Isaiah Chapter 44 · Verse 10
Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image that is profitable for nothing?
Original Language Analysis
מִֽי
H4310
מִֽי
Strong's:
H4310
Word #:
1 of 7
who? (occasionally, by a peculiar idiom, of things); also (indefinitely) whoever; often used in oblique construction with prefix or suffix
יָצַ֥ר
Who hath formed
H3335
יָצַ֥ר
Who hath formed
Strong's:
H3335
Word #:
2 of 7
to mould into a form; especially as a potter; figuratively, to determine (i.e., form a resolution)
אֵ֖ל
a god
H410
אֵ֖ל
a god
Strong's:
H410
Word #:
3 of 7
strength; as adjective, mighty; especially the almighty (but used also of any deity)
נָסָ֑ךְ
or molten
H5258
נָסָ֑ךְ
or molten
Strong's:
H5258
Word #:
5 of 7
to pour out, especially a libation, or to cast (metal); by analogy, to anoint a king
Cross References
Jeremiah 10:5They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.Habakkuk 2:18What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath graven it; the molten image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth therein, to make dumb idols?Acts 19:26Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands:
Historical Context
Ancient idol worship required significant expense - materials, craftsmanship, maintenance. Isaiah mocks this investment in what cannot possibly deliver divine benefits.
Questions for Reflection
- What pursuits in your life require much investment but return nothing of eternal value?
- How does this verse expose the irrationality of trusting created things for ultimate security?
Analysis & Commentary
The rhetorical question asks who would be foolish enough to create a god that 'is profitable for nothing.' The Hebrew 'ya'al' (profit/benefit) exposes idolatry's futility - tremendous investment for zero return. The absurdity is intentional: a created 'god' cannot by definition be God.