Isaiah 9-10

After the incredible prophecy of the child to be born, the everlasting Prince of Peace (vv.1-8), there is a more sober message. This message comes with greater immediacy – it’s not just in the future (1) but is already rooted, it has already begun: The Lord has sent a message against Jacob; it will fall on Israel (8).

(9:8-12) whatever the talk of proud rebuilding, Ephraim and Samaria [Northern Kingdom] will be destroyed by Aramean and Philistine.
(13-17) the people have not sought the LORD; the leaders mislead, and even the ‘victims’ [fatherless and widow] are guilty
(18-21) wickedness burns, and so the LORD’s anger burns; the people will turn against each other
(10:1-4) those who make unjust laws will soon have no one to turn to
(10:5-19) Assyria, agent of God’s wrath, is too proud, and so he too will be judged with fire. [Note that this is prmarily a judgement on the Northern Kingdom, but it will spill over against the South, Judah, too (10:10-12). There seems to be some hope for Judah in all this – the judgement is not so devastating against her… yet. It will have the effect of purging wickedness, as we will discover in 10:20ff.]

This judgement will not be a simple or clean affair, either. Four times the refrain is heard, Yet for all this, his anger is not turned away, his hand is still upraised (12b, 17b, 21b, 10:4b).

This talk of divine wrath should make us uncomfortable, but lest we try to wriggle away by claiming there are moral problems for God (‘how can God be a God of wrath?’ many ask; ‘surely he should be on trial’…) we need to look at how humans are implicated in the exectution of God’s wrath. The obvious example is Assyria, like a club (10:5) or axe (15) in the LORD’s hand, and yet still with its own intentions and ideas of grandeur (7-11) without regard for the Almighty who rules over history. [Some version of compatibilism best explains the way the Bible always speaks of the interweaving of divine and human purpose and interaction.]

Secondly, back in chapter 9, more shockingly, we read of Israelite devouring Israelite: part of the judgement is that the people will be given over to their most selfish and brutish instincts (9:19b-21). Experiencing the wrath of God in history is not pleasant – but don’t blame God, for it is often humans who devour each other. Being given over to unrestrained human wickedness may sound fun initially (‘wahey! Lots of indulgence, please’) but very quickly it is not fun at all. Second half of Romans 1.

In history and in Jewish telling of it the Northern Kingdom and its inhabitants did not fare well. Read 2 Kings 17 for the condescending write-up of their destruction. The fall of Samaria does not even feature in the Chronicler's account of the divided monarchy period - the Northern Kingdom simply slips off the pages around chapter 28 of 2 Chronicles.

Isaiah 8

(1-4) narrative
(1-2) the LORD commands Isaiah reagarding a tablet, a name and reliable witnesses
(3) narrative of conception and birth of Isaiah’s son
(4) the LORD tells of imminent judgement on Syria and Israel, related to this son’s name
(5-10) prophecy of near-destruction of Judah
(5-8) Judah trusts in Syria and Israel, so a river is coming
(9-10) addressed to Judah as an epilogue of hope? Or to a remnant? Or by a remnant?
(11-22) narrative and prophecy mixed

The LORD speaks and Isaiah also speaks to his disciples (16-18, “biographical note”). The focus is on how God is to be trusted, so don’t listen to the whisperings and occult dealings around you.

(6) Rejoicing over: in the sense that Ahaz’s folly in linking himself with Assyria might have appeared to be a cause for rejoicing as Samaria and Damascus fell. But Assyria did not stop there, and in the reign of Ahaz’s own son (Hezekiah) the cruel empire turned its devastating attention to Judah (look at the understated way this horror is narrated in Isaiah 36ff.).

Isaiah’s children, and even Isaiah himself are signs and portents in Israel from the Lord of hosts (18), that’s why they are to have funny names. But of course, the names are not ‘funny’, they are both terrible and wonderful. Maher-shalal-hashbaz is all about imminent destruction, and Immanuel (see discussion of Isaiah 7) is all about God’s presence with the faithful. This child Immanuel is alluded to (vv. 8d, 10d) just before and at the end of the mysterious epilogue to the destruction (verses 9-10).

The reason why this is a little mysterious is that vv.5-8 are talking about Judah, and the thrust of the passage is ‘you have trusted in Assyrian men , and they will betray you once they have destroyed your other enemies’. So, why is Judah called ‘O Immanuel’ (God-with-us) at the end of verse 8, a title that seems to speak not of judgement but protection? And who are the peoples and far countries who are taking counsel in verses 9 and 10? Why this change of tone? – such that the Immanuel of v.10b is clearly a positive invocation of the name…

Recall chapter 7, in which the sign of the child Immanuel is a sign first of judgement on Syria and Israel (7:16) and then on Judah herself (7:17). The name of the child is, proximately, a rebuke to Ahaz and his cronies, a reminder of their failure to trust that God was indeed with them. But the actual meaning of the name is that God is with us. With whom? With at least some of the people of Judah – perhaps a ‘remnant’, whose existence is hinted at in the name of another of Isaiah’s sons, Shear-Jashub (a remnant shall return) whom we met in chapter 7 before the arrival of Immanuel.

We will of course hear a lot more about this remnant in chapter 10, but my concern is with what we know so far…

So, Immanuel is all about the remnant, and this is how the prophecies can both threaten and comfort Judah at the same time. And of course, the remnant is in some ways a type of the whole [faithful, if only] nation, so this shifting ‘us’/‘people’/etc. is not linguistic equivocation but rich theology.

Thus, verses 9 and 10 seem to be the words of the remnant as they speak to the nations – Israel, Syria, Assyria and even to apostate Judah (Ahaz’s administration and the sinful nation as a whole, since v.17 says that God is hiding his face from the [whole] house of Jacob) about successive waves of physical calamity: “Do your worst militarily. God is with us!”

(12) so-called conspiracy: Aram and Samaria plotting against Judah. God’s message is clear – as it happens you don’t need to worry about these trifling kings, you need to worry about me (HOLY and the rest of verse 13) and about judgement coming on both houses of Israel (14-15).

(14-15) are terrifying in the Hebrew [see Grogan in Expositor’s Bible Commentary]: just seven words, five concatenating verbs, four of which alliterate.

(16-18) the biographical note from the prophet himself, to underscore the importance of this testimony, a testimony that contradicts all the chatter of the politicians and their plots and manoueverings. (19-22) yet more on the importance of that testimony, in combination with God’s instruction [=the Law?] as people are surrounded by the temptation to look for wisdom from occult sources, something not unheard of today.

In fact, speaking in accord with this testimony turns out to be the litmus test (20b): either you curse God angrily in darkness, or you enjoy light and relief from distress (9:1)…

Isaiah 9a

In the spirit of shuffling the order around... This discussion between me and Gordon was about 8:19-9:7

(8:19-22) Enquire of the LORD, not of the dead, which will lead to stumbling in darkness and distress
(9:1) distress and gloom will end for some, and God will honour Galilee of the Gentiles
(9:2-7) poetic promise
(2-5) scenes of joy: darkness to light, harvest, victory, destruction of yoke and even of weapons.
(5-6) a child is born who will reign forever, over everything, named with divine names; ‘the zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this’.

What is the connection between the end of chapter 8 (warning against mediums and spiritists) and the incredible prophecy at the start of chapter 9? Linguistic and thematic.

present problems (8:19-22) = darkness (22)
darkness (9:1-2) – will not be for all because of coming light (1-7)

Darkness and lack of spiritual guidance link the passages. But does history link them? What does the Messianic hope of 9:1-8 have to tell the people of Isaiah’s community, the remnant (8:18)? Alec Motyer says that the remnant are presently sustained by future hope (idiomatic use of the prophetic past tense throughout the passage) that is certain. The darkness was fulfiled very soon – apostate Jews did turn to mediums and spiritists (8:19) and Zebulum and Naphtali (9:1) were the first regions to fall to Assyria. So the take-home question is, what reading of our experiece are we going to live by? – we can sink into gloom or we can live in hope, sustained by trust in the word of God.

Hope is part of the constitution of the here and now (Motyer).
Think about Heb 11:1, and ‘faith is the substance of what is hoped for’ (R.C. Sproul on a Ligonier video) – which I have glossed as ‘the bringing to present manifestation that which will be fully realised in future reality’. That’s what faith does – it makes real by action now a taste of what God has promised. At a simple level, the child trusts its mother’s “Everything’s going to be alright” by calming down at those words, and acting as though everything is OK (thereby assenting, “Oh, it is OK for me, whatever’s going on outside and whatever I think I lack”) even if that state of affairs takes an hour or so to prove.

So the remnant around Isaiah get some joy through this hope and their faith in God’s promises. Zechariah, father of John the Baptist gets more joy (Luke 1:68-79) and even alludes to this prophecy of Isaiah. We get more joy post-resurrection, post-Pentecost… It’s all moving on the continuum towards the New Creation.

Who is the child of vv.6-7?
Unlike the children of chapter 7, this child is not a Jewish boy of Isaiah’s day; it is not Hezekiah, son of king Ahaz…
• Hezekiah is already a teenager at this point
• it was in Hezekiah’s reign that the darkness would most dramatically fall
• his kingdom was far from everlasting, etc.

What will happen around him?
(1) honour Galilee of the Gentiles – the only time a prophet refers to the place like this, hinting of the future unity between Jew and Gentile in the body of Christ (Ephesians 2).
(3) you have enlarged the nation – great news for a small, pressed remnant
(7) universal government from David’s throne – picking up the current mess. The Northern kingdom is spiritually dead and on the brink of military disaster [‘despite the magnificent defensive action of the prophets’, AMGD] and the perimeter of David’s throne seems to be shrinking rather rapidly. Set this perimeter in the wider biblical context, and we see the sanctuary from which to transform the world:

Eden – Israel (waxes, wanes, remnant holds it together) – Jesus (holy seed)

The sanctuary theme thus narrows to one man [in Isaiah 9 we are in the midst of the narrowing and get a foretaste of the one man], who is the temple, who is the presence of God, who is the representative of God, who does bring salvation, joy, light and honour to his people!

This prophecy signals a new tone in the book. Less judgement against Judah now until chapter 21.


Random thought
How does this all fit with Tim Chester’s exciting new millennial typology? What do these strands in the early chapters of Isaiah have to say about this?

And can we demonstrate (not just nod our assent, tempting though that might be) how to fit the various eschatological writings of the church over the years into this typology?

Isaiah 5

Found my notes at last! Stuffed into Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, My Brother’s Keeper…

(1-2) preamble, the story of the vineyard

(3-7) the lawcourt and threat of punishment / (7) summary of charges

(8-23) SIX WOES

(8) – the charge of “joining field to field”

(11) – the charge of luxury

(18) – the charge of deceit and mocking God

(20) – the charge of moral reversals

(21) – the charge of self-assurance

(22) – the charge of bad, drunken judges

(24-25) the LORD will judge those who have rejected him and his justice

(26-30) the LORD will call in foreign armies to complete the judgement

The message of judgement continues. Here in chapter 5 it is unremitting. The setting is the lawcourt, a three-party system – plaintiff, defendant and judge. In this scenario YHWH ironically calls upon the men of Judah (3) to be the judge between himself as plaintiff and his vineyard (the whole people). Under this system someone was always guilty (either of the crime in question or of making a false accusation) and someone was always innocent. The system is outlined when Israel’s own corrupt judges are lambasted in verse 23 – there are the guilty (acquitted) and the innocent (denied justice).

This calls to mind another Hebrew lawcourt in Scripture, Romans 1-3. In that setting God is both judge and plaintiff, and humans (both Jew and Gentile) are the defendant. One of Paul’s concerns there is to undermine the smugness of the Jew who presumes himself to be plaintiff against the Gentile with the Law as his witness (esp. Rom 2:17ff.). But the overall scenario is there to face up to the question, how can God justiy the unjust? (Rom 4:5) Only by the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ – if the wicked are to be justified, someone else must be punished on their behalf (esp. Rom 3:21-26).

The WOES, the charges against the people here in Isaiah 5 are not pleasant reading…

8-10 The Jubilee principle is broken, and the greedy rich paint themselves into a corner that they fondly imagine gives them security. Like the rich fool in Jesus’ parable (Luke 12:13-21) they are all alone, not even enjoying abundant life now despite their great riches and still storingup judgement for themselves and the removal of those riches.

11-17 Alcohol comes in with arrogance: both the workaholic rich and the lazy rich turn to drugs and alcohol today. God’s justice towards them exalts him – of course it does, for he is proved just by his judgement. Deep down we cry out for judgement, we need it…

18-19 Denial of God’s immanence enables them to support their own dodgy behaviour

20 False prophets always call evil good and good evil, for they are usually on the side of the oppressor

21 Pride, and pretending to deserve congratulation for their injustice simply because it has rendered them materially wealthy

22-25 Wine is back! Reminds us of the vineyard setting, and the abuse of something good. This leads to the perversion of justice elsewhere, too, “and the rest is history” (AMGD).

This passage is of course developed by Jesus in his tussle with the Pharisees in Matthew 21, the Parable of the Tenants. [The Parable of the Two Sons that precedes it also recalls some of these vineyard themes.] Here is an outline of some similarities…

Isaiah 5	Matthew 21, 23 & 24
1-2 Story of the Vineyard (version 1) 3-6 Story of the Vineyard (version 2)	21:28-32 First Parable of the Vineyard (Sons) 33-41 Second Parable of the Vineyard (Tenants)
5-7 summary and promise of judgement	42-46 summary and promise of judgement
8-23 WOES against people, especially their leaders	23:1-39 WOES against the Pharisees (leaders) including a coda about the people
24 Judgement on Judah through foreign invasion (Assyria, Babylon)	24:1-51 Judgement on Israel (and in AD70 there was an unprecedented foreign devastation)

Isaiah 7

This is a particularly artificial place to break the text. 7:1-9:7 is all one section.

During the reign of Ahaz – a bad king – who was under pressure from Aram and Israel (Syria is in league with Ephraim, 3) to create a 3-way alliance against Assyria, which he was so far resisting (good choice) but this led to military action against his kingdom…

(1-2) Judah beseiged and afraid

(3-9) God’s reassurance to Ahaz via Isaiah: a message of “trust or bust” (Motyer)

(10-17) Ahaz refuses to ask for a sign (bust) so God gives it to him anyway!

(18-25) Assyrian invasion is coming against Aram and Israel

It is not clear whether 7:18-25 also tells of judgement against Judah. Certainly, the Assyrians are used as agents of God’s judgement on the Southern Kingdom by the time we reach chapter 8 (we are told of a flood up to the neck in 8:8 and only Jerusalem will be unharmed) but here the focus of the trouble, apart from v.17, seems to be on Rezin and Pekah, while the focus of the words is indeed for Ahaz and Judah.

NB.
722BC – Assyria overruns Aram
722BC – Assyria overruns Israel (this invading king in Isaiah 7, Pekah, is the penultimate ruler of the northern kingdom [2 Kgs 16-17] so his sabre-waving did his line no good)
701BC – Assyria scours Judah, though the nation survives this time…

Having just seen the amazing kingship of YHWH in chapter 6, we pass over a human king (Jotham) and move to Uzziah’s grandson, Ahaz. 2 Kings 16 shows him (later on in his reign) undermining the kingship of YHWH out of deference to the King of Assyria (see the stimulating thoughts from Peter Leithart on this intriguing passage). He also breaks the Law with his innovative sacrifices, so it is no wonder that in Isaiah 7:7-9 we find him as a man without faith. Ahaz is the first recorded person to fall under the judgement promised in Isaiah 6:9-13, one of the people who hear but who do not understand, who see but do not perceive.

What is going on with the sign that YHWH gives?

The elements are a boy called Immanuel (14), during whose lifetime, indeed while he is still a child (15), Aram and Israel will be laid waste (16).

Curds and honey (15) are not to be seen as a reference to the land flowing with milk and honey (promise of blessing) but are such as a devastated land might produce (21-25). [Note that the Assyrian army/rage is pictured as a bee in verse 18!]

Who is the child?
Perhaps the son of a favourite courtier. Perhaps Isaiah’s son – since this whole section features another two of the prophet’s children as specially-named signs (7:3, 8:3-4 and the summary in 8:18). In any case, his name, “God with us” will be a constant reminder to Ahaz of what he refused to grasp and trust in – the presence of God with his people to protect and save them. Verse 11 was God giving him a chance to demonstrate faith – and with his false piety he betrayed his lack of trust. So, the sign is for a faithless man, to remind him of coming judgement on him and others who will not trust (17).

In what sense does Matthew 1:22-23 work, then?
The context of the nation and the message God has for his people is very similar…

• a sinful people
• ruled over by a bad king with foreign alliances
• but a faithful remnant (Isaiah’s son, Shear-jashub, “a remnant will remain” [3], stand for those people who are not faithless like Ahaz, oppressing the poor, etc., as chs 1-5 have decried)
• in particular, a faithful woman
• chosen to bear a special son
• who will be the presence of God with the faithful
• preserving them through imminent judgement (710BC and 586BC vs. AD70)

Hope at a time of judgement is crucial. That is what Jesus offered and continues to offer

Isaiah 6 (ii)

Some of these ramblings may be of interest to anyone reading Isaiah. Most of them may not, but this is my blog, and I'm very excited each time Gordon and I study a chapter together!

Remember the kingship of YHWH – don’t jump too soon to His holiness.

And yet, is the whole earth… filled with his glory (3) because of his holiness? We know that under the right circumstances God’s holiness is communicable – Leviticus has a lot about conagious holiness in it. And is the temple shaken because the seraphs are shouting loudly, or because they are shouting about holiness? [GD; whereas I think that this probing tends towards making divine attributes mecahnistic. It’s easy to be distracted by questions about the relationship between matter and the being of God (as in the resurrected Christ’s eating of fish in a creation still subject to decay) but probably it doesn’t add much…]

Holiness – people need protecting from God’s holiness (a moral, rather than ontological category) and that’s what much of the detail of the law was about – to permit God to dwell among his people without breaking out against them for their sins. So the altar is operating in the temple (which is surely the real temple in Jerusalem, not all in Isaiah’s head) as verse 6 tells us. Perhaps all that smoke (4b) is coming from the altar, serving a dual purpose of being a pleasing aroma to YHWH so that he will not immediately destroy the impurity around him and also protecting Isaiah from clearly seeing the figure on the throne (1).

The temple’ curtain is now torn in two (Mark 15:38), such that God can get out and come and sit next to us, while we can get in to him – in Christ alone. We have access to the most holy place through Christ (Hebrews 4:14-16, 10:19-25), we are washed and purified, and all this is happening now. Hebrews 12:18-25 reminds us that God is still just as formidable, and his word is still as powerful. But now there is access, not smoke, access to the real temple (Heb. 9:11-12) on the real Mount Zion.

The purification of Isaiah’s lips is a wonderful, personal picture, but it’s still within the system of repeated animal sacrifices. This raises the question of what those sacrifices do for him after this event [not to mention the question of whether or not the coal gave to Isaiah, a faithful member of the (remnant?) covenant community, assurance (much more likely in my opinion) rather than initial salvation, though we have to be careful about our NT spectacles in all this…]. Remember Leviticus I have given you an atonement, so we know that atonement is not self-generated by the worshipper and the intrinsic quality of his offering.

And there is the dimension of fellowship around food that the sacrifices display and embody – the LORD consumes part, the priests get their portion and the worshipper and his family eat as well.

We say that the thinking Jew knows that the animal per se does not make atonement – that is a gift from God. So existentially where does their knowledge of justification come from?

GD: in the once-for-all moment of realisation

JW: possibly in the ongoing covenant observance

And yet, the sacrificial system had built-in flaws – its endless repetition and the use of animal for human. Hebrews 7 is very scathing about its efficacy! And before we leave Isaiah 6 altogether, it’s time to draw stumps…

Isaiah 6 (i)

My notes on Isaiah 5 have gone walkies... :(

(1-4) In the year King Uzziah died, the LORD appears, enthroned in the Temple, surrounded by seraphs who proclaim his holiness

(5) Isaiah’s response – woe is me, for I have unclean lips

(6-7) atonement for Isaiah as a result of the operation of the altar

(8) The LORD calls out for a messenger

(9) Isaiah’s response – here I am, send me

(9b-13) Command to proclaim the people’s unrepentance to them – for how long, O Lord? – until there has been almost total devastation. But the holy seed will yet survive…

NB. King Uzziah was generally a decent bloke, but he entered the Temple unlawfully (2 Chronicles 26) in an act of hubris. So his last few years were marred by a nasty disease.

The year Uzziah dies, is also the year that another king, Jotham, is crowned – so at the time of changeover we see the contrast – YHWH doesn’t die, succeed anyone, need crowning with human hands, etc. The splendour of YHWH’s kingship [the international kingship of God is prominent in chs 2 and 9, as well] is also needed to put all the discussion of rulers, kings and kingdoms in the rest of the book into perspective (and to provide context for the Servant Songs, for the servant is a divine ruler, too…).

Do we play down the kingship of God and all its trappings because of our disillusionment with contemporary politics – both in its structure (which we pretend to support, though we pay it only lip service) and its practice (which, in rather self-defeating fashion, we delight in mocking)? It’s very easy to dash onto the holiness of God in this passage, but we should focus first on the kingship, and seek to work this out in every area (including science, for example, as Alexander & White’s, Beyond Belief, which denies the existence of ‘methodological naturalism’, as some believers want to call it, since God is king of all and there is no autonomous ‘nature’).

The kingship of God also keeps the fatherhood of God from becoming sentimental in our thinking. [NB. The Pope is not the Holy Father, God is – sorry to bring that up, as I feel a lot more ecumenical than I did when I was a firey undergraduate, but certain elements in Roman Catholicism are really offensive.] Kingship and Fatherhood are together through the whole Scripture – just look at Adam, son of God, steward/vice-regent of God…

The kingly fatherhood of God comforts us when we have to deal with Alzheimers and all the other effects of ageing. Not a sentimental pat on the shoulder from an ineffective beardo, but the Almighty Himself is a Father to us and guarantees our inheritance and our glory as part of his care for us.

For all this comfort, we must remember covenant judgement. You can’t try to set up on your own (10-13). God is holy, indescribably so, and this gives Isaiah the willies, rather than the awesome majesty of YHWH the King. This holiness means that sin and corruption must be judged and destroyed, which spells bad news for us, unless God provides a way for us to ‘catch’ his holiness and participate in it somehow, unless he forgives our sins. Which he does for Isaiah (6-7), and this transforms the distraught, hopeless viewer into a dynamic servant of the King (5 versus 8b).

Isaiah 3 and 4

(1-7) The LORD is about to take away supplies and leaders from Jerusalem and Judah

(8-9) for they brazenly deny the eyes of his glory and have stumbled and fallen

(10-11) the fate of the righteous will be good, but not so the wicked

(12-17) the LORD as judge and prosecutor of OPPRESSION and VANITY – the leaders of Zion, and of haughty women

(18-4:1) in that day the finey and the mighty men will be stripped away

(4:2-6) in that day the branch of the LORD shall be beautiful and glorious: the LORD will cleanse and protect…

The tenses blend present and future. ‘I will make boys and children rule’ (4) and ‘now youth and women rule’ (12). Does this make the future more vivid? Or is the LORD threatening to give them over (4) to what they already glory in (12), à la Romans 1:24?

To ponder:

Inadequate leadership is a major problem – not just inadequate but actively oppressive (14) at this period. The shocking thought is, however, is that one of God’s acts of judgement is to give crummy leaders to the people. He removes the good, what you might call the substantial citizens (1-3) along with the dodgy “clever enchanter” [Motyer; ESV, diviner] who is there, too. He replaces them with the bad (4,5, 12) and even with comedy leaders (6) – the people are so desperate they’ll accept anyone who owns a cloak…

These bad leaders oppress instead of tending the vineyard, especially oppressing the poor. They spend their time on consumption and on parading their wealth.

The chronology of the judgement is not clear but it is implied that judgement (18), hardship & degredation (4:1) and safety & cleansing (4:2-6) will come “at once”, as it were. [NB. The ESV reading of 4:4 suggests that at least some of the daughters of Zion will be cleansed and so will be among the survivors; Motyer and Dalzell argue that ‘the filth of the women’ = the sinful women themselves.]

But in that day who will be left in Zion? How do you get left in Zion?

We know they will be the righteous (3:10), to whom a specific message is given, but we don’t hear much more about them. Rather, we hear a lot about what the LORD will do…

The categories are bursting!
in Israel
in Zion
remain in Jerusalem
cleanse Jerusalem of bloodstains
cloud over all of Mount Zion…

This suggests something much greater than just a mountain in Palestine! Like so much of the OT, these prophecies point beyond themselves – compare the sacrifices, the temple, the monarchy… To take them literally would mean a JW-style reading, with just enough physical space (in square metres) for a limited number of people (the JW’s annointed ones?), which is what many dispensationalists do. (1) Verses 5-6 pick up the Exodus imagery of God’s protection, which is clearly not to be understood literalistically. (2) What about all the faithful Jews who lived out in the sticks!? Clearly no original reader of the OT would have taken Mount Zion physically and literalistically, but as representative: Jerusalem/Zion, here = the faithful people of God. And represenatation is crucial to God’s dealings with humanity! (Adam represents YHWH to the earth, Jesus represents God to man and man to God, etc.)

To run for a moment with the dispy-style interpretation of this and similar prophecies… It’s very tempting, granted, especially since the recent history of the state of Israel is remarkable (militarily and economically), and partial literal readings of the OT prophecy are not completely incoherent. Maybe there is a literal return to the land foretold? Maybe there is privilege in being Jewish?

If so, only in a small way – the big thing is the faithful from every nation inheriting the earth (Beatitudes, Revelation)! Nevertheless, the broken-off branches will be grafted back on (Romans) IF…

…there is acknowledgement of the rule of God and his Christ – which there is not
…righteousness characterises the people, which it does not
…there is fair treatment of the alien – which there is not

ETC.

So the dangers of the dispy-style reading are revealed in the uncritical support of Israelis, which multiplies injustice in Palestine today. Those Jews who return to the land while remaining unbelievers are theologically insignificant. As Walter Kaiser says, God can re-run AD70 if he has to. Sobering thought, and not one that US dispys would like to try to put in their systems! Instead, they participate in the classic ‘Armageddon Now!’ fervour, a self-centred approached to prophecy that sees it all happening to the interpreter’s generation. Oh please…

The Branch (4:2)

A person? The survivors themselves? The produce/supply of the refreshed land? (Calvin and modern liberals are agreed on the third reading!)

If the Branch is Messianic here – and it certainly is in chapter 11 – this fits the first two readings, given that they actually come from a theological understanding of Jesus, such that the Messiah is not merely a bloke, a single figure, but a corporate figure of blessing and rule. “Branch” will be broadened as we go through Isaiah, even if right now we hear only future echoes…

Isaiah 2

(1-4) The future pre-eminence of Zion
(5) so, let us walk in the light of the LORD
(6-18) God has abandoned Jacob because of their idolatry, sorcery and wealth: a day is coming for all the proud and lofty [in Israel or in the world?]
(19-21) this day will be terrible and many will flee to caves to hide from the LORD
(22) stop trusting in man!

The predictions of judgement and calls to repentance continue in the same vein until the first verse of chapter 4. However, chapter 2 has a more ‘worldwide’ feel to it (excepting vv.6-8) while 3:1-4:1 focuses more on Judah and Jerusalem.

Elevation and abasement are the main spatial themes here.The great hope is the bringing in of the nations (that’s us).

1-4 is a daring vision, since Isaiah had only some Psalms and possibly Amos 9 available as precedents – and this is a more vivid passage than any of them.

Note the arrogance of the United Nations in taking a phrase from this passage (swords into ploughshares) and claiming to be bringing that about, inscribing it on a foundation stone at their HQ. The CIA plays equally fast and loose with “the truth shall set you free”.

The mountain here is the pre-eminence of the King (Jesus) and his kingdom (the church), along with the authority of the King and the honour due to him (as the church grows, so more people flock to the mountain of the LORD to honour the King). The physical mountain has been superceded; there’s no way to fit this in to a date-setting (or more circumspect) pre-millennial eschatology involving an actual lump of rock in the Middle East. We can also note that there is no mention of human mission in this vision. The law doesn’t go out in any particular way – so the emphasis is on what God accomplishes. However, verses 1 and (especially) 5 hint at the role of God’s people in this.

Verse 4 should find several fulfilments: in the immediate fellowship of the church family; in larger communities coexisting peacefully (through the efforts of Protestant Irish Republicans, for example?); perfectly, at the return of Christ.

Regarding the second one, did the medieval papacy bring this about at all? Or maybe in the pacification and conversion of the Bulgars by Byzantium in the 10^th/11^th century? Or the Saxons or the Irish before that…? We always need to ask the question implied in verse 3: “was it of the LORD?” So, to equate the political influence of established churches with this process is not so easy to do (of course we would say that, we’re quasi-congregationalist Protestants!) and perhaps the work of Wyclif and Hus is more like it.

The judgements of 6-22 also find their fulfilment then (destruction of Jerusalem by Babylonians), now (as the proud are humbled, die to sin and bow the knee to Christ) and in the future (at final judgement). Note the frightening image of along-suffering and patient God getting up out of his throne in 19-21...

Isaiah 1

The first selection from some thoughts from studies I have just begun with a retired pastor who has been a great and godly influence on me over the last 5 years...

Isaiah 1

(1) announcement of recipient of vision and its duration, four kings' worth...
(2-4) The LORD says that his people have rebelled and are utterly estranged
(5-8) The LORD asks why the people continue to rebel even as they are desolate
(9) the survivors reflect on their close shave
(10-15) conparing them to S and G, the LORD declares their religious observance to be worthless
(16-20) commands to remove evil, bring justice to fatherless & widow, and promise of the good of the land
(21-23) the faithful city has become a whore, its population all corrupt
(24-31) the LORD declares his vengeance on foes, and purging of dross from Zion, renewing her but burning up those who forsake Him...

To ponder:
The more specific the prophecies are in no reference to real, particular events, the harder it is to give distinctively 'Christian' interpretation. Is the desolation of vv.5-8 the occupation of the land by Sennacherib during Hezekiah's reign? If so, is the rescue alluded to at the end of chapter merely the removal of the Assyrian army?

Maybe, but chapter 1 is not the complete vision of Isaiah. The time of the redemption and the nature of the redemption and the amazing effects of the redemption return again and again in the prophecy. Our understanding of Sion's future in Isaiah should not merely come from chapter 1. Instead, we must allow our vision to be gradually broadened as the book unfolds. Even allowing for hyperbole, something bigger than a seventh century military conflict is in view.

The covenant people of God are addressed corporately in Isaiah 1: how does this work for Christians today? Are we addressed corporately? If so, is that as universal Church, denomination or congregation? [This then raises the whole question of the organisational unity of God's new covenant people. Does Revelation 1-3 have something to say about the functional independence of different congregations from each other, and about the possibility that individual churches/denominations can lose their lampstand, ie. come under judgement? If so, can we ever be sure of identifying that? You can tell that ecclesiology is exercising my mind these days...!]

The most striking teaching of the passage to the contemporary evangelical reader today is verses 15-17: God will not hear our prayers if we ignore social injustice and the plight of the marginalised within the covenant community. So who are the widows and orphans known to me? And how seriously do I take Paul's cry that to abandon care of your relatives is to deny the faith?