Isaiah 50:1
KJV
Thus saith the LORD, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.
This is what the LORD says: 'Where is your mother's certificate of divorce with which I sent her away? Or to which of my creditors have I sold you? Behold, for your iniquities you were sold, and for your transgressions your mother was sent away.'
▶ Translator Notes
- ◆ God challenges the assumption that He initiated the separation. Under Deuteronomy 24:1, a husband must issue a formal divorce document (sefer keritut). God's rhetorical question implies: no such document exists — the covenant was never formally dissolved. Israel's exile was self-inflicted through sin, not divine abandonment.
DSS
1QIsaᵃ col. XLI, line 16
▶ Scroll Notes
- ◆ No significant variant. The scroll reads identically to the MT here.
▶ Word Study
A formal document of divorce. Keritut derives from the root k-r-t ('to cut'), referring to the covenant (berit) being 'cut' or severed. The Covenant Rendering preserves the legal weight: 'certificate of divorce.' In Deuteronomy 24:1-4, this document is the only legal means by which a marriage could be dissolved.
God's question is legally and theologically loaded: no such document exists with His signature. The covenant between God and Israel has not been formally dissolved. Exile is consequence, not cancellation. This legal framework prevents Israel from claiming total abandonment.
To sell, dispose of, or transfer ownership. In the legal-covenant context, it evokes the sale of a debt-slave or indentured servant. God's question 'to which of my creditors have I sold you?' implies that only a creditor could force such a sale—and God has no creditors.
The verb makar sets up the paradox: if God did not sell Israel, then Israel must have sold itself (v. 1b). This shift in agency from external force to internal choice is theologically crucial. Israel's exile is not slavery imposed by God but bondage self-imposed by sin.
Avonot: iniquities, perversions, or moral distortions of character; pishim: deliberate rebellions or transgressions against known law. Together they name both the twisted inclination and the willful violation.
The pairing is not redundant. Avonot suggests ingrained moral corruption; pishim suggests conscious defiance. Together they account for the totality of Israel's failure—both what Israel is (corrupted) and what Israel does (rebellious). The doubling emphasizes that exile flows from both nature and choice.