Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Isaiah

  • Biblical Prophecy in a Nutshell

    Part of my current devotional reading is currently in Isaiah. Today this included Isaiah 46:10 —

    (10) I declare the end when it is just the beginning,
    From ancient times, things that have not yet been done.
    I say, “My plan will be established,
    and I will do everything I desire.” — Isaiah 46:10 (my translation)

    Biblical prophecy is frequently looked upon as God sort of looking into his crystal ball and seeing what is going to happen. I’m not arguing that God doesn’t know what will happen, although the openness of God is an interesting study. But I do not believe that is the primary point of prophecy. Viewing prophecy as a form of divine crystal ball encourages us to look at it as a means of satisfying our curiosity and of providing us with security and control. If we know what is going to happen, we can prepare for it.

    I have a friend who has a whole house generator and a safe room. In this hurricane-prone area, that’s not a bad idea. I’m not criticizing him for that. But what he has done is looked at the probabilities and protected himself against the dangers. It gives him a sense of safety and control. In hurricane season, that is certainly not a bad thing!

    The first have of Isaiah 46:10 affirms God’s declaration of future events. But the second half states it more clearly for us, I think. Prophecy is not so much prediction are promise. It is a promise that God is going to do something in the future. Why can he make that prediction? Because he is the one who is going to make it come to pass. He is not passively looking at what humans do and saying, “Watch out folks, this is what’s coming up!” I might compare that to the hurricane forecaster. God is more like the parent who tells his misbehaving children, “Something you won’t like is coming up!” The forecaster sees the hurricane forming and warns of it in advance. The parent speaks of what he intends to do.

    I think the latter gives us a better perspective. Why, for example, is Jonah’s prophecy unfulfilled? Because God’s word had already accomplished what it set out to accomplish. Why could Jerusalem be destroyed when God had promised David a descendant on his throne? Because David’s descendants had departed from God’s plan. Those two events challenge the simple prediction model; they are completely in accord with the promise model.

    Note here that my point is not that predictive prophecy is impossible or that God’s knowledge is inadequate. Rather, I’m talking about the mechanism and purpose. God is the actor in prophecy.

    In conclusion I’d like to quote [tag]Brevard Childs[/tag]. I’m reading his commentary as I work through Isaiah in Hebrew:

    . . . Biblical prophecy is not simply a description of a coming historical event made in advance, shortly to be visible to all. Rather, Isaianic prophecy interprets the effects of God’s entrance into human history. It embraces a different dimension of reality, which only in part coheres with empirical history. The eschatological appeal of God’s rule involves a vision of divine intervention that indeed enters human history, but is not exhausted by any one moment. The quality of God’s salvific presence is not limited to one specific event in time and space, but embraces the whole of God’s announced purpose for creation, which moves toward consummation. . . . — Isaiah, p. 361-2

  • Time Compression in Eschatological Texts

    I want to touch on something that I encounter in conversation fairly frequently. Why is it that Christian texts applied to the coming of Jesus and to the end-times come often in the same contexts in Hebrew scripture. A good example of this is Isaiah 60-66, in which we have a mixture of texts related in Christian thought to either of these events. Isaiah 61:1-3, for example, is related to the first coming, while 66:22 is related to the second coming in Revelation 21:1. These are merely a couple of examples.

    I encountered a similar issue with Mark 13, in which a number of verses refer rather specifically to the destruction of Jerusalem, yet we slide into material that appears eschatological with very little warning. I would suggest that this ambiguity is why there is so much debate over the correct interpretation of this and closely related passages (Matthew 24, Luke 21, and the whole book of Revelation). Interpreters differ because the lines are not drawn with the sort of clarity we would like.

    Today my devotional reading included a passage that I think illustrates this telescoping, so to speak, of multiple events. It seems to me that what happens in each instance is that there is an immediate scene of God’s action, either in judgment or salvation, and that the immediate event and God’s ultimate judgment/salvation are brought together. Perhaps there is a type/antitype involved, but I will explore that at another time. In any case they are combined, and the view seems to be much like one might get looking at a distance.

    To illustrate this, let’s suppose that there are two clouds in the distance. In my imagination, I’m on the plains around Omaha, NE, where I used to watch for tornadoes. I see one in front of me, and another larger one behind that. The one that is further away may, in fact, be much larger and much more distant, but I have no perspective to give me the time. If I describe the scene, I might confuse the two looming storms–the closer, smaller one, and the larger one at an uncertain distance.

    In Isaiah 45, the primary topic is the call of Cyrus to rescue Israel (45:1ff). There is no doubt about the reference of the prophecy, because Cyrus is mentioned by name and spoken of/to in recognizable terms. Cyrus has come, accomplished his mission, and gone. In verse 23, however, we’re told that every knee will bow to YHWH, and every tongue will swear by him. That is a passage that fits much better in the eschaton than it does in the time of Cyrus, a time in which we know that no such thing happened.

    I suspect that God has very little interest in informing us about the details of the end times. We are naturally curious, and we want to protect ourselves by knowing the details and thus preparing in detail for them. But the purpose of prophecy has never been to provide that sort of information. Rather, such prophecy calls one to precisely the opposite of independence–total dependence on God.

  • Isaiah 53: A Short Note on the Suffering Servant

    Yesterday Adrian was apparently surprised that anyone would question that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 (or better, Isaiah 52:13-53:12) was Jesus. He said:

    The answer to the first question is very straightforward if you believe the bible is without error and Jesus can be trusted. For he himself tells us who the prophet is speaking of –


    Luke 22:37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.”

    So, can we now all accept that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus? Jesus himself might not have had a theological degree, but I do think we should take his exegesis seriously!

    Further, he is amazed that anyone could think that this passage was not about substitution:

    Now, as far as question 2 goes, I simply cannot see how Isaiah 53 can possibly be stripped of the idea of punishment and substitution. Dave Warnock claimed in this comment section to have found commentaries that disagree. . . .

    Let me look at these points in reverse. I quite agree that the ideas both of substitution (though I think it can be better expressed) and of punishment occur in Isaiah 53. There actually have been commentaries that claim that those concepts do not occur, but I am only aware of them by citation (and refutation) in Childs (Isaiah in the OTL), and Childs disposes of them pretty quickly.

    My question would be, “What of it?” I have thought that the ideas of substitution and punishment were present in Isaiah 53 since I can remember, but that doesn’t make the chapter support penal substitutionary atonement as it is being argued currently. If all folks want to prove is that the ideas of “substitution” and “punishment” occur in the Bible, I can concede their point. But it seems that they want me to buy the entire doctrine based on the presence of a couple of concepts.

    Since I believe that penal substitution is one valid expression of the atonement, I am scarcely surprised to find it in scripture. But thus far every person with whom I have debated this point has been unsatisfied with my calling PSA “one valid expression.” They want this one metaphor to be the sole expression. That is a narrowing of doctrine that I reject.

    So let me start by saying that both the ideas of substitution and punishment can be found in Isaiah 53. There are some additional points that I think should be emphasized, but they will only broaden the picture, not eliminate the concepts.

    So let me turn back to the question of whether this is Jesus. I’m going to try to abbreviate my comments, so please forgive me (and chastise me in comments) if I fail to cover all points. Traditionally there have been two extremes in the interpretation of Isaiah 53. The first is the more or less standard Christian view that this is a prophecy, or more precisely a predictive prophecy of the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus. I’m referring to a simple, one-to-one relationship. Isaiah was talking specifically and exclusively about Jesus and Jesus specifically and exclusively fulfilled the prediction. The other extreme views the suffering servant as Israel collectively, suffering for their sins and the sins of the world in general, yet redeemed by God and restored.

    Informed readers will be able to point out difficulties with these interpretations very quickly. Isaiah 45:4 stands against the identification with Jesus by identifying the servant directly at Israel. Many interpreters see Isaiah 49:1-3 as a narrowing of this concept specifically to the prophet (or someone of whom he spoke) individually as a representative of Israel. In objection to understanding Israel as the servant one can present Isaiah 53:9 “done no violence” and “no deceit in his mouth.” It hardly seems likely that someone in the prophetic tradition would present Israel as totally innocent.

    There is an intermediate position (in fact, more than one, but I don’t want to write a small book here), which sees the servant firstly as the (reformed) remnant of Israel. In this case, the exiles, who will eventually be restored to Judea become the servant, despised by the remainder of the people (Ezekiel 11:1-13). This leaves us with not precisely substitution but a form of representative suffering, in which a small group suffers for a larger group. This concept would have been easier to comprehend in the ancient world, which was less individualistic. We think of offenses and punishments as personal things. I sin, Jesus dies for me, I am saved from sin. In that formulation there is no representative suffering; there is a simple swap. But we should take seriously the words of Hebrews 2:10-15 where Jesus is said to be perfected through suffering, and to be made “of one stock” (REB) with his brothers and sisters. This intermediate position is then completed with the identification of Jesus as the ultimate representative of Israel.

    Let me quote Wolf (Interpreting Isaiah: The Suffering and Glory of the Messiah, p. 215):

    The suffering and salvation of the nation led Isaiah to his fullest disclosure of the suffering and exaltation of the Servant, who is “Israel” par excellence. The fourth Servant Song describes the meaning of the death of Christ and its significance for a sinful world. . . .

    Now I’m not quoting Wolf in support of every element of my interpretation, but specifically in connecting the servant of the early songs, clearly identified as Israel, with the servant of Isaiah 53, with characteristics that are not as applicable.

    Here I would like to note my problems with Adrian’s approach of simply telling us that Jesus said it and we should respect Jesus’ exegesis. First, this approach is fairly weak if one is going to ever dialog with a non-Christian. Acts 8:26ff tells the story of the Ethiopian eunuch, which Adrian also references. Imagine if Philip used that approach. “You’re reading Isaiah 53? Well, there’s this guy who lived in Judea, and he said this applied to him.” I’m suspecting Philip’s approach was slightly more complex than that. If Jesus provided a good exegesis, one would hope a good exegete could provide an explanation.

    But second, I think that approach rips Isaiah 53 out of its context in Isaiah and loses us part of the understanding. If we start with the idea of Israel as God’s servant–a role to which they were called–we can then take the single step to the remnant who suffer, but not merely for their own transgressions. Many of them were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Yet even a quick read of Isaiah 53 will leave you dissatisfied with that solution. Perhaps we’re talking about one heroic figure, contemporary with the prophet if one sees this as an exilic 2nd Isaiah (40-55), or someone amongst the exiles, to which most of the passages are primarily addressed. That is a useful idea, but nonetheless I don’t think it fully fulfills the promise of the passage.

    Both of those concepts, however, provide some context for the type of suffering which befell the ultimate servant. Just as the exiles receive God’s punishment from a foreign power that is God’s agent, so Jesus is crucified by the Romans. Just as the exiles were despised by those not taken, so Jesus is handed over for that punishment by his own people. The redemption is accomplished by God’s action exalting his servant and redeeming the many.

    I feel quite a lot like someone who has attacked a several acre field with a small garden hoe, but I’ll leave it at that. Let me commend to you both of the books (Wolf and Childs) that I have quoted in their comments on the servant songs. They provide a good survey and basis for further research.

  • Narrowing a Doctrine: Penal Substitution and Isaiah 53

    In a previous post, Adrian Warnock said there were two reactions to his interview with the authors of Pierced for our Transgressions. I’m guessing he referred to the favorable and unfavorable, and intensely so in each case. In the rest of that post, he implied pretty strongly that those of us who are opposed to PSA [as the sole metaphor for the atonement I would add, but Adrian did not] are not spending enough time with the scriptures.

    I also note two sets of reactions. I see one set of reactions that deal with the actual position of opponents, and one set of reactions that prefer to make accusations. I don’t want to spend much time on this, but let me just quote one example, from Grave Updates

    Isn’t off how it is always those with robust theology who are told to become broad and drop our distinctives, as if the greatest sin is to offend those who hold to vague and are like those Paul speaks of in 2 Timothy 3:7, “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.”:

    I would simply like to note here that my position on PSA has nothing to do with avoiding offense to anyone. I’m also not afraid of giving offense to the proponents of PSA as the exclusive or “real” teaching of the atonement when it is, in fact, one metaphor for the atonement. I am quite open in saying that such teaching is wrong and presents a stumbling block. It’s very easy in Christian circles to attribute “truth value” to being persecuted, and to give great credit to teachings which are exceptionally offensive. After all, the gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing (1 Corinthians 1:18). But Paul never said that every stupid and offensive thing thereby automatically became God’s truth. It is crucially important, I believe, for us to make sure that it is the gospel that is offending people when they are offended, and not our behavior or our made up teachings.

    Now Adrian hits us with Isaiah 53. It’s not a bad chapter to use in discussing the atonement, but I find it amazing to have Adrian quote it and let it “speak for itself” as though nobody who rejects his view of PSA has ever read the passage. Well, I have read, memorized, studied, and restudied that passage many times. Having Adrian quote it one more time is unlikely to change a thing, unless he can point out how that scripture challenges my view that:

    1. Substitution is broader than penal substitution
    2. Atonement is broader than substitution

    I have never denied substitution. I took a class Exegesis of Romans (from the Greek text) from a professor who believed in the moral influence theory. He tried to teach it from Romans. It didn’t work. He massacred Paul’s teaching. I did my very best to see it his way. I was inclined to see it his way. I liked the professor and enjoyed his lecture style. Nonetheless, I just couldn’t do it. Nonetheless there is an element of moral influence in the atonement.

    There is also an element of substitution in Isaiah 53, though very little of it is penal in nature. Isaiah 53 needs to be viewed in the broader context of the servant passages of 2nd Isaiah (40-55), but even that is not the primary point. I’m not arguing that Jesus is not described here, though that interpretation will not work as an exclusive look at the chapter. That is another debate. But let’s look at the substitution in this case:

    Notice in verse 4 that it is the people in general who esteem the servant “smitten by God.” They view him as suffering for his own sin, and thus under the wrath of God when in fact the servant is suffering for their sin. The servant gets all the suffering for the guilt of the whole people, and he submits to it. That is absolutely substitution, but there is no indication that God’s anger is directed at the servant. He certainly dies as a substitute, but the notion that God turns his anger purely on the person of that righteous person is simply not there.

    The debate here, at least with me, is not that Jesus did not suffer and die for our sins. It is rather with the penal aspect, and with the exclusivity of either substitution or the penal aspect. I see nothing whatsoever in Isaiah 53 that denies my position. Even verse 10, that especially in the ESV sounds most like penal substitution can be read quite easily and appropriate as the Lord allowing the stroke to fall on the servant rather than the whole nation.

    Incidentally this goes well with the view that the servant is in the first instance the remnant of Judah, taken into exile, and viewed as the greatest transgressors by those left behind. But they were the ones God was using to preserve the future of his people. In the second instance, Jesus fulfills the remainder of the prophecy as the pure remnant, the final representative of the people who took the punishment on himself. It is consistent both with God’s action and with the action of Jesus in laying down his own life (John 10:18).

    The problem I see repeatedly here is that texts that fit well with more than one view of the atonement are being cited as exclusively supporting one narrow view. I do not regard this approach to interpretation as scriptural. That is my problem with PSA. It cuts a square inch out of a large tapestry and then declares the square inch to be the whole. That’s too close to idolatry for me.

  • Similarities and Differences

    I am continuing to study through Isaiah with Brevard Childs Isaiah from the Old Testament Library, and I found another quote I want to share with a very brief comment. In discussing the literary connections between chapter 34 and 2nd/3rd Isaiah, he says:

    . . . For example, are the vocabulary affinities between chapter 34 and 40-66 to be given precedence over the large number of words in chapter 34 that are not found in chapters 40-66? Or again, what role does one assign to apparent similarities of syntax and style? — p. 253

    Now this quote seems very simple, but it embodies an important principle in Bible study, in areas ranging from comparing one scripture to another all the way to serious application of various critical methodologies. The principle is this: Differences and similarities must both be considered in any comparison.

    One of the best illustrations of this idea comes from the history of comparing the Babylonian creation story to Genesis 1. At first, there was a mass acceptance of the idea that Genesis was essentially copied from the Babylonian story. There are, indeed, many points of contact between the two. Then there was a reaction indicating that Genesis was almost totally different. There are also, it is true, substantial differences. After a time, most scholars came to the conclusion that there was a relationship, but that it was not a direct literary relationship. They concluded that both likely went back to an earlier source which each had used in its own way. (This is a very generalized history, and much of the conflict still goes on, especially in Christian apologetics.)

    I’d recommend getting a copy of each and enumerating key points and then lining them up together. What is the same? What appears to be related but is not identical? What is completely different? (Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament with Supplement is a good source and is probably available at any good college or university library.) Then compare your own lists. I do this with the creation of man in each story when I’m teaching either on Genesis or the ancient near east in general, and I find the results are always interesting.

    The same principle, however, applies to comparing any two sets of material. For comparing scripture, make sure to understand both texts in their context, then look at what is similar between them but also at what is different. Just listing one or the other presents an unbalanced picture.

  • Isaiah 64:6 – Menstrual Cloth

    I was planning to leave my comparisons with just Isaiah 63, as I believe that continued comparison charts will largely show the same thing. I’m still reading the translations side by side, and if something seems different I will bring it up.

    But today in reading Isaiah 64 in several translations I came across Isaiah 64:6 (5 in Hebrew) in which the phrase “all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags” (KJV) occurs. Now having just read this in Hebrew I was reminded that the literal translation of this is “menstrual cloths” or something similar. These cloths would be unclean, as was the woman in her menstrual period. One extended discussion of the issue of uncleanness can be found in Leviticus 15:19-33.

    In the passage, there is clearly meaning in the fact that these are not merely dirty pieces of cloth. For example, had someone washed their hands and dried them on these cloths after digging ditches all day, by modern standards we might call them dirty. If I repair the car and then wipe the grease on a rag, we would escalate that to filthy rag. But the menstrual cloth implied ritual impurity, however odd that might seem to us today.

    So having read the TNIV translation:

    All of us have become like one who is unclean,
    and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
    we all shrivel up like a leaf,
    and like the wind our sins sweep us away. — Isaiah 64:6 (TNIV)

    Now this doesn’t disturb me much. In the course of the verse they have gotten in the words “unclean” and “filthy” and I would assume that the TNIV translators, along with all the modern versions I checked (quite a number), simply don’t think that “menstrual cloth” is going to be meaningful to modern translators.

    But when I turn to a translation that prides itself on word for word renderings, that “seeks as far as possible to catpure the precise wording of the original text” (ESV Preface), I thought perhaps things would be different. But here the desire for literal translation escaped the ESV translators:

    We have all become like one who is unclean,
    and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. — Isaiah 64:6 (ESV)

    Now I definitely think “polluted” is better than “filthy” in the context. But we have still replaced one metaphor in Hebrew with a completely different English expression. The Message carries this the furthest, using “grease-stained rags,” which does not reflect the basic idea all that well, but has the advantage of conjuring an immediate image in English.

    Though I found only one modern version, the Complete Jewish Bible, that uses any word referring to menstrual cloths (menstrual rags), I did find that ancient translators used that. The LXX, Vulgate, and the Peshitta, all translate with something that includes the original literal meaning in its semantic range. Interestingly enough, the Isaiah Targum, according to the text I have available, uses an even better euphemism than any of the English versions, “cast off garment” or I might prefer the translation “garment thrown far away” (Stenning, The Targum of Isaiah, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949).

    So is there an element of meaning in the actual Biblical wording here or not? Is it possible to convey that meaning accurately in a literal translation? Such a literal translation does not appear common in modern translations.

  • Isaiah 31:4-5 and Prophetic Revelation through History

    Isaiah 31:4-5 has presented a rather substantial exegetical, critical, and even translation problem to a number of commentators. The difficulty can be illustrated by comparing the translation of this verse in the REB:

    This is what the LORD has said to me:
    As a lion or a young lion growls over its prey
    when the shepherds are called out in force,
    and it is not scared at their shouting
    or daunted by their clamour,
    so the LORD of Hosts will come down to do battle
    on the heights of Mount Zion. (emphasis mine)

    Now compare the NJPS:

    For thus the LORD has said to me:
    As a lion–a great beast–
    Growls over its prey
    And, when the shepherds gather
    In force against him,
    Is not dismayed by their cries
    Nor cowed by their noise–
    So the LORD of Hosts will descend to make war
    Against the mount and the hill of Zion. (emphasis mine)

    The problem here is with the question of whether the phrase “litsbo’ al” should be translated as “fight against” or “fight on.” I’m not going to deal with this problem in detail here, as I’m more interested in the relationship of this passage to the general theme of these chapters and of the remainder of Isaiah. The more common translation of that phrase would be “fight against” but that has presented an interpretational problem, because verse 5, immediately following, has YHWH fighting for Jerusalem and protecting it. So why would there be such an intense contrast between two adjacent verses falling within the same prophetic oracle?

    For some details on the past critical solutions to this problem, including some claims of interpolation and various efforts to smooth the interpretation, see Childs, Isaiah (OTL, 2001), pp. 232-234. Childs nicely examines the problems both of translation and interpretation, and my comments rest on the foundation he laid there.

    Though I’m leaving the detailed discussion of critical issues to Childs, I do need to point to some of the exegetical signals that we have in the passage itself. Note that the oracle begins with a “woe” for those who rely on human means rather than on the Holy One of Israel, and particular those who rely on horses. God has brought misfortune (v. 2) and the horses on which the people rely will be broken. Helper and helped (one can hear the sarcasm in that!) will both perish together.

    What is the reason for the enemy’s success? I believe this is what verse 4 tells us. Helper and helped will fall because YHWH is fighting against them.

    Now we turn to verse 5, and we see YHWH shielding Jerusalem. I’m not sure why it is that Biblical interpreters, and specifically those who use critical methodologies have such a hard time with abrupt changes of direction and with material that can be reconciled only with some difficulty. The vast majority of the prophetic literature that we have is characterized by shifts in person, in topic, in attitude, and sometimes even in temporal horizon. Where is that pure, organized, easy to comprehend prophetic oracle against which one should compare the disorganized ones? Such an example is quite rare.

    In this case, though the shift is abrupt, it’s symmetrical. In fact, you can create a fairly decent chiasm. I’m not sure this is an intentional literary device, or simply an accident of the message itself and of the historical situation (see below), but let me outline it nonetheless:

    a Woe to those who rely on human means (1)
    b God’s power is decisive over such means (2-3)
    c1 God fights – against Jerusalem
    c2 God fights – for Jerusalem
    b’ God’s power is decisive, reject foreign gods (6-7)
    a’ Woe to the Assyrians/will be destroyed/divine means (8-9)

    The a – a’ portion leaves a bit to be desired, but I think it works generally. The contrast that gives so many interpreters trouble is between 4 and 5. What is the prophet doing moving from opposition to Jerusalem to support for it in such a short space? I commented earlier on a similar tension in chapter 27, in which we have the punishment of Jerusalem combined with the punishment of the instruments of that punishment. We also have the expression there (27:4-5) of God’s desire for a decisive stand on the part of his vineyard. I would suggest that this theme of tension between judgment and deliverance is constant throughout Isaiah.

    Further, that theme of judgment is presented forcefully in historical terms in chapters 36-37. We often teach and preach that story as one of deliverance for Jerusalem, and certainly Jerusalem is delivered. Yet one could also preach it as the story of the devastation of the rest of Judah before Jerusalem was delivered. If I could revive my chiasm for a moment (Isaiah 36-37):

    a Woe put into practice on Judah, people rely on Egypt
    b God’s power is decisive over such means, Rabshakeh reviles and belittles God
    c1 God fights – against Jerusalem, all of Judah devastated
    c2 God fights – for Jerusalem, after Hezekiah prays and puts trust in him
    b’ God’s power is decisive, reject foreign gods Assyrians totally routed
    a’ Woe to the Assyrians/will be destroyed/divine means, after Sennacherib returns to Assyria

    The literary structure is not the same, of course, but the data is all there. In fact, I think the oracle of chapter 31 can easily be seen as tailored for the events of chapters 36-37. In that event in the reign of Hezekiah, God expresses his prophetic word in a series of historical events. While trusting on human power, Judah falls, except for Jerusalem, to the foreign power. In depending on God, Judah is redeemed.

    Now if we can broaden our horizon just a bit, consider a similar theme in Isaiah as a whole. Often students complain about the first 35 chapters of Isaiah which have only a few moments of positive message. The historical scene in chapters 36-39 provides a nice historical hinge, but then Isaiah 40-66 continues on a much more positive note. Indeed the early chapters do have oracles of promise, and the later ones have oracles of judgment, but the tone is substantially different. I would suggest, however, that we have just such a split in the entire book as we have between 31:4 and 31:5, and between the two parts of the story of Sennacherib’s invasion.

    In the end, the “prophetic voice” of the experience of the invasion in the time of Hezekiah was not heard, as is illustrated by the story of chapters 38-39 where, after another deliverance, Hezekiah is focused on his own wealth and power, and not on the deliverance provided by God. Thus we had to have another hinge, as the people go into exile in 586 BCE, again finding the support of Egypt unavailing, and do not return to that dependence on God until after the exile.

  • Isaiah 27: Accomplishing Redemption

    I’ve been at this series on Isaiah 24-27 for some months now. It’s taken so long mostly because I’ve been working at it slowly as I have time, and not because my series is that in-depth. The thing that has struck me in studying the passages for this series is the richness of the material. The amount of material I find that ends up only as an entry in my notes or an underlined passage in one of my reference sources is quite astonishing. In this chapter I will cite a few translations that in themselves provide creative suggestions for translation difficulties in this passage.

    I would suggest reading this chapter in several translations and trying to follow the logic through the chapter. Very often we don’t in Isaiah, because in many of these poetic passages it is hard to make sense of what’s going on in context. But I would suggest that there is a context, that the combination of the verses and passages is not accidental, but because of the literary style of the text, and the fact that so much is written in poetry it’s simply difficult to follow that logic.

    The basic logic that I see in this text is the move from a people who are not definitely on any side. They might be faithful to their God and then again they might not. We have almost a precursor to the concept of the remnant as presented in 2nd Isaiah (chapters 40-55), in which only a small portion of the people are faithful, and the whole is to be reduced to that remnant who then bring restoration.

    This theme occurs often in apocalyptic literature. The good guys and the bad guys have to be separated and clearly distinguished. As a result it is very, very right that God destroys the bad guys, and it is also imperative that God avenge the good guys. This theme has guided my translation in a couple of places. Theology should follow translation rather than precede it, but translation is impossible without sense, and if you compare several different translations of this chapter you will see quite a difference in the sense that is portrayed. A sparse Hebrew text leaves us to fill in the holes based on our understanding, and that is not an easy task.

    Places where this passage is quoted in the New Testament are indicated by red text and allusions are indicated in blue text with the reference in {braces}.

    (1) On that day —
    YHWH will take vengeance with his sword,
    harsh, great, powerful,
    On Leviathan the slithering snake,
    On Leviathan the slimy snake.
    He will kill the sea-dragon.

    The critical thing to note about this portion of the text is that its use of Leviathan and “sea-dragon” or “sea-serpent” indicates that we’re talking in the language of creation-myth, and thus also in the language of eschatology. In scripture God’s creative power is also his authority and power to destroy and to recreate. By starting out to state that the sea-dragon will be killed on that day, the writer tells us the setting is eschatological.

    I take this indication as definitive. I believe there is enough indication that the chapter is a unity. True, it is made up of individual elements from various sources, but they have been combined into a unified whole. By opening the next section with the same phrase “on that day” the writer tells us that the pleasant vineyard and the slaying of Leviathan are tied together. This means that the vineyard, the abandoned city, and YHWH’s actions as told in verses 12 & 13 should all also have an eschatological setting.

    (2) On that day —
    “There’s a pleasant vineyard,”
    Sing for it!
    (3) “I YHWH watch over it.
    I water it as needed.
    Lest harm come to it,
    I watch it day and night.
    (4) I have no anger.
    Oh that I had thistles and thorns,
    I would come against it in battle,
    And burn it all together.
    (5) Or instead it could seize my protection,
    It could make peace with me.
    It could make peace with me!
    (6) In coming days Jacob will put down roots,
    Israel will blossom and bloom,
    And will fill the face of the earth with fruit.

    There are several questions in this passage. Are the thistles and thorns a defensive wall? Are they part of the vineyard? Is YHWH attacking the enemies of the vineyard, or is he threatening to attack the vineyard?

    In my view, the eschatological sense, and also the parallels with the vineyard of Isaiah 5 indicate that the thistles and thorns are themselves part of the vineyard. YHWH wishes that his vineyard was either one thing or another. This calls to mind Revelation 3:15, and God wishing that the people of Laodicea were either hot or cold. In this case, he wishes that he either faced thistles and thorns, against which he could vent his wrath, or that on the other hand his vineyard would make peace with him. God’s anger is spent, but he still does not have the desired result.

    Notice, on the other hand, the NCV translation of this passage:

    I am not angry.
    If anyone builds a wall of thornbushes in war,
    I will march to it and burn it.
    But if anyone comes to me for safety
    and wants to make peace with me,
    he should come and make peace with me.”

    That is taking the thornbushes in quite a different sense than I have, and I have some difficulty comprehending how “I am not angry” fits in with the rest of the passage. This is simply one of many options. The NCV translation can certainly be justified linguistically. I’m just not certain it can be fitted properly into the context. On the other hand, some might accuse me of bending the evidence in order to fit a patter with my own translation.

    Again compare the JPS Tanakh:

    There is no anger in Me:
    If one offers Me thorns and thistles,
    I will march to battle against him,
    And set all of them on fire. –Isaiah 27:4

    That’s a third option, and there are more. I’m not going to try to exhaust the options either here or in the abandoned city. There are simply too many.

    (7) Has he been struck with the same blows
    as the one who struck him?
    Has he been slain in the same way
    as the one who slew him?
    (8) With measured acts you contended as you sent her away,
    Speaking harshly like the east wind.
    (9) So in this way only will Jacob’s guilt be purged,
    In this will all the results of his sin be turned aside. {Romans 11:27b, LXX}
    When all the stones of the altar are shattered like limestone,
    When sacred poles and incense altars no longer stand.

    Reformation is the only way in which things in Judah can be made right. Forgiveness is tied to repentance, and repentance means changing one’s life. God has exercised judgment on his people. He has now exercised judgment against those who oppressed Israel. But after all has been said and done, the only thing that will result in a new people is for them to turn from their idols and to become totally God’s possession.

    (10) For the fortified city stands alone,
    An emptied pasture,
    Abandoned like the wilderness.
    Oxen graze there.
    They lie down and eat her branches.
    (11) When her cuttings are dry and break off,
    Women come and light them on fire.
    Because it is not an understanding people,
    So their maker will not have compassion,
    The one who formed them will show no mercy.

    The key issue in this passage is whether this is Jerusalem or the “other city” that stands against it, Babylon in apocalyptic imagery. I believe this is the opposing city. The dominant expression about Israel in this entire chapter is hope, though there is the desire for repentance and for them to become fully reconciled to their God. The other city is the one that will be completely destroyed. In later apocalyptic, of course, that “other” city would be portrayed receiving a much more explicit judgment.

    (12) It will happen on that day —
    YHWH will beat out the people like grain, {Matthew 3:12}
    from the Euphrates to the brook of Egypt.
    And you will be gleaned one by one, Israelites!
    (13) It will happen on that day —
    The great shofar will be blown,
    and those who are lost in the land of Asshur,
    and those who are scattered in the land of Egypt
    will come and worship YHWH,
    on the Holy Mountain in Jerusalem. {Matthew 24:31}

    Verses 12 and 13 to me confirm the remainder of my interpretation of the chapter. Compare verse 12 to the preaching of John the Baptist in Matthew 3:12, separating wheat from chaff, so that the wheat can be saved and the chaff burned. Besides the scattering, however, there is an ingathering, as people are brought from all corners of the earth to return to God’s people in their home.

    As I see it, and as I have translated it, Isaiah 27 serves as a “little apocalypse” portraying the world at its end, when God is stepping in to do judgment.

  • Isaiah 26: Praise and Lament in Trouble

    Update: I forgot to tag the places the New Testament quotes (none in this case) or alludes to this passage.

    In my series on Biblical criticism I discussed the division of Isaiah 24-27 into various segments and discussing their form. In that article I suggested taking Isaiah 26 as a unity even though it would be the longest single segment in Isaiah 24-27.

    Other commentators suggest dividing the chapter after verse 6 into a song of praise while verses 7-21 are a community lament. I see the two parts of the chapter as inextricably tangled together. Isaiah 24-27 appears to be a confused portrayal of the end times, but it is intentionally confused–what appears confused to us is intentional.

    Our desire as Christians is to get a roadmap, to find out how to avoid trouble, and how to come out fine in the end without too much fuss and bother. But “fuss and bother” is a characteristic of final events. You have a time of conflict in which there will be moments of triumph and joy, and moments when one needs to hide.

    18Woe to those who are anxious for the day of YHWH,
    Why do you want the day of YHWH?
    It’s a day of darkness and not light!
    19It’s as though someone flees from a lion,
    but a bear meets him,
    so he goes into his house,
    leans his hand on the wall,
    and a snake bites him!
    20Is the day of YHWH not darkness rather than light?
    Is it not gloom without any gleam of light?

    –Amos 5:18-20

    This rather negative view contrasts with the joy that is expected on the day of the Lord, the day when God comes to redeem, but also to avenge. There are two reasons for this mixed description. First, the day of the Lord is joy for those who are ready and waiting, but not so joyful for those who are not. Second, the end does not come in any scriptural description without some conflict and trouble. This is not the place to go into any detail on pre-trib vs. post-trib arguments, but I think this passage hints at a situation in which the good spent some tense times along with the bad. It is certainly not a “proof passage” on this point; it simply hints on a less precisely laid out final time of conflict.

    Translation and Notes

    1In that day this song will be sung in the land of Judah.
    We have a strong city,
    Salvation set in walls and outworks!
    2Open the gates!
    So a righteous nation may enter,
    One that keeps justice.
    3The mind that depends,
    You will keep totally peaceful,
    Because he trusts in you.[Philippians 4:7]
    4Trust in YHWH forever,
    For in YH YHWH is an eternal rock.
    5For he has humbled the inhabitants of a lofty place,
    An inaccessible city.
    He will overthrow it,
    He will cast it down to the ground.
    He will make it reach the dust.
    6Feet will trample it,
    The feet of the humble,
    The steps of the poor.

    This is the song of praise, but in leads into the destruction of evil, which in turn leads into the lament of the following verses. The lament in turn ends on what, from God’s people’s point of view at least, is another high point.

    Some commentators have been concerned that the great city has already been destroyed in chapter 25, but that is part of the lack of clear chronological sense of Isaiah 24-27. The intent is to portray the time of conflict, and the feelings of God’s people, both positive and negative during that time.

    7The way of the righteous is level.
    You prepare for them a straight path.
    8Indeed in the path of your justice
    We wait for you YHWH,
    Your name and for your reputation,
    is our deepest desire.
    9My soul longs for you in the night,
    My spirit within me keeps watch for you,
    Because just as your judgments hold sway in the land,
    So do the inhabitants of the earth learn righteousness.

    Here again is the key to the day of the Lord. God asserts his rule and his justice. For some people that’s a good thing, for others, it is not so good. God’s true people wait anxiously for God’s justice, even though there may be great trouble along the way.

    10When the wicked receive grace,
    The don’t learn righteousness.
    In a land of upright people he acts unjustly,
    And has no fear of YHWH’s majesty.
    11YHWH, though your had is lifted up,
    They don’t see it.
    Let them see your zeal for your people,
    And be ashamed.
    Let the fire of your anger consume them. [Hebrews 10:27]

    There is a certain emotional conflict about the end times in that while many are being saved, God’s people know that others will be destroyed. God’s people have cried out for justice throughout history. There is the essential tension between God not wanting anyone to perish, and God’s unwillingness to allow sin to persist.

    The apparent absence of God’s judgment gives sinners permission to carry on whatever they’re doing.

    12YHWH will accomplish deliverance for us,
    Indeed all our accomplishments are things you have done!

    This is a tremendous statement of the gospel message. We really have done nothing. Even what we appear to have done is God’s activity in us.

    13YHWH our God,
    Other lords besides you have ruled us,
    Still we praise your name.

    I like this little note of repentance. “We’ve run away Lord, but we’re back. You’re the only one who matters.”

    14Being dead, they cannot live;
    Being shades, they cannot rise;
    Therefore you punished them,
         destroyed them,
         eliminated all memory of them.

    My translation is a bit different from what you will find in most versions based on Waltke-O’Connor’s grammar. It seemed strange to be talking about the dead in this verse and how they cannot rise when we have an affirmation of resurrection at the end of the chapter. What this verse actually refers to is those “other lords” who have ruled Israel. They are actually dead, unable to do anything. God has wiped them out.

    15You have added to the nation, YHWH.
    You have added to the nation.
    You have been glorified.
    You have expanded the borders of the land.

    Note the turn to a description of God’s blessing.

    16In trouble they called to you, YHWH.
    They poured out their prayer as you corrected them.
    17Like a pregnant woman who comes near to giving birth,
    She writhes, she cries out in her pains, [John 16:21]
    Thus were we from before you, YHWH.
    18We were pregnant, we writhed,
    But we gave birth to wind.
    We have not brought forth salvation on earth,
    Nor have the inhabitants of the world fallen.

    And here is another statement of God’s grace. Every human effort has failed, has accomplished nothing. They are like giving birth to wind. Yet when God steps in there is salvation.

    19Your dead will live,
    My corpses will rise.
    Wake up and sing!
    Those who dwell in the dust.
    Like drops of light is your dew,
    And the earth will bring forth the shades. [Ephesians 5:14]
    20Come my people! Enter your chambers!
    Close your doors after you.
    Hide for just a moment,
    until wrath passes over.
    21For look! YHWH is going out from his place,
    To repay the iniquity of the land’s inhabitants on it.
    The land will reveal its blood,
    And will no longer conceal its slain.

    We end with two affirmations: 1) God will bring new life, an early affirmation of the resurrection, and 2) The land is going to reveal the iniquity that has been done in it, allowing final justice.

    On the first point there has been some debate about whether this resurrection refers merely to the restoration of the nation or whether there is a resurrection of the dead involved. I believe the latter, largely because of the contrast to the dead gods/lords who will never rise again.

    On the second, note that the sacrificial system had many cases in which a sacrifice was to be offered when someone realized their guilt. The things that are concealed must be revealed so that justice can be done, whether for atonement or for punishment.

  • Gail Riplinger and Isaiah 26:3

    This is in the “I just couldn’t resist” category. Stating that Gail Riplinger’s “New Age Bible Versions” is poorly researched is to cast aspersions on shoddy research everywhere. Today as I was preparing a post on Isaiah 26 for this blog (which will be in the next entry), I recalled her use of Isaiah 26:3, so I took a quick look on the internet to see if there was anything more recent.

    (There’s no particular reason to actually track Riplinger’s work in any detail. The errors are too widespread and pervasive to merit serious discussion.)

    For those who may not be aware, in a chart (she loves charts) on page 455 of my edition (identified as 5th printing) Riplinger quotes the first part of Isaiah 26:3 in the KJV and the NASB. She then supplies a period where there is actually a comma in both versions. This prevents one from noticing either that the verse is only half quoted, or that the point of her chart is completely destroyed if the entire verse is quoted.

    Her claim is that the NASB is saying that it doesn’t matter who one trusts in, that it is the steadfastness of mind that results in peace. She goes so far as to claim that people would not seek psychologists so much if the translators of the NASB had not translated as they do.

    Now look at the two translations of the full verse, side by side:

    NASB KJV
    “The steadfast of mind You will keep in perfect peace,
    Because he trusts in You.    		 Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.

    Now notice that the claim that the “steadfastness of mind” is somehow presented as adequate for perfect peace is completely false. The fact of dependence on God is made clear by two factors: 1) God is the one who keeps the person in perfect peace, and 2) the reason for the peace is that the person trusts in God. Of course these very plain statements are removed in Riplinger’s deceptive chart.

    Now on the internet today I find her response to White. This isn’t terribly recent, but it just caught my attention. The response is just as deceitful as the original:

    White hopes his readers are as weak in grammar, syntax and theology as he is. He tells easily noted outright lies, which only the “simple” (Rom. 16:18) will swallow. He begins his lambast, storming:

    “[T]he rest of the verse actually contains the ‘key words’ she alleges are missing!…This kind of actual miscitation of the modern versions is rampant throughout the text of her work.”

    If White can find the missing words “on thee” in that verse in his NASB, I’ll give him $1 million dollars. He is lying, the rest of the verse does NOT “actually contain the key words she alleges are missing!” His accusations fall under the category of “false allegations” (not “fair comment”) in the courts.

    Actually, as I’ve pointed out, those words are there. But Riplinger apparently believes that by blustering and using strong terminology she can intimidate people into missing them. Of course they are not in her chart. But they are in the NASB.

    After ranting about psychology in the church (you can read the whole thing here), Riplinger continues:

    One cannot pretend, as White does, that because the words “in Thee” are a part of the next subject (he), verb (trusteth), and prepositional modifier (in Thee), that they have any grammatical connection to the earlier sentence and its syntax. The KJV has BOTH “on thee” in part one AND “in thee” in part two. The NASB omits one, thereby changing the meaning. White misses, not only the grammatical differences and hence the factual differences here, but he misses the basic biblical distinction between the heart, which trusts in God, and the mind which thinks on God. The “because” phrase tells WHY it works; it does not tell WHAT works.

    Considering how much she rants about White’s English comprehension, Riplinger should perhaps study a bit of literature herself. In poetry, words can pull double duty, but even that is not the point here. The NASB correctly translates the Hebrew phrase “in you” precisely the number of times it occurs. It carries additional freight in this verse because of the Hebrew parallelism, but that is very clear in any of the major versions.

    This is a case of misrepresentation, and that misrepresentation is stubbornly maintained down to the present by Riplinger. James White is correct in his analysis of the passage.

    Note: Updated 3/30/08 to place blockquotes around this section. I respond to the issue of italics elsewhere. These words are quoted.

    The KJV uses italics when the theological sense of a verse demands the insertion of English words to accurately complete a Hebrew thought. It is the only translation that is honest in this way. Both the NIV and NASB insert 1000’s of words, but give the reader no clue as to which words are inserted. One NIV editor’s article “When Literal Is Not Accurate” gives expression to the frequent use (6000 in the NIV) of such insertions.

    The veracity of the italics in the KJV have been proven true to such a degree that this author feels no need to pick them out and set them apart as uninspired. The ten words in italics in 1John 2:23 have since been vindicated by ancient manuscript discoveries. Note the following ‘miraculous’ coincidences:

    * The italics of Ps. 16:8 are quoted by Paul in the Greek text of Acts 2:25.
    * The italics of Is. 65:1 are quoted by Paul in the Greek text of Rom. 10:20.
    * The italics of Ps. 94:11 are quoted by Paul in the Greek text of 1 Cor. 3:20.
    * The italics of Deut. 25:4 are quoted by Paul in the Greek text of 1 Cor. 9:9.
    * The italics of Deut. 8:3 are quoted by Jesus in the Greek text of Matt. 4:4.

    I miscited nothing; my allegations regarding the NASB’s omission are true. White’s wrong again.

    Update 3/30/08: Note that even though I did not respond here at the time I wrote this post, this issue of the use of italics, and the very suggestion that the italics are quoted in Greek is ludicrous.