God’s judgment will be leveled not only against the male leaders of Judah was the name of Jacob's fourth son and one of the 12 tribes. More, but also the women whose wealth is flaunted in the face of the poor.
God is an equal opportunity judge. The male leaders–warriors and soldiers, judges and prophets, Diviners, like soothsayers, were regarded as persons who could tell the future. In Israel these fortune tellers were seen as pagans. They were not to be consulted nor was their message to be believed. More and Elders are leaders who exercise wisdom or leadership by virtue of their age and experience. In the New Testament elders, along with the chief priests and scribes, constituted the primary opposition to Jesus when he taught in Jerusalem. More, captains and dignitaries, counselors and magicians–have been judged in 3:1-5, and now it is the turn of the women. In all cases, the issue is the same–the wealthy have devoured the vineyard (that is, the nation) and stolen even from the poor (3:14). The Bible and the prophets have no vendetta against abundance itself. Micah is glad to announce a day when everyone will sit under their own vines and fig trees (Micah 4:4), and Jesus is the Messiah whose life, death, and resurrection are God's saving act for humanity More announces that he comes so that all may have life abundantly (John 10:10). The Bible’s concern is that prosperity be made available for all, not merely for some. Prosperity is one thing, “grinding the face of the poor” is another (Isaiah, son of Amoz, who prophesied in Jerusalem, is included among the prophets of the eighth century B.C.E. (along with Amos, Hosea, and Micah)--preachers who boldly proclaimed God's word of judgment against the economic, social, and religious disorders of their time. More 3:15).
Now, it appears that the unequal distribution of wealth made possible by the growth of the monarchy is flaunted by the women who can afford the showy clothes and jewelry so sarcastically described in Isaiah’s poetry. The poetry itself is wonderful, if not the situation it describes. One can see the outstretched necks, the wanton glances, and hear the anklets tinkling on the mincing feet. Again, it is important to read this not as a condemnation of women or of beauty, but of haughtiness (just as male haughtiness was denounced in 2:12-22)–that is, of flaunting wealth in the faces of those who have nothing.
Under the sharp judgment of the text, we can learn much about the dress of royal and wealthy women in the eighth century: anklets, headbands, crescents, pendants, scarfs, headdresses, sashes, perfume boxes, amulets, signet and nose rings, festal robes, mantles, cloaks, handbags, gauze, linen, turbans, veils–it all sounds remarkably modern, and only slightly cross-cultural. Such things have their own beauty, but trust in them will bring only destruction.