how the Septuagint translates it, but the Hebrew text omits the pronoun “me,” making the pathos more apt and vehement. It must be repeated from the preceding antithesis—”the ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master’s crib; Israel, however, does not know me,” meaning, “Israel, in its stupor, does not recognize its God and Lord, feeding them in Canaan as in a rich crib, though the ox and donkey recognize their master feeding them there.”

AND MY PEOPLE DO NOT UNDERSTAND. This means they do not understand my voice, as if to say, “The ox and the donkey understand their master’s voice and respond to his call in every way; but Israel does not understand me, their feeder, caller, commander, threatener, and beseecher, as if I were a barbarian, an unwelcome visitor, or a tyrant speaking to them in Japanese or Turkish or Tartar.”

Isa 1:4 AH, SINFUL NATION, PEOPLE LADEN WITH INIQUITY, SEED OF EVILDOERS, CORRUPT CHILDREN. The Prophet is here speaking in the third tone of his sermon. The Hebrew word used here, “hoi,” is translated by Vatable as “alas,” signifying a voice of commiseration and lamentation over another’s misery and calamity. However, others translate “hoi” as “woe,” which signifies threats and indignation from God, according to St. Gregory’s homily on Ezekiel. The word “woe” implies both temporal devastation and eternal damnation, as St. Gregory notes. Israel is described as “laden with iniquity,” meaning burdened and weighed down by the multitude and gravity of their sins, and “seed of evildoers,” because the Jews, who had been made God’s children by His grace, became degenerate and turned the depravity of their will into their nature, as St. Augustine states in his seventh book against the adversaries of the law and the prophets (chapter 22). This is a climax or gradation, as the speech gradually intensifies, becoming more grave and vehement, for here are five degrees of impiety and of the impious. The first is when it is said, “Woe to the sinful nation,” that is, one that strays from the law of God: for this is ‘חֹטֵ֗א (“to miss the mark). The second degree is when it says, “a people laden with iniquity,” meaning those who are deeply involved in crimes and oppressed by their weight to the point of being brought low. The third degree is when it says, “a seed of evildoers,” meaning the worst children of the worst parents, who inherit and perpetuate idolatry and malice, making them their own nature and disposition. The fourth degree is when it says, “children who are corrupters,” who have added even greater atrocities to the sins of their parents, thinking and plotting nothing but crimes and wickedness. Vatable translates this as “the most wicked children,” meaning “children who are cut off,” like a tree that has been cut down and cannot revive or sprout again, indicating that there is no hope of any good remaining in them. Second, and more accurately, ‘מַשְׁחִיתִ֑ים’ (the hiphil active participle of ‘sahat’), means “those who destroy, waste, and corrupt,” implying that these people corrupt, devastate, and ruin everything around them. This is Vatable’s interpretation. The fifth degree might be when it is added: “They have forsaken the Lord, they have blasphemed the Holy One of Israel, they have turned away backward,” meaning the Jews, abandoning, blaspheming, and cursing the Lord, turning their backs on Him to the utmost injury and contempt, dedicating themselves to idols, as is evident in 2 Kings 17:8, 13.

THEY HAVE BLASPHEMED THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL. In Hebrew, it is נִֽאֲצ֛וּ ‘ni’asu,’ meaning ‘they have rejected, despised, and provoked.’ The greatest contempt for God is blasphemy. Moreover, their idolatry is both actual and verbal blasphemy. By worshiping idols as gods, they blaspheme God in reality, and by celebrating idols with words and hymns while spurning God, they verbally blaspheme Him. Isaiah primarily speaks of the Jews of his time. However, St. Basil, Jerome, and Cyril apply these words to the Jews in the time of Christ: for their disposition was the same, and the Holy Spirit foresaw and predicted this through Isaiah. These Jews specifically blasphemed Christ, calling Him a winebibber, a demon-possessed man, and claiming that He cast out demons by Beelzebub.

THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL. This is an emphasis, meaning they have blasphemed God, who is the Holy of Holies, the holiness to be worshipped, most revered and glorified, especially by Israel, whom He chose as His special and holy people, to whom He gave His holy law, holy faith, holy sacrifices, and ceremonies. Here, Israel is in the genitive case: thus, the Holy One of Israel is the God of Israel, whose holiness the impious have profaned and polluted. Blasphemy directly violates the holiness of God, making it the highest sin. PAGE 88