Day: February 14, 2022

February 14: Song of Songs 1:1

The Song of Songs

This begins a series of detailed exegetical notes on the Song of Songs, one of the more fascinating and provocative books of Scripture for Jews and Christians. A study of the Song will be the focus of the daily notes throughout the months of February and March. I have chosen Feb 14 (Valentine’s Day) as an appropriate moment to begin this series.

Introduction

I will leave a thorough introduction and summary of the book until this series of notes has been completed. However, several points are worth making at the outset.

To begin with, there is the rather obvious issue of the sexual nature of the Song of Songs, and the longstanding problem this has caused devout Jews and Christians (many of whom are celibate or would affirm celibacy in some measure). The poetry of the Song is love poetry, erotic in character, and dealing quite frankly with the idea of sexual desire. There have been many ways Jews and Christians have sought to explain the inclusion of such poetry as sacred Scripture, and to accommodate the eroticism of the Song within more acceptable religious parameters. Three main interpretive approaches can be noted:

    • The Allegorical-Symbolic Approach—this interprets the love poetry of the Song as an allegory between God and Israel, or between Christ and the Church, or between God/Christ and the soul of the believer, etc.
    • The Mystical-Spiritual Approach—here, the sexual desire and longing in the Song represents the desire/longing of the believer for spiritual union with God, and the entire Song is interpreted, more or less, through this lens.
    • The Religious-Cultural Approach—the sexuality of the Song is generally accepted and taken at face value, but only as regulated, in religious and cultural terms, through the institution of marriage; in other words, the Song exclusively refers to marital love (or of courtship that leads to marriage).

I will not comment here any further on these (or other) approaches, except to state that they all, in various ways, distort the meaning of the Song. They say far more about the concerns of the interpreter than they do the original background/setting of the Song itself, and often do not seem to be rooted in a sound exegesis of the text. In these notes, I will be studiously avoiding any preconceived interpretive approach, with the hopes of allowing the text to speak for itself (as far as possible).

However, it should also be noted that the Song of Songs poses many technical difficulties for the commentator (and translator). In addition to the nature of the poetry itself (for which there very few contemporary parallels, and almost none elsewhere in the Old Testament), the Song contains many rare or obscure words and phrases, including a good number of hapax legomena—i.e., words that occur just once in the entire Old Testament. In such instances, the lines and verses involved can be extremely difficult to translate and interpret. The commentator may indeed be torn, unsure of which direction to go for help. Should one look to later Hebrew, Aramaic/Syriac, and Arabic sources, or to earlier Semitic texts and inscriptions from Mesopotamia and Canaan (esp. the Ugaritic poetic texts)?

Much depends on the dating of the Song, but here too the evidence (and scholarly opinion) is divided. There is vocabulary and there are stylistic features that argue for a relatively late time of composition (mid/late-1st century B.C.), and other elements that suggest an early Kingdom date (10th/9th century) or even earlier (late Bronze Age). In exploring comparable language and imagery from other Near Eastern love poems, there are parallels to be found from the earliest examples (e.g., Sumerian, Egyptian) all the way down to modern times. The lines of tradition are long indeed, and it can be most difficult to determine what elements from a particular time or place are truly relevant to the background and setting of the Song.

For my part, I have chosen to focus on the milieu which provides the most likely background for the earliest layers and traditions in the Song. This means, primarily, the surviving Bronze Age (2nd millennium) poetry from Mesopotamia (Sumer), Egypt, and Canaan. Fortunately, there are wealth of examples from Sumer and Egypt, and I will be citing a number of these at different points in the notes.

Song of Songs 1:1

“The Song of Songs, which (belongs) to Solomon”

The conventional title, “Song of Solomon”, derives from the heading in verse 1. Clearly, however, “Song of Songs” is more accurate, being essentially a literal translation of the Hebrew expression <yr!yV!h^ ryv!. The syntactical idiom in Hebrew indicates a superlative— “song of (all) songs,” i.e., the greatest of songs. One finds a number of comparable expressions in the Old Testament: e.g., “king of kings” (Dan 2:37; Ezra 7:12), “holy of holies” (Exod 26:33, et al), “heaven of heavens” (1 Kings 8:27), “beauty of beauties” (Jer 3:19), etc. (cf. Pope, p. 294). The Song could certainly be regarded as the ‘greatest of love songs’ —representing as it does, by any standard, one of the finest love poems (or cycle/collection of poems) ever composed. The seemingly paradoxical statement attributed to rabbi Akiba in the Mishnah (Yadayim 3:5) regarding the Song, and reflecting the controversy around its acceptance as sacred Scripture, is worth mentioning:

“…all the Writings are holy, but the Song of Songs is the holiest of the holy.”

The significance of the designation “which (is) to Solomon” remains uncertain. Most commentators today, and traditionally, have understood it in terms of authorship of the Song. That is to say, it was composed by Solomon and thus “belongs to Solomon” (hm)ýv=l! lišlœmœh), with the prefixed preposition l= (“to, for”) denoting “belonging to”. This would tend to be confirmed by comparison with the superscriptions of the Psalms, many of which are indicated as being musical compositions “belonging to David” (dw]d*l= l®¼¹wi¼). If so, then verse 1 almost certainly, like the Psalm headings, belongs to a secondary stage of editing. The use of the relative particle rv#a& suggests this, since the Song itself uses a different particle, the prefixed particle –v, throughout.

The attribution of so many Psalms to David reflects his legendary (traditional) status as a famous musician and singer-poet. In a similar way, it was natural for a wide range of writings to be attributed to the figure of Solomon, whose famous wisdom and prodigious literary output (1 Kings 4:32) were well-established in tradition and legend. Not only were the canonical books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs ascribed to Solomon, but also such works as the Jewish Psalms of Solomon, the Christian Odes of Solomon, and doubtless many others that no longer survive.

At the same time, it is possible to read hm)ýv=l! in the sense of “relating to Solomon,” in the manner, for example, of the titles of the Canaanite epic poems—lkrt, laqht, and lb±l. Since b±l refers to the deity Baal Haddu, clearly lb±l does not mean “written by Baal”, but that the composition is about Baal—that is, he is the subject and main character. Some have interpreted Solomon as the main character of the Song, but there is little evidence for this in the text itself. Instead, along this line, the expression would more properly refer to the period of Solomon’s reign. In other words, the age and kingdom of Solomon is the dramatic setting for the Song, and this would seem to be confirmed by the other references and allusions to Solomon in the Song (to be discussed at the appropriate points in the notes).

Even so, it may still be that the title in verse 1, as it was introduced/applied by a (later) editor, was meant as confirmation of the traditional ascription of the Song to Solomon (as author).

References marked “Pope” above, and throughout these notes, are to Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 7C (1977).

Notes on Prayer: The Last Discourse (Summary)

Conclusion

As a way of bringing to close our study of prayer in the Last Discourse, it is necessary to address several key points.

First, the nature of the requests that believers will make to the Father—that is, the requests made “in Jesus’ name”, which are promised to be answered. These requests are referenced in a comprehensive and open ended manner—i.e., “whatever you would request”. The implication is that every prayer will be answered. This may be affirmed as correct, but only in the qualified sense required by the theological context of the Last Discourse.

In this regard, it may be noted that, in the Gospel of John, there is little or no practical teaching regarding prayer, such as we see at various points in the Synoptic Gospels (the Lord’s Prayer, etc). There is virtually nothing said regarding prayer for the practical necessities of daily life—food and drink, healing from illness, release from suffering, deliverance from persecution and temptation, etc. In fact, if anything, Jesus seems to draw a clear contrast between ordinary food and drink, etc, and the true spiritual nourishment that he provides for believers (4:7-14; 6:22-59; 7:37-39). Even in the Synoptic tradition, in the Lord’s Prayer, personal requests to meet daily needs are clearly subordinated to petitions related to God and His Kingdom.

The focus of the requests in the Last Discourse is defined by the thematic emphases that run through the Discourse-complex; of these, we may draw particular attention to:

    • Understanding of who Jesus is, and his relation to the Father
    • Jesus (the Son) as the one sent by God the Father, who makes known, through word and action, the truth of the Father; believers, in turn, are sent by Jesus to do the same—i.e., make known the truth of God the Father and Jesus the Son
    • The bond of love that unites believers to Father and Son; it is the same bond that unites believers with one another (including those chosen ones who have not yet come to faith)
    • The presence of the Spirit, uniting believers with Father and Son (and each other); through the ministry of believers, the Spirit is communicated to others, even as Jesus communicated it to the first disciples (20:22)

Second, the significance of prayer in Jesus’ name. As previously noted, this cannot be limited to a facile inclusion of the phrase “in Jesus’ name” as part of prayers (though early Christians did adopt this practice). Rather, the phrase is a fundamental mark of identity—that is, those who are true believers in Christ. From the standpoint of Johannine theology, this especially refers to the union of believers with Christ, and of his personal presence abiding in and among them. This emphasis is scarcely unique to the Johannine tradition; it was part of the wider early Christian tradition, including the baptism ritual. Even in the Synoptic Gospels, we find a saying such as in Matt 18:20, where the phrase (“in my name”) clearly indicates the personal (spiritual) presence of Jesus (cf. also Mk 9:37 par).

The Johannine writings go much further in developing the early tradition, especially here in the Last Discourse, where Jesus’ teaching to his disciples is expressed, overwhelmingly, in terms of the Johannine idiom (cp. the language and manner of expression in First John). In the Last Discourse, the abiding presence of Jesus (= “in Jesus’ name”) is defined primarily in terms of: (a) love, and (b) the Spirit. These are addressed in the final two points.

Third, prayer involves fulfillment of the ‘love command’ and is focused on the extension of the bond of love. When one keeps the ‘command(s)’ of Jesus (and of God the Father), the meaning, in the Johannine context, is two-fold. The ‘command’ (or duty) begins with a true trust in Jesus—that is, who he is as the Son of God—and continues (and is completed) as believers love each other, according to the example and teaching of Jesus himself. Jesus’ ultimate prayer (chap. 17) to God the Father was that believers would be united through the bond of love, and this is to be the overriding focus of our prayers, as believers, as well (cf. especially the closing verses 20-26). The mission and ministry of believers, preaching the Gospel and following the example of Jesus in our actions, is a basic sign of love—even to those elect/chosen ones of God who have yet to become believers.

Finally, prayer is centered in the presence and work of the Spirit. The coming of the Spirit is central to the Last Discourse. There are key statements regarding the Spirit in all three of the main divisions of the Discourse-complex: in 14:16-17, 26, in 15:26, and in 16:7ff, 13-15. The Spirit is also called by the descriptive title para/klhto$ (parákl¢tos), “(one who is) called alongside” to give help and assistance.

The references to the Spirit are most notable in the first and third divisions which emphasize the impending departure of Jesus (back to the Father). When Jesus departs, and is no longer physically present with his disciples, the Spirit will be sent to take his place. This is abundantly clear in terms of the framework of the first division, and it is equally clear how closely connected prayer is to the coming of the Spirit. Note the sequence:

    • V. 12: Jesus’ departure (“I am going away”)
    • Vv. 13-14: Prayer/request in Jesus’ name
    • V. 15: Believer’s fulfilling the duty/command of love
    • V. 16: The sending of the Spirit (called “another” para/klhto$, implying that Jesus was the first para/klhto$ [1 Jn 2:1])
    • Vv. 17ff: The Spirit will abide (“remain”, vb me/nw) in and with believers, continuing the presence of Jesus (the Son), and uniting believers with Father and Son

This same sequence is restated in verses 21-27ff (note the context of prayer in vv. 23-24).

In a very real sense, the Spirit is the answer to our prayer. The teaching of Jesus on prayer in Luke 11:1-13 has much the same focus, climaxing with a declaration on God sending the Spirit in answer to his disciples’ prayer (v. 13). The variant reading of the Kingdom-petition in the Lukan version of the Lord’s Prayer (verse 2b [v.l.]) explicitly interprets the coming of God’s Kingdom with the coming of the Spirit. And, indeed, the Spirit is identified with the Kingdom of God, both in the narrative of Luke-Acts and elsewhere in the New Testament (cf. Acts 1:6-7; Rom 14:17; 1 Cor 4:20; 15:50; Gal 5:21ff). As Jesus’ teaching in Luke 12:22-31 par makes clear, our prayer/requests should focus on the Kingdom of God, rather than on our daily needs, etc.

At the same time, the Spirit guides the prayer of believers. This is implied by the description in the Last Discourse of the Spirit’s work, and of the basic idea of the Spirit as “one called alongside [para/klhto$]” to help and assist us. Throughout the book of Acts, the Spirit is depicted as guiding and directing believers in all aspects of their life and ministry, and we may fairly assume that this includes their prayers as well. Paul makes this connection more specific at several points in his letters (cf. Rom 8:26-27, etc). The principle expressed in Rom 8:5 is worth nothing:

“the (one)s (who are) [i.e. who live] according to the Spirit (have their mind on) the (thing)s of the Spirit”

In other words, our thought and intention will (and should) be focused on the Spirit. The clear implication is that our prayer should be focused on the Spirit—its presence, work, and communication to others—as well.

 

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 38 (Part 2)

Psalm 38, continued

In the first part of this Psalm (vv. 2-11 [1-10], cf. the previous study), the protagonist at length laments the illness that afflicts him, recognizing that it may indicate that YHWH is angry with him because of sin that he has committed.

The second part of the composition (vv. 12-17 [11-16]) expands the scope of the Psalmist’s suffering, to including the response/reaction by the people around him. In the final lines of the Psalm (vv. 18-23 [17-22]), all of these themes are summarized and reiterated, and the protagonist offers a final plea to YHWH for deliverance.

Verses 12-17 [11-16]

Verse 12 [11]

“(Those) loving me and my companions (stay away) from what has struck me,
and (those) near to me (now) stand from far off.”

The Masoretic text of the first line is problematic and is likely corrupt. The line is too long, there is a repeated verb (dmu from line 2), and, more to the point, the reading in the Qumran manuscript (4QPsa) is quite different (and the LXX differs as well). I suspect that the Qumran text is rather closer to the original, which in translation might be rendered as follows:

“I have been struck in front of my loved (one)s and companions”

In any case, the main idea is that the Psalmist’s illness, and the effects of it, are conspicuous, taking place “in front of” (dg#n#) his friends and relatives. That it causes fear and revulsion in them is clear enough, especially in context of the second line: “(those) near to me (now) stand far away”. The ‘nearness’ may imply friendship (line 1), or simply proximity (i.e., neighbors).

Verse 13 [12]

“And they would hit (me), (the one)s seeking my soul,
and (the one)s searching evil (for) me say ruinous (thing)s,
and murmur deceitful (thing)s all the day (long).”

If verse 12 gives us the response of those close to the Psalmist, verse 13 describes the reaction of those who are already hostile to him. The ponderous and awkward rhythm of this verse (a rare 4+4+3 tricolon) may be intended to convey poetically the grim burden faced by the Psalmist—with the abuse from his enemies added to the experience of having his friends withdraw from him (v. 12).

The intent of these wicked adversaries is clear by the parallel expressions “seeking my soul” / “searching evil [i.e. harm] for me”. As is often the case in the Psalms, the wicked are depicted as intending violence toward the righteous. However, the main idea in this verse is not physical violence, but verbal abuse. They look to “bring down” the Psalmist, striking him as a hunter does a bird (this is the fundamental meaning of the verbal root vq^n`). They would do this by “speaking ruinous things” and “murmuring/muttering deceitful things” against him. And they are inspired in their wickedness to do this constantly, relentlessly, “all the day (long)”.

Verses 14-15 [13-14]

“But I am like a deaf (man who) <does> not hear,
and like a mute (who) opens not his mouth;
and (indeed) I have become like a man who (has) no hearing,
and there are no arguments in my mouth.”

There is a play on words and imagery in these two couplets, giving a double-sense to the idea of being deaf and mute. In the first couplet, the Psalmist describes himself as being like a deaf and mute person. By this is meant that he does not respond to the verbal abuse of his attackers, trying to ignore them as best he can. However, we should not necessarily understand this silence as an example of virtuous forbearance. The fact is, as the Psalmist ruefully admits in the second couplet, he is silent because there is nothing he can offer in his own defense.

The wording here implies a legal, judicial context. To say that he “has no hearing”, in this context, means that he has nothing that deserves a hearing. Similarly, he has no arguments (plur. of hj*k@oT) that he can speak to answer his opponents. Why is this? We must assume that the substance of their abusive claims is that the Psalmist’s suffering (from God) is deserved because of his sin. Against this he can give no argument, since he has already admitted his sin as the likely reason for his illness (vv. 5-7 [4-6], cf. the discussion in the previous study).

Verses 16-17 [15-16]

“(It is) that I wait (patiently) for you, YHWH,
you will answer (me), Lord, my Mighty (One),
when I say, ‘Take away the(ir) rejoic(ing) over me,
in (the) slipping of my foot, (when) they make great (taunts) against me!'”

This portion of the Psalm, dealing with people’s response to his illness, concludes with a dense and complex pair of couplets, that is extremely difficult to translate into English.

Though the Psalmist has no arguments to offer against his accusers, he continues to trust in YHWH. It is only to God that he makes his address, humbly and with a plea for help. He hopes and expects that YHWH will answer him, though he may need to wait patiently (vb lj^y`) for this help to come. The essence of his request is stated in the second couplet: he asks that God will take away (remove) the mocking abuse of his opponents. Since this can only really occur if his illness is removed, it is a roundabout way of making a request for healing. It is also effectively an appeal to YHWH’s own honor, which is indirectly attacked when one of His devout followers (the Psalmist) is assaulted with taunting and condemnation by the wicked. The protagonist admits his sin(fulness), by way of the phrase “in (the) slipping of my foot”, but he asks that the punishment not be so severe that it gives the wicked reason to “rejoice” and mock at his suffering.

The verb in the final phrase, ld^G`, in the Hiphil stem, normally has the general meaning “make great, cause to grow”, and certainly can be used in the negative sense of exalting oneself over another. Dahood (p. 236) would understand the root here in its more rudimentary, concrete sense of “twist” —i.e., the wicked twist lies or weave accusations against him (cp. Ps 12:4)

Verses 18-23 [17-22]

Verses 18-19 [17-18]

“For my trouble is (ever) fixed at (the) side,
and my sorrow is in front of me continually;
(so it is) that I put my crookedness out front,
(for) I am fearful from [i.e. because of] my sin.”

I follow Dahood (p. 236f) in parsing MT yn]a& (1st person pronoun) as the noun /w#a* (“trouble, toil”) with a pronoun suffix; the vocalization would then be yn]a), defective for the full yn]oa (“my trouble”). There are two possibilities for the second prefixed word ulxl: the first involves the root ulx I, from which the noun ul*x@ (“rib, side”) is presumably derived, while second involves the root ulx II (“limp”, noun ul^x# [“limping”]). The parallel with “in front of me” in the second line, argues in favor of the former, i.e. “at the side.”

The verb in the first line of the second couplet, dg~n`, “be/stand in front” (Hiphil “put in front”), is related to the preposition dg#n# (“in front of”) in the prior line. There is thus a bit of wordplay involved, of the kind that is typically lost in translation. By putting his crookedness “out in front”, the Psalmist admits and confesses it to God. He is forced to this by his constant pain and suffering, and by his fearfulness over how YHWH has, and may yet further, punish him for his sin. Even so, this attitude of contrition and repentance ultimately reflects the righteous character of the protagonist, and of his devotion to the covenant bond with YHWH.

Verses 20-21 [19-20]

“And (the one)s hostile (to) me have living strength,
and (those) hating me (with) lies are many (indeed);
and (they are) fulfilling evil under [i.e. in exchange for] good,
(the one)s accusing me under my pursuing (the) good.”

As noted above, these two couplets summarize the section (vv. 12-17, cf. above) dealing with the reaction of people to the Psalmist’s illness. Specifically, the focus is on the response by his enemies and opponents (i.e., the wicked). Effectively, this is part of the Psalmist’s plea to YHWH (begun in vv. 18-19), and here he emphasizes the strength and number of his enemies. Again, it is primarily through verbal abuse (including lies/slander, rq#v#) that they attack him.

The idiom of the verb <l^v* followed by the preposition tj^T^ is difficult to translate in English. The idea is of an exchange, of a person making payment (i.e., fulfilling or completing an obligation, which is the basic meaning of the root <lv). The point of the exchange (or payment) is indicated by the preposition tj^T^ (literally, “under, beneath”)—i.e., one thing under [in exchange for] another. Here, the wicked (the Psalmist’s opponents) are paying him evil (ur^) instead of good (bof). This could be taken to mean that the protagonist only wants good for these people, and yet they still attack him. However, more likely is the general idea, expressed as a key theme throughout many of the Psalms, that the wicked are hostile to the righteous specifically because of their righteousness and loyalty/devotion to YHWH. The final line would seem to confirm this: it is the Psalmist’s “pursuing the good” that provokes his opponents to vilify him.

Verses 22-23 [21-22]

“Do not leave me, YHWH, my Mighty (One),
do not keep far away from me!
Hurry to help me, Lord, (for) my salvation!”

The Psalm closes with this final plea, terse and direct, to God for deliverance—that is, of healing from the illness that has plagued the Psalmist. A shortened 3+2 couplet is followed by a single 4-beat line. While he may be waiting patiently for YHWH to answer him, this does not keep the protagonist from calling out for immediate deliverance (“Hurry…!”). The sense may be that the Psalmist, who, as the context of the poem indicates, has been suffering for some time, is at the end of his rope. He does not see how he can go on much longer in this condition, if God does not help him. It is an experience with which many people can clearly relate, anyone who who has undergone a serious illness or debilitating ailment. As such, it is understandable why it would also feature so frequently as a theme in the Psalms, and elsewhere in ancient poetry and Wisdom literature (cf. the book of Job).

References above marked “Dahood” are to Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I: 1-50, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 16 (1965).

February 13: Isaiah 40:6-8

Isaiah 40:6-8

The poem in verses 1-8 may be divided according to a three-part dramatic framework. In verse 1-2, God (YHWH) is speaking. Then in verses 3-5 we have the voice of another, acting in the role of a royal herald, “calling out” the King’s edict, commanding a great building project (road construction) to commence. Now, in verses 6-8, there is yet another “voice”, similar to the one prior—that is to say, it is another herald/messenger of God—and yet there are subtle (but significant) differences in how these two heralds are characterized:

    • Vv. 3-5—ar@q) loq: “A voice (is) calling”, or “(the) voice (of one) calling”
    • Vv. 6ff—ar*q= rm@a) loq: “A voice (is) saying, ‘Call (out)…’

In the first instance, it is the heavenly voice that is “calling”; now, in the second instance, the voice is telling a third messenger that he must do the calling out. It is probably best to understand the messengers of vv. 3-5 and 6 as heavenly beings (Angels). The one who is commanded in vv. 6ff, by contrast, is a human messenger—a prophet who is to announce the same message of good news to the people of Judah. Both Angel and prophet function is a similar manner: as royal heralds who announce the word of the King (YHWH) to the people.

The mini-drama continues, as the human herald, the one commanded by the heavenly herald, responds to this command by asking “What shall I call (out)?” The message that he is to announce takes the form of a beautiful proverb-poem:

“All flesh (is like the) green (grass),
and all its goodness like (the) sparkle of (the) field;
(the) green (grass) shall dry up,
and (the) sparkle shall wither,
(in) that (the) breath of YHWH blows on it.
Surely, the people are (the) green (grass):
(the) green (grass) has dried up,
(the) sparkle has withered,
and (so the) word of our Mighty (One) [Elohim]
shall stand (in)to (the) distant (future).”

A simple bit of nature-imagery has been transformed into a powerful statement on the sovereignty of God as Ruler over all the world. With the passing of the seasons, in the heat of summer (and the dead period of autumn/winter) the lush green grass of springtime dries out (vb vb^y`), and the beautiful flowering (lit. “sparkle”, Jyx!) of the fields withers (vb lb^n`). This may be part of the natural order of things, but it is ultimately governed by the word and power of YHWH. The word (rb*D*) of God accomplishes all things, and his breath (j^Wr) both gives life and takes it away. All of this comes from the mouth (hP#) of God.

This little vignette illustrates the punishment that God brought upon the people (of Judah). The people are the grass (and flower), and they withered when God breathed (judgment) upon them. The illustration thus goes beyond the obvious proverbial emphasis—viz., the transitory nature of human existence—and relates specifically to the fate of God’s people.

What is implicit in the nature-illustration, but not directly stated, is that the lush green grass and flowers of the field return again in the spring-time. This, too, is brought about through the mouth of God (His word and breath); and YHWH has now declared the restoration of His people to new life. Like the spring grass, they also will return, giving the land of Judah back its true beauty once again. While this is not declared, as such, here in vv. 1-8, it is the subject of the poem that follows (verses 9-11ff).

When one reads the two poems together, it is possible to view them as part of a single narrative. The herald who is commissioned in vv. 6-8 effectively gives the good news (of restoration/return) to Jerusalem, and then the capital city (personified as a woman, note the feminine syntax) functions a messenger herself (vv. 9-11)—announcing the joyful message to all the other cities of Judah.

Parallel with the proverb-poem in vv. 6-8, are the grand lines in vv. 12-17. In both instances God’s sovereign power over the universe is emphasized. In vv. 6-8, it is the people of Judah who are in view, in vv. 12-17, it is all of other peoples (of the Nations). This is another example of how the Deutero-Isaian theme of the restoration of Israel/Judah blends in with a wider (eschatological) background theme of God’s Judgment on the Nations. The Exile was His judgment on Israel/Judah, and has now passed, while His judgment on the remaining Nations still awaits (and is soon to commence).

*      *      *      *      *

In conclusion, I would be remiss if I did not mention a  small text-critical point on verse 6. The Masoretic text of the opening words reads (in translation):

“A voice (is) saying: ‘Call (out)!’ And he said [rm^a*w+]: ‘What shall I call (out)?'”

However, the LXX has kai\ ei@pa (“and I said”), and there is Hebrew support for a first-person singular form in the great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran (1QIsaa), where the reading is, apparently (and somewhat curiously), a cohortative (hr*m=oaw+), “and I shall say,” “and let me say”. The main question is whether a third-person or first-person form is correct (“he said” vs. “I said”). If the latter, then the person who is commissioned by the (Angelic) herald, is the Deutero-Isaian poet/prophet himself, and the scene may be viewed as comparable to the commission of Isaiah in chapter 6.

There could, indeed, be an intentional parallel. In that earlier passage, Isaiah was divinely commanded with a message of judgment to give to Judah. It related to the devastation that would come from the Assyrian invasion, an invasion that foreshadowed the more complete destruction of Judah (including Jerusalem) by the Babylonians. Now the prophet has been given a message that the judgment for Judah is ended—there will be restoration both for the people and for the city of Jerusalem herself.

February 12: Isaiah 40:4-5

Isaiah 40:4

The beginning of construction of the great roadway (v. 3, cf. the previous note) is described in verse 4:

“Every valley shall be lifted (up),
and every mountain and hill shall be made low;
and the heel shall be (made in)to a straight (place),
and the ridges split (in)to a level (place).”

The imagery here is relatively straightforward, even if the actual vocabulary is a bit problematic for us today. In the first couplet, we have juxtaposed the raising up of low spots and the lowering of high spots, in order to make a clear and level path for travel. The reference to mountains and valleys gives to the road-construction motif a cosmic dimension. A vast geographical terrain is involved, and we might compare it to the engineering feats involved in the creation of modern railways and highways, so that they run through mountains and over lowlands both. There is also a bit of hyperbolic exaggeration involved, as is typical of such descriptions by rulers of their building projects. Baltzer (p. 54) mentions a royal inscription by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II:

“What no former had done (I achieved): I cut through steep mountains, I split rocks, opened passages and (thus) I constructed a straight road for the (transport of the) cedars.”

He also notes the description in Herodotus (5.52-54) of the Persian royal highway (“the way of the king”, h( o(do\$ h( basilikh/) from Sardis to Susa.

The second couplet in verse 4 is rather more difficult to translate. The word bq)u* literally means “heel”, presumably in the sense of hilly or knotted terrain (with bumps and ridges). In the first couplet the emphasis was on height, here the idea is roughness—bumps and obstructions which, if navigated, would result in a twisting and winding road. There may be an intentional play on the name of Jacob (= Israel), bq)u&y~, traditionally explained as denominative from the root bqu, i.e., “take by the heel” (cf. Gen 25:25-26, but compare Gen 27:36). The negative ethical connotation of “grabbing the heel” should be understood here in light of the crooked/straight juxtaposition. This contrast was established in verses 2 and 3; the “crookedness” (/ou*) of the people has been rectified (through the punishment of the Exile), and they are now called upon to be “straight” (vb rv^y`) again.

In the final line, the corresponding noun is the plural <ys!k*r=, which is difficult to translate, but, in geographical terms, refers to hills or mounds that are bound together into a ridge (i.e., “ridges”). The idea is of a tight hill-formation that needs to be broken up—literally “split”, as indicated by the root uqb. In the context here, the noun hu*q=b! signifies a level place after such a ridge has been split in two, allowing a roadway to pass through.

On the one hand, verses 3-4 refer to a real road, in the sense that there will be an actual route (or routes) taken by the exiles on their return home. Yet, on the other hand, the language and imagery is symbolic, referring to the return itself—that is, the deliverance of the people and their restoration into a new covenant bond with YHWH. The road built in the desert signifies this deliverance, a ‘new Exodus’ for God’s people, brought about by the royal command of YHWH Himself. This theological aspect becomes clear in verse 5, where the ultimate purpose of this royal highway in the desert is exclaimed.

Isaiah 40:5

“And (the) weight of YHWH will be uncovered,
and all flesh as one will see (it),
for (the) mouth of YHWH has spoken.”

The purpose of this road is so that the majesty (lit. “weight”, dobK*) of YHWH will be revealed (“uncovered”, vb hl*G`), for all the world to see. As I discussed in the previous note, the wording in verse 3 can be taken to mean that the road will serve, quite literally, as a place for God to travel. There is a strong eschatological aspect to the Deutero-Isaian poems, and this emphasis begins here in the opening poem. While not so pronounced as in later Jewish tradition, we are still dealing with the idea that the restoration of Israel marks the beginning of a New Age, and the end of the old order of things on earth (and among the nations). When YHWH appears to restore the fortunes of His people (and bring them back to their Promised Land), it correspondingly means judgment for the rest of the nations. The seed of this Judgment-theme is introduced here in verse 5.

There is also a bit of wordplay involving the verb hl*G`, which has the fundamental meaning “uncover” —that is, to remove a covering. In both a literal and figurative sense, the same root is also used for the experience of captivity and exile (in the related nouns hl*oG and tWlG`). The captive is stripped of honor and dignity, etc, and even (quite literally) may have their garments removed; and then they themselves are “removed” (exiled) to another land. It is through this nifty wordplay (almost impossible to capture in translation) that the revelation of YHWH’s majesty is made to relate most clearly to the captivity (hl*oG) of Judah. God’s majesty is demonstrated (and declared) in His bringing an end to the captivity, and providing a way by which the captives can return home.

The entirety of verse 1-5 comprises a message, a word spoken by YHWH. This is clear from the way that verse 5 concludes (“the mouth of YHWH has spoken”), but the theme is also expounded further in vv. 6-8, which we will examine in the next note.

References above marked “Baltzer” are to Klaus Baltzer, A Commentary on Isaiah 40-55, transl. by Margaret Kohl, Hermeneia Commentary series (Fortress Press: 2001).