# Question on one word in Isaiah 58:7



## vagabond (Nov 29, 2008)

Hello all!

One of my favorite chapters is Isaiah 58, which proclaims the nature of a "true fast." Among other things, this chapter makes clear that God promises to bless generosity to the needy, not only in personal blessing, but also by enabling continued generosity.

Verse 7 is key:

(KJV) _Is it _[the fast the Lord chooses] not to deal thy bread to the hungry, 
and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? 
when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; 
*and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?*

My question relates to the final clause. The more literal modern versions agree with the KJV:

(ESV) and not to hide yourself from your own *flesh?*
(NASB) and not to hide yourself from your own *flesh?*
(NKJV) and not hide yourself from your own *flesh?*
(RSV) and not to hide yourself from your own *flesh?*

But most others take an interpretative step, taking "flesh" to mean either 1) family or 2) all mankind. Some examples:

(NLT) and do not hide from *relatives *who need your help.
(NIV) and not to turn away from your own *flesh and blood?*
(NET) Don't turn your back on your own *flesh and blood!*
(HCSB) and to not ignore your own *flesh and blood?
*

I, however, think that this interpretation bypasses all three of these important data:

1) the progression of the verse (climactic parallelism)
2) the point of the passage (giving of yourself to help the desperately needy)
3) the most natural reading (giving even if it means facing need yourself)

Let's look at the progression of the verse, for instance:

1) to give bread
2) to give shelter
3) to give clothing

Giving bread is the easiest of the three, you could say. Giving shelter is more dangerous, and most definitely not convenient. Giving clothing (keep in mind, we're talking about people in ancient times, not people with massive modern wardrobes) is a permanent, significant material sacrifice.

This is an example of "climactic parallelism," a device of Hebrew poetry which builds intensity. Though not a very common poetic device, climactic parallelism is nonetheless apparent in several places in Scripture and is recognized by scholars as one of the standard devices used by Hebrew poets.

The text builds here, from the easiest charity, to a more dangerous and inconvenient charity, to a significant personal sacrifice. So, to append, "oh, and watch out for your family, too," seems anticlimactic.

I believe that the text is using "flesh" (basar) in the normal, literal sense, not in the figurative sense. The figurative sense "relatives" IS used in Scripture, but not nearly as much as the literal sense. So, "not hiding yourself from your own flesh" when you clothe the naked...meaning, to paraphrase,* "Clothe the naked, even if it means you're giving him the very clothes of off your own back!"* For then, missing the cloak you gave away to clothe a needy brother, you would not be "hiding yourself" from the sight of your own flesh. Charity is not only to be engaged in when we are enjoying prosperity; we are to give even if it seems like such giving will place us in need.

The reaction this would cause in the reader...surprise that *he should provide for the needs of others even if it means putting himself in need!*...is soothed by the multiple promises of God's provision and protection in the following verses.

I really think that this is what the text is getting at. Mainstream thought, though, as reflected by many commentators and some translations, is that "flesh" here means "relatives." However, this translation never seems to be the product of intense deliberation, but assumed. Many commentaries glide over *basar*, focusing on the main point of the passage. I propose that *basar* is being used in a way very relevant to the main point.

Through study of church history and experientially in my own life, I know it's true: God will provide for you, even if your need is due to your over-abundant giving! And He provides for more giving, too.

Thoughts and comments are much appreciated! Have you ever encountered a scholar who took "basar" in a literal sense here? Do you see a reason not to?

Thanks for your time!


----------

