Tag: Book of Isaiah

January 19: 1 Corinthians 2:16

[This series of notes, on 1 Corinthians 2:10-15, is part of the series “Spiritualism and the New Testament”. The previous note discussed verses 14-15, and see the initial note with links to earlier notes covering 1:18-2:6; cf. also the main article.]

1 Corinthians 2:16

Today’s note examines the concluding verse of the section, which brings together the strands of the contrastive argument into a rhetorically charged Scripture citation followed by a decisive (positive) declaration. The first part of the verse contains a quotation from Isaiah 40:13, an abridgment of the LXX version:

“Who knew the mind of the Lord, th(e one) who will bring (things) together (to instruct) him?”

The verb sumbiba/zw means “bring (or put) together” sometimes in the (logical) sense of bringing things together for the purpose of instruction. The LXX also uses the related noun su/mboulo$, which typically refers to a person who gives instruction (or counsel, advice, etc). Conventionally, the LXX would be translated:

“Who knew the mind of the Lord, and who became His instructor/advisor that will instruct/advise Him?”
ti/$ e&gnw nou=n kuri/ou kai\ ti/$ au)tou= su/mboulo$ e)ge/neto o^$ sumbiba=| au)to/n;

The portion cited by Paul (with only slight variation) is indicated by italics and bold above. The taunting rhetorical question is centered in the idea of the greatness of God (YHWH the Creator) and the insignificance of (created) human beings by comparison. Paul retains the thrust of this rhetoric and applies the question to his own line of argument comparing worldy/human wisdom with the wisdom of God. The ‘abridged’ citation is, in certain formal respects, closer to the tone and feel of the original Hebrew; the Masoretic text (MT) reads:

“Who has measured the spirit of YHWH and (is) a man of his counsel/plan [i.e. his counselor] (who) causes him to know?”

An English translation tends to obscure the relatively simple, 3:3 poetic rhythm of the Hebrew:

hwhy j^WrÁta# /K@T!Áym!
WDu#yd!oy otx*u& vya!w+

Each line involves a related concept:

(a) “measuring” the spirit of YHWH—on the meaning and context of the verb /kt, cf. below.
(b) functioning as a counsellor/advisor (lit. “man of his counsel”) who instructs/advises YHWH (“causes him to know”)

The first (a) essentially implies probing and estimating the depths of God’s own “spirit” (j^Wr rûaµ), much as Paul describes the Spirit (pneu=ma) doing in 1 Cor 2:10. No human being is capable of comprehending the depths (“deep things”) of God. The second (b) touches on the idea that a human being might serve as God’s counselor or advisor; but, of course, God, who knows all things, cannot be informed about anything by a mortal being. The LXX renders Hebrew j^Wr (“spirit/breath”) with nou=$ (“mind”). More often, it is translated by pneu=ma, which corresponds closely to the Hebrew term; however, the use of nou=$ in Greek offers a distinctive interpretation of the verse. It is useful to consider the basic meaning of this word.

Greek nou=$ (or no/o$) fundamentally refers to sensual perception or recognition (i.e. by the senses), but eventually the act of perception came to dominate the meaning, along with the inner/inward faculties of a human being to enable recognition of something—primarily as intellectual faculty (i.e. “mind”), though often there may be an emotional or (deeper) “spiritual” component involved. In addition to an internal faculty (or ability), nou=$ also came to refer to an attitude (or disposition, etc), as well as the result of one’s ability (knowledge, understanding, insight, etc). Generally, this corresponds to the English word “mind”, which can be used, more or less accurately (and consistently) to translate nou=$. It is the third of three primary Greek terms used to describe the invisible, inner aspect of the human person—yuxh/ (“soul”), pneu=ma (“spirit”), nou=$ (“mind”). The first two have already been used by Paul in 1 Cor 1:18-2:16 (cf. the prior notes), and now he introduces the third. Actually, the word was already used in the main proposition (propositio) of the letter in 1:10, a verse that is worth citing here:

“And (so) I call you alongside, brothers, through the name of our Lord Yeshua (the) Anointed, that you should all give the same account and (that) there should not be (any) tears [i.e. divisions] in you, but (that) you should be joined (completely) in the same mind and in the same (way of) knowing.”

The emphasis is clear: in contrast to the divisions among the Corinthians, there should be a unity of mind for believers in Christ. Paul uses a dual formula to express this:

    • “in the self(same) mind” (e)n tw=| au)tw=| noi+/)
    • “in the self(same) knowing” (e)n th=| au)th=| gnw/mh|)

The word gnw/mh (related to the verb ginw/skw, “[to] know”) more properly refers to a way or manner of knowing; there is no English word which corresponds precisely, and it is translated variously as “opinion, judgment, decision”, etc. As will become even more clear when one looks at what follows in 3:1ff, the divisions (“rips/tears”) in Corinth are the result of believers thinking and acting in a human manner (i.e. through worldly/human ‘wisdom’) rather than according to the “mind” (wisdom) of God and Christ. This is the very point Paul makes in the second half of verse 16:

“…and (yet) we (do) hold the mind of (the) Anointed [i.e. of Christ]”

The reading xristou= (“of [the] Anointed”) is found in a number of key MSS (Ë46 a A C Y al), and probably should be considered original; however, many other witnesses read kuri/ou (“of [the] Lord”), matching the earlier citation of Isa 40:13. For early Christians, of course, the word ku/rio$ (“lord”, i.e. “the Lord”) had a double-meaning—it can refer to God the Father (YHWH) or to Jesus Christ, almost interchangeably:

“the mind of Christ” –>
“the mind of the Lord (Jesus)” –>
“the mind of the Lord (YHWH)”

The pronoun “we” (h(mei=$) is in emphatic position— “and (yet) we (do) hold the mind of Christ”. As often in Paul’s letters, there is some ambiguity as to just whom “we” refers. This is rather important for a correct interpretation of this verse (and the passage as a whole), and will be discussed briefly in the next daily note.

The two rhetorical questions of Isa 40:12-13:

Verses 12 and 13 each pose a question beginning with the interrogative particle ym! (“who”). The first (v. 12) asks who has “measured” out the various elements and aspects of the created world. The answer is as obvious as it is unstated: God (YHWH) alone—no other being, let alone a mere human being. The question itself is asked by way of a series of verbal phrases, governed by four verbs, each of which indicates some form of measuring:

    • dd^m*—stretching (a line, etc) to measure out—the waters (<y]m^) in the hollow (lu^v)) of His hand
    • /k^T*—regulating or fitting (according to a standard [measure])—the heavens (<y]m^v*) with the spread/span (tr#z#) of His hand
    • lWK—containing (i.e. filling/fitting a measuring-vessel)—the dust of the earth in a mere vyl!v* (“third part”?), a (small) unit of measure
    • lq^v*—weighing out—the mountains and the hills in a pair of scales or balances (cl#P#//z@am))

The second question (v. 13) asks who, besides YHWH, could know even how any of this is done, let alone offer YHWH any advice or instruction in such matters. The verb /k^T* is repeated, indicating the impossibility of “measuring” the Spirit (j^Wr) of YHWH, in the basic sense, it would seem, of “fitting” or “setting” a standard of measure. There is no way of doing this when one is dealing with the Spirit/Wisdom/Mind of God. The LXX understands the verb in intellectual terms—of a (human) being’s ability (or rather, inability) to comprehend (“know”) the Mind (nou=$) of God—which is quite appropriate for Paul’s theme of wisdom in 1 Corinthians.

January 7: Isaiah 9:5-6

Isaiah 9:5-6, concluded

The reference to the royal child (and his kingdom) in verses 5-6 [EV 6-7] (cf. the previous notes) is striking, and is (of course) quite familiar to Christians as a Messianic prophecy, applied to the person of Jesus. Assuming the historical setting of Isa 6:1-9:6 to be the years leading up to 732 B.C. (and prior to 722), a Messianic interpretation of the child in vv. 5-6 would seem to be out of the question (in terms of the primary meaning of the passage; see the specific context in 8:23 [9:1], discussed previously). Is it possible to identify the child with a particular historical figure? The grandeur of the titles in v. 5, and reference to the “throne of David” in v. 6, would require, at the very least, a king of Judah (that is, from the Davidic line).

The only person from Isaiah’s own time (c. 735-700) who seems to fit is Hezekiah, son of Ahaz. The birth and/or accession of a new king could be a time of great hope and promise, but also of tremendous danger, as princes and vassals may see the moment as an opportune time for revolt (cf. Psalm 2). Following the reign of his father, Ahaz (who “did not do what was right in the eyes of YHWH”), Hezekiah is a positive figure, even under the withering judgment of the book of Kings (2 Kings 8:3ff: he finally removed the “high places”, which his ancestors failed to do). He will also become a central figure in the book of Isaiah, and focal point of the key historical moment: the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem under Sennacherib in 701 B.C.

Some scholars would identify Hezekiah also as ±Immanû-°¢l (“God-with-us”) of the prophecy in 7:10-17 (cf. also 8:5-10). Arguments in favor would be: (a) parallel with 9:5-6, as both prophecy the birth of portentous children containing a promise of salvation; (b) the name is suggestive of the words of 2 Kings 8:7 (“and YHWH was with him…”); (c) the subsequent use of the name/phrase in 8:8,10. Arguments against: (a) there is nothing in the two passages which specifically identifies the two children; (b) the other symbolic names in chs. 7-8 still seem to be real names applied to specific children, so Immanuel, if a real name, most likely belongs to a different child than Hezekiah; (c) Immanuel as a child of Isaiah (or even as a purely symbolic/collective name) remains a possibility. I am by no means convinced that Immanuel, even if a child of Ahaz, is the same as the (royal) child of 9:5-6. In some ways there is even a closer parallel between the child of 7:14-17 and Isaiah’s child in 8:1-4, but few (if any) commentators would equate the two.

As far as arguments against identifying Hezekiah with the child of 9:5-6, three are especially significant:

    1. The message of deliverance and restoration in vv. 1-4 was not fulfilled in Hezekiah’s reign, particularly not for the Northern kingdom (the territories mentioned in the setting of 8:23). And, while Hezekiah was a good and faithful ruler (according to the testimony of 2 Kings 8:3-7ff), achieved some military success (2 Kings 8:8), and stood against Assyria (2 Kings 8:7, 13–chap. 19 and par.), an appraisal of his reign would not seem to match the glowing language of Isa 9:6. Indeed, in 2 Kings 20:16-19 [par. Isa 39:5-8], Isaiah himself prophecies the future Babylonian captivity—there will be only limited “peace and security” (20:19, contrasted with Isa 9:6). However, these points are weakened somewhat if one considers the character of the oracle in 9:1-6, which does not seem to carry the same predictive force found earlier in chapters 7-8: there are almost no specific historical details, no time indicator, indeed no clear sign of an immediate fulfillment. The perfect verbal forms, typically understood as prophetic perfects (indicating the certainty of what God will do), could also have a gnomic sense (indicating what God always does).
    2. It has been said that the weighty titles listed in Isa 9:5 are too lofty to be applied to a human king. However, similarly lofty, theologically significant names and titles were regularly applied to rulers in the ancient Near East. The most extensive evidence comes from Egypt, and the names applied to the Pharaoh during enthronement rituals (some of which are roughly parallel to those in Isa 9:5, cf. the discussion in the prior note). No similar ritual is recorded as such for kings of Israel/Judah in the Old Testament, but there are a few hints in the Psalms and elsewhere; Psalm 2 is perhaps the most striking example, a setting similar to that in the Egyptian ritual, where the Deity addresses the new ruler as His “son” (Ps 2:7). For more on this Psalm, see below.
    3. The very lack of specific historical details (see point 1 above) could be taken as a strong argument against identifying the child with Hezekiah. Certainly, it could apply at least as well to later rulers (such as Josiah, cf. below) or a future Messiah. If one accepts the basic interpretation of 9:5-6 as reflecting the enthronement/accession of a new king (that is, the language and symbolism of it), it has a timeless quality which could apply to any anointed king (the same is true of Psalm 2, etc). Only the historical context of the passage (c. 730-700 B.C.) would make it apply specifically to Hezekiah.

As mentioned above, there have been attempts at identifying the child (and the date of the poem) with Josiah, nearly a century later (c. 648-609 B.C.). According to 1 Kings 13:2ff, the coming rule of Josiah was prophesied, specifically in connection with the religious-political reform that he would undertake. There was, indeed, in Josiah’s reign a reawakening of aspirations for establishing control over the Northern territories for the kingdom of Judah, and this would fit the basic message of the oracle here. Moreover, the final collapse of the Assyrian empire, apparently prophesied (or at least alluded to) in vv. 3-4, did take place during the time of Josiah’s reign, though not because of anything done by the Judean kingdom. Ultimately, of course, Josiah’s kingdom fell short of the prophetic ideal promised by the poem no less than the kingdom of Hezekiah. Cf. Roberts, p. 152.

If one separates the poem from the narrative introduction in 8:23, there really are no historical details present which can allow us to date the poem with any sort of precision. The general character of the royal theology and exalted language could apply to the coronation of almost any king, as mentioned above. The accession of a new king offered hope for a time of joy and peace in the land, including deliverance from surrounding enemies (actual and potential). The imagery of light/darkness is also typical in this regard. One may cite Near Eastern examples, going back to at least the time of Hammurabi, where we find such language used in the prologue to his famous lawcode, in which he describes himself as one who “caused light to go forth over the lands…”, and that the gods made him king for this purpose:

“to cause justice to prevail in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil, that the strong might not oppress the weak, to rise like the sun…and to light up the land” (Roberts, p. 149)

Messianic (Early Christian) Interpretation

Even though Isa 9:5-6 is not cited in the New Testament, 8:23-9:1 [EV 9:1-2] are quoted in Matthew 4:15-16, at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee; and, though not specified, an identification of Jesus with the child in 9:5-6 would seem to be implied. This is certainly how early Christians would come to understand the passage (Justin is perhaps the earliest surviving witness [c. 140-160], cf. First Apology §33 and Dialogue §76). More broadly, it would come to carry a Messianic interpretation, though there is little surviving pre-Christian Jewish evidence of this.

Even though no commentary on Isa 8:23-9:6 [EV 9:1-7] survives from Qumran, there is an allusion to v. 5 in the “Thanksgiving Hymns” (Hodayot) 1QH. In Hymn 9 [XI, formerly III], the author compares his distress to that of a woman giving birth (verse 7ff): “9and the woman expectant with a boy is racked by her pangs, for through the breakers of death she gives birth to a male, and through the pangs of Sheol there emerges, 10from the «crucible» of the pregnant woman a wonderful counsellor with his strength, and the boy is freed from the breakers”. He goes on to contrast the (righteous) birth of a boy with the (wicked) birth of a serpent (verse 12ff), a reflection of the strong ethical dualism found in many of the Qumran texts.

A comparison of Isa 9:1-6 [esp. vv. 5-6] with Psalm 2 (discussed above) is noteworthy:

    • Both passages are understood (in their original context) as relating to the enthronement/accession of a new (Davidic) king. The positive side of the event (light, joy, deliverance from [current] oppression) is stressed in Isa 9:1-6, the negative side (danger from rebellious princes/vassals/allies) in Ps 2.
    • Both speak of a birth (Isa 9:5; Ps 2:7). This may mean that the ‘birth’ in Isa 9:5 is symbolic of the king’s accession/enthronement, rather than a literal physical birth.
    • Both speak of (the king) as a son. The king as God’s son (i.e., “son of God” though the phrase is not used) is explicit in Psalm 2 (cf. also 2 Sam 7:14), while only implied, perhaps, in Isa 9:5-6.
    • Following the ‘announcement’ of birth/sonship, both passages have God’s declaration of royal inheritance and sovereignty (Isa 9:6; Ps 2:8-12)
    • Both passages came to be understood as Messianic prophecies, and were applied to Jesus by early Christians—Ps 2 (along with Ps 110) already, on several occasions, in the New Testament itself.

An examination of these parallels is also instructive for understanding how the language and imagery of the Old Testament developed over time, from the original historical context and meaning, to a broader symbolism related to the idea of the Davidic kingship and covenant; then follows the hope/promise of a restoration of Davidic rule (in the post-exilic period) under a new Anointed figure (Messiah), traditions of which are preserved and transmitted in Jewish thought and belief, until the time of Jesus Christ (Yeshua the Anointed [Messiah]).  In the light of this new (incarnate) revelation, new meanings and applications of the Scriptures were opened up to believers—it is hardly surprising that at least a few of these would appear to relate so beautifully to the marvelous birth of our Savior.

References above marked “Roberts” are to J. J. M. Roberts, First Isaiah, Hermeneia (Fortress Press: 2015).

January 6: Isaiah 9:6

Isaiah 9:5-6, continued
Verse 6 [7]

“His rule will be great,
and no end to its fullness,
over (the) ruling-seat of David,
and over his kingdom,
to make it firm and establish it,
in justice and in rightness,
from now until (the) distant (future).”

The emphasis on the rule (hr*c=m!) of the new king, and the exalted royal titles given to him (in connection with his coronation/accession), were discussed in the previous note (on v. 5 [6]). Here the same word, hr*c=m!, is used again, as verse 6 [7] further expounds the nature and character of this rule.

There is a textual difficulty in the opening word, mainly due to the occurrence, in the Masoretic text, of a final mem (<) in the middle of the word—hB@r=<^l=. This indicates that the received text was divided into two words hbr <l, which the Masoretes then ‘corrected’ as one word, vocalizing it hB@r=m^l=, “for (the) greatness/increase of”. The Qumran Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) supports the Masoretic vocalized (corrected) reading (q§r¢°). It is probably best (and simplest) to follow the q§r¢°, reading hbrm as a verbal noun—i.e., “being great, increasing (greatly)” —which, for poetic concision, I translate above as “will be great”.

The greatness of this king’s reign, and the expansion of his domain, is further characterized as a near-limitless <olv*. This noun is often translated “peace,” as I did for the final royal title in v. 5 (“Prince of Peace”). However, properly, it means “completion, fulfillment,” and so I have rendered it here as “fullness,” as a fitting parallel to hB@r=m! (“greatness, increase”). There can be no question that peace is an important attribute of this rule, and that this king’s reign also be characterized by a lengthy period of peace; thus the line can equally well be translated “and no end to its peace.”

The next two lines form a precise parallel: “over the throne of David / over his kingdom”. Clearly we are dealing with the Davidic line of the Judean kingdom, and the royal theology associated with it. This new king will confirm and strength the Davidic line, enhancing its glory and prestige. The verbs (/WK, Hiphil “make firm”) and du^s* (“[give] support”) are given in the form of purpose/result infinitives: “to make firm…to support”. This establishment and strengthening of the Judean kingdom will be done through justice (fP*v=m!) and rightness (or righteousness, hq*d*x=). The noun hq*d*x= (and root qdx) often connotes faithfulness and loyalty to the covenant with YHWH. It is this fulfillment (the fundamental meaning of <olv*) of the binding agreement with God that guarantees Divine protection for the kingdom—and, with it, deliverance for the people and victory over their enemies. In the context of the oracle (8:23 [9:1]), this protection and deliverance will be extended to the ‘remnant’ of the shattered Northern Kingdom.

The idea that the king’s peaceful and blessed reign would last from the “time (now)” (hT*u^) until the distant future (<l*ou) is typical of the exalted (and hyperbolic) coronation language used in the poem. The exaggeration expresses both an ideal and a hope for the future. This language is perhaps even more important in relation to the continuation of the Davidic royal line. The Old Testament traditions alternate, in their royal theology, between the promise of an unconditional kingship for the Davidic line, and a promise that is conditional upon each ruler remaining faithful/loyal to the covenant. The latter view dominates much of the Deuteronomic history (including the books of Kings) and the Prophetic writings.

Verse 6 [7] concludes with a final declaration, which could be a secondary addition to the text (cp. at 37:32): “(The) ha*n+q! of YHWH of (the heavenly) armies will do this”. Whether or not it is original, the statement serves as a safeguard, so as to credit any success (and military victory) for the Judean king to YHWH, rather than the human ruler (and his forces). The ancient title “YHWH of (the heavenly) armies [toab*x=]” may have referred originally to El-Yahweh as the Creator of the heavenly/celestial entities (retaining the verbal force of the name hwhy). However, the idea that those entities would fight (for Israel) at His command (e.g., Judges 5:20) perhaps allows us to fill in the title, at least as it came to be used in the traditional narratives and poetry, as “YHWH, commander of the heavenly armies”.

The noun ha*n+q! is a bit difficult to translate (I have left it untranslated above). The basic meaning of the root anq entails having a strong emotion, usually in relation to the possession of something. Often it signifies the idea of jealousy or envy, and it is certainly used this way in the Old Testament as a Divine attribute—viz., of YHWH’s jealous guarding of His people (as His possession), etc. Priority should probably be given to the fundamental aspect of the intensity of the emotion, in which case a translation like “ardor” for ha*n+q! would be proper; in passages where jealousy/envy is not clearly indicated, the noun is often translated “zeal”.

In the next daily note, the final note in this set, we will examine further the poem as a royal oracle, a prophecy regarding the new king of Judah and his reign. We will give consideration to the identification of the king in question, from the standpoint of the original historical context, and then touch briefly upon the passage as a Messianic prophecy, applied to the person (and birth) of Jesus.

January 5: Isaiah 9:5

Isaiah 9:5-6
Verse 5 [6]

“For a child has been born to us,
a son has been given to us,
and rule is come to be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called:
Wonder-Counselor,
Mighty-Warrior,
Father of ‘Long-Life’,
Prince of Peace.”

As with vv. 3-4 (cf. the previous note), vv. 5-6 begin with the particle yK! (“for…”, “[it is] that…”), a conjunctive particle often used with emphatic (or asseverative) force. Here it clearly relates the announcement of the new king (in Judah/Jerusalem) to the deliverance of Israel from her foreign oppressor (vv. 3-4). Indeed, the rule that his upon his shoulder is in stark contrast to the yoke of servitude that had been upon the shoulder of the Israelite people. Even so, the precise relationship between vv. 1-4 and vv. 5-6 may be debated. Is the birth of the child (or accession of the king) the means by which God will bring about the things detailed in vv. 1-4? Are 8:23-9:4 the reason for the birth? Or are the events of vv. 1-4 juxtaposed with the birth as parallel aspects of God’s action?

The first two lines may be summarized simply:

    • Wnl*ÁdL^y% dl#y# yK! (“For a child has been born to/for us”)—the etymological connection of dly is lost in translation: “a (thing) born has been born”, “a (thing) brought-forth has been brought-forth”.
    • Wnl*Á/T^n] /B@ (“a son has been given to/for us”)—a point of (synonymous) poetic parallelism with the previous phrase.

The noun hr*c=m! occurs only here (and in v. 6) in the Old Testament. It is presumed to derive from a root (hrc II) meaning “rule,” but based entirely upon the context here (and by the LXX translation of a)rxh/). It may also be related to rc^ (translated “prince”, as in the fourth title at end of the verse, cf. below). The mem (-m) preformative element could either be the mark of a verbal noun (“ruling”) or a locative indicator (place of rule, i.e., kingdom, dominion). Given the contrastive parallel with the instruments of slavery (yoke and shoulder/pinion bar) in v. 3, hr*c=m! is best understood here as signifying the ruling power and authority given to the king (and possessed by him). A royal staff, resting upon his shoulder, would make a fitting parallel to the oppressor’s authoritative staff/rod (fb#v@). In any case, we are most likely dealing symbolic emblem[s] of rule, along with the names applied to the king (cf. below), being ritualized aspects of sovereignty.

What of the titles or names in Isaiah 9:5b? There are four: the first two have nouns in juxtaposition, the second two are effectively construct forms:

    • Ju@oy al#P# (pele° yô±¢ƒ), typically translated “Wonderful Counsellor”
    • roBG] la@ (°¢l gibbôr), typically “Mighty God”

However, the English rendering is a bit misleading, as if the first words were adjectives modifying the second. The nouns juxtaposed are not related syntactically in quite this way. The noun al#P# refers to something extraordinary, i.e. a wonder, marvel, miracle, etc. The relation between the nouns is perhaps better expressed by a comma, or hyphen: “Wonder, Counsellor” or “Wonder–Counsellor”. The noun roBG] refers to a strong (man) or warrior. la@, usually translated “God” (El), has an original meaning something like “mighty” (“Mighty [One]” = “God”); the plural form <yh!l)a$ (Elohim) is probably an intensive plural, roughly “Mightiest”. “God Warrior” is a fairly accurate rendering of the second name, or, translating even more literally “Mighty One, Warrior”.

    • du^yb!a& (°¦»î±ad), familiar translation “Everlasting Father”
    • <olv*Árc^ (´ar-sh¹lôm), “Prince of Peace”

In the third name, the two words have been joined (without a maqqeph [‘hyphen’]), the second of which is difficult to translate. du^ indicates, more or less literally, the passing or advancing of time, either in the sense of (a) into the distant past, (b) into the [distant] future, or (c) in perpetuity [i.e. continually]. As such, it is roughly synonymous with the word <lou (see v. 6). “Everlasting” is not especially accurate, but it is hard to find an English word that is much better. In the context of a royal title, something along the lines of “long life” is probably implied (similar to Egyptian titles, i.e. “living forever”, “good in years”, etc). This would create a parallel with the two names: “Father of ‘Long-life'”, “Prince of Peace” —two aspects of the promised time of renewal. However, there is a sense of du^ which also indicates “ancient” or “eternal” (Hab 3:6, etc) as long as one is careful not to infuse the latter rendering with an exaggerated theological meaning.

These four titles are included under the formula: “and he/they will call [or has called] his name…”

It is not entirely certain whether we are dealing here with the birth of the new king, or to his coronation/accession (as a ‘birth’), or both. The identity of this figure, and his relation to the child in 7:10ff, will be discussed in an upcoming note. In my view, vv. 5-6 here do draw upon the traditional language of coronation rituals in the ancient Near East. For more on this, cf. the discussion by Roberts (pp. 150-3) and the earlier studies he cites. In particular, parallels with the Egyptian coronation service have been noted (cf. specifically the texts related to Hatshepsut, Amenhotep III, and Haremhab). The exalted titles in verse 5 are comparable to a number of the Egyptian crown-titles that are attested—e.g., “ready in plans” (cp. ‘Wonderful counselor’), “great in marvels,” “good god,” “great in strength,” “living forever,” “(he) who gives life,” etc (Roberts, p. 151f).

References above marked “Roberts” are to J. J. M. Roberts, First Isaiah, Hermeneia (Fortress Press: 2015).

January 4: Isaiah 9:3-4

Isaiah 9:3-4 [4-5]
Verse 3 [4]

“For (the) yoke of his carrying,
and (the) pole of his shoulder—
(the) rod of (the one) pressing on him—
you have broken, as (on the) day of Midyan!”

Again we have a pair of 3+3 couplets (cf. the previous note on vv. 1-2 [2-3]), though the rhythm is, in actuality, slightly irregular. The first three lines involve construct phrases, the first two of which are in synonymous parallelism:

    • “the yoke of his carrying” (olB=s% lu))
      “the pole of his shoulder” (omk=c! hF#m^)

The image is the same: that of a yoked animal serving as a beast of burden. The lu) (used also in 10:27; cf. 14:25) denotes the thrusting of the (animal’s) head into the yoke, while the hF@m^ (also in 10:24) refers to the extended pole, or bar, that rests upon the neck and shoulder. The root lbs denotes the carrying or dragging of a weight (i.e., load or burden). Human beings are being forced to act like beasts of burden, referring to a harsh and wearisome condition of servile labor. The construct phrase in the third line builds upon (and further expounds) this image:

    • “the rod of the one pressing [on him]” (cg@N)h^ fb#v@)

The rod or staff (fb#v@, also in 10:24) represents both the ruling (superior) position of the oppressor and the instrument used to oppress the slave. The verb cg~n` essentially refers to the pressing/driving of someone to do work; it can be used in the concrete sense (as here) of forcefully driving an animal (or human slave), or with the more generic meaning of making demands on someone.

The final like declares the dramatic reversal of this situation:

“…you have broken, as (on the) day of Midian!”

The allusion is presumably to the historical traditions narrated in Judges 6-7, and, if so, then the idea would doubtless be of an unexpected victory over a superior force, made possible through the power of YHWH. Indeed, God will have “broken” (tt^j*, Hiphil causative stem) the foreign oppression over Israel, as He did in the Exodus, and as described in the accounts of deliverance in the book of Judges.

The perfect tense here, as throughout verses 1-4, is an example of the prophetic perfect—i.e., events that will occur in the future (being prophesied) referred to as things that have already happened.

Verse 4 [5]

“For every shoe stomping with a quake,
and (every) garment rolled with blood,
indeed shall be for burning,
(for) being eaten up by fire.”

A 3-beat couplet is followed by a short/terse 2-beat (2+2) couplet. The overall imagery alludes to a military victory over Israel’s foreign oppressor.

In the first two lines, the reference is to the foot-gear and clothing of soldiers. Both parts of the cognate noun-verb pair (/oas=, and participle /a@s)) occur only here in the Old Testament, and likely are Assyrian (or Babylonian) loanwords (Akkadian š¢nu, “shoe, sandal”). This may well be intentional, given the context of the Assyrian conquest of the Israelite Northern Kingdom (cf. the prior note on 8:23 [9:1]). It is almost impossible to translate literally the cognate relationship between noun and verb; the verb is denominative from the noun (“shoe”), and thus would mean something like “use the shoe” or “shoe along” (i.e., step, stomp, tread). Since the feet of the soldiers are ‘stomping’ on the ground enough to make the ground “quake” (noun vu^r^), a large military force is implied.

That this force has been (i.e., will be) defeated, is indicated by the second line, with the image of clothing (singular [collective] noun, hl*m=c!) that is “rolled” (vb ll^G`) in blood. The plural form <ym!D* (lit. “bloods”) almost always refers to acts of bloodshed—that is, killing or violent action taken against someone. With the army of the foreign oppressor defeated, and (presumably) many of the soldiers dead, their shoes and garments will be used as fuel for the fire—which is the image in the final two lines.

We can see that the joy that will come to the oppressed Israelite people (vv. 1-2) will be, in large measure, due to the military defeat of their oppressors, which will thus result in deliverance for the people. The defeat of the oppressing nation could come from the action of another foreign nation; however, what follows in vv. 5-6 strongly indicates that it will be the Judean kingdom, led by God’s chosen ruler, which brings about the deliverance and restoration of Israel. This will be discussed in the next note.

 

January 3: Isaiah 9:1-2

Isaiah 9:1-2 [2-3]

Verses 1-6 [2-7] comprise a prophetic poem that brings the section 6:1-9:6 to a close. On the introductory verse in 8:23 [9:1], cf. the previous note; this verse establishes the context for the poem, framing it as a message of hope for the conquered Northern Kingdom of Israel.

Verse 1 [2]

“The people walking in darkness
have seen a great light;
(for those) sitting in a land of death’s shadow
a light has shone upon them.”

The poem begins with a pair of 3-beat (3+3) couplets, which are clearly in parallel (synonymous parallelism). The darkness/light motif was established in the introductory verse (8:23 [9:1], cf. the previous note), as well as at the conclusion of the prior oracle (8:22). In this respect, 8:23 is transitional between the oracle in 8:19-22 and the poem in 9:1ff. In the poem, the darkness of the earlier judgment-oracle gives way to a new message of hope. The people “walking in darkness,” based on the context of the section (and specified in 8:23), are the people of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Parts of Israel were annexed by Assyria, following the conquests of 734-732 B.C., and turned into Assyrian provinces. A ‘remnant’ of this kingdom persisted for another decade, until the fall of Samaria in 722/721.

The dual motif of “walking” (vb El^h*) and “sitting” (bv^y`, i.e. dwelling, remaining) in darkness is all too appropriate as a figurative description of the Israelite survivors and exiles. In the second couplet, the general image of “darkness” (Ev#j)) is described even more dramatically (and tragically) as “death’s shadow” (“shadow of death,” tw#m*l=x^). The contrast with darkness, naturally enough, is light (roa). Light shines (vb Hg^n`) on this devastated people, bringing hope of salvation and restoration. This Isaian light-theme (2:5; 10:17; 13:10; 26:19; 30:26, etc) will be developed further in the Deutero- (and Trito-)Isaian poems, applying the message of the 8th century oracles to the situation of Judah’s exile (and eventual return) in the 6th century—cf. 42:6, 16; 49:6; 51:4; 58:8ff; 60:1-3ff, 19-20, etc.

Verse 2 [3]

“You multiplied the(ir) rejoicing,
you made great the(ir) joy—
they have joy before you,
as (the) joy in the harvest,
as when (men) circle (in joy)
in their dividing (the) plunder!”

Textual Note: With most commentators, I read hl*yG!h^ (“the rejoicing”) in line 1, rather than MT (also in 1QIsaa) al) yoGh^ (“the nation / not…”).

The meter in verse 3 shifts, from a pair of 3-beat couplets, to a trio of 2-beat (2+2) couplets.

The light that shines upon the people produces an experience of joy. Two parallel roots are used to express this. The first (lines 1 and 5) is lyG], which literally means “to (move in a) circle”, i.e., to dance and circle around joyfully. The second (lines 2-4) is jm^c*, which refers more generally to a feeling of gladness and joy. Two illustrative images are then used to depict the joy that these people feel: (a) the joy experienced with the coming of the harvest, and (b) the military imagery of victorious soldiers rejoicing when they receive a share of booty/plunder (ll^v*) after the battle.

The perfect tenses of the verb refer to the coming restoration as some which has already taken place; this is not uncommon in Old Testament prophecy, but should be distinguished from use of the precative perfect, more common in the Psalms, where one expresses what one wishes (or expects) to happen as though it has already occurred.

January 2: Isaiah 8:23ff

Isaiah 8:23-9:6 [9:1-7]

The poem in 9:1-6 [EV 2-7] brings the section of 6:1-9:6 to a close. It functions as an appendix to the section, and, in its literary setting, offers a message of hope to the survivors and exiles of the shattered Northern Kingdom. The poem is preceded by a narrative introduction (8:23 [9:1]), which clearly sets the message of the poem in the context of the 8th century Assyrian crisis. The Assyrian conquests of 734-732 remain the primary focus throughout this section; however, as we have seen, the fall of the Northern Kingdom (722/721) and the devastating invasion of Judah (701) are also in view. The compilation of 6:1-9:6 as a whole almost certainly took place after 701.

There are certain textual questions in 8:23 which need to be addressed.

Isaiah 8:23a—[Wum* can be derived from [ou (“fly, flutter”) or [ou (“be dark”); the former would indicate a negative situation (“there will be no flying/fluttering” [that is, release/escape, or perhaps poetically as “daybreak”]), the latter a positive one (“there will be no darkness”). The referent for the feminine suffix Hl* is unclear: it could refer to any of the feminine nouns in verse 22 (Jr#a# [“land”], hk*v@j& [“darkness”], or parallel hr*x*/hq*ox [“distress, oppression”]), or it could look forward to the “land” of 8:23b/9:1. The preposition could have the sense of “for her” or “from/by her”.

Isaiah 8:23b—Does /ovar!h* (“the head” [i.e. the first, former]) modify the prior common/feminine noun tu@ (i.e. “as at the first/former time, [when] he…”), or does refer to an implied (masculine) subject (i.e. “as at the time [when] the first/former one…”); this affects the parallelism with /orj&a^h* (“the following” [i.e. the later]): is it a former/later time or former/later person? The verbs llq and dbk (in the Hiphil) mean “make light” and “make heavy” respectively; the former can either have the sense of “treat with contempt/dishonor” or “lighten, make easier”, the latter “treat with honor” or “make heavier [i.e. more difficult]”. Then, is the parallelism synonymous or antithetical? In the historical context, how do these verbs relate to the territories of Zebulon, Naphtali, the Transjordan and Galilee?

These questions are important for establishing the basic context for the poetic oracle that follows. Compare the very different renderings of two modern critical commentaries (by J. J. M Roberts [Hermeneia, 2015, p. 144] and Joseph Blenkinsopp [Anchor Bible, 2000, p. 245-6]:

Roberts/Hermeneia

…Surely it will be without daybreak to the one distressed by it.

As at the former time he treated with contempt
<The Sharon and the land of Gilead,>
The land of Zebulon and the land of Naphtali,
So at the latter time he has honored the way of the sea,
Trans-jordan, Galilee of the nations.
The people who were walking in darkness
Have seen a great light…

Blenkinsopp/AB:

There is no gloom for her who is oppressed. At that time the earlier ruler treated with contempt the territory of Zebulon and Naphthali, and the later one oppressed the way of the sea, the land across the Jordan, Galilee of the nations. The people that walk in the dark Have seen a great light…

In my view, Roberts is correct in understanding a contrast between the verbs (in the Hiphil) ll^q* (“make light [of]”) and db^K* (“give weight [to]”), in the sense of “disregard” vs. “honor”, and that YHWH is the implied subject. In allowing the Assyrian conquests to take place, God was “making light of” Israel, but now He will “give weight to” (i.e., honor) her. Here is my translation of the verse:

“(It is) that (there is) no darkness (now) for (the one) whom (there had been) distress for her; as (in) the former time (when) He made light (of) the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, even (so in) the later (time) He has given weight (to the) way of the sea, (the land) across the Yarden, (and) Galîl of the nations.”

However, there is no contrast between the territories mentioned. All five designations refer equally to the Northern Kingdom, but the last three specifically refer to areas that were turned into Assyrian provinces after 732: D¥°ru (Dor, “the way of the sea”), Gal±azu (Gilead, “[the land] across the Jordan”), Magidû (Megiddo, “Galilee of the nations”); cf. Blenkinsopp, p. 247; Roberts, p. 147f. The implication is that God will restore honor to these territories, by restoring them within a united Israelite Kingdom, under the leadership of a new king in Judah/Jerusalem. This is the focus of the poem that follows.

There are fewer problems of interpretation in the poem proper, the stanzas of which can be outlined as follows:

    • V. 1: Light shines for those in darkness
    • V. 2: Joy will be increased, with two-fold motif: (a) harvest, (b) army dividing spoils
    • V. 3: Three connected symbols of oppression—yoke, cross-bar, and rod/whip—will be smashed
    • V. 4: The signs and remains of warfare and conquest (shoes, blood-caked garments) will be burned
    • V. 5: Announcement of the birth of a child (son), along with symbol(s) of government and (royal) titles
    • V. 6: A promise to establish/maintain the greatness and (eternal) rule of the Davidic kingdom

With regard to this poem, critical scholars have given various dates to it, ranging from Isaiah’s own time (c. 730-700 B.C.) down to the post-exilic period. An exilic or post-exilic date would make a Messianic orientation much more plausible, but I find little evidence in these verses for such a setting. The closer one comes to Isaiah’s own time, the much less likely a future (Messianic) interpretation would be as the primary sense of the passage. This is particularly true if we take seriously the overall context of Isa 6:1-9:6, which is set rather securely in the period c. 740-732 B.C.

Assuming this context still applies to 8:23, the regions mentioned (Zebulon, Naphtali, Transjordan [Gilead], Galilee and the northern coastal plain [“way of the sea”]) represent areas which suffered under Assyrian attack 734-732 B.C., and were effectively annexed to become Assyrian provinces (cf. above). The message of 9:1-6 is directed, in part, to the Northern kingdom (“the people who walk in darkness”)—there is no indication that Samaria has fallen completely yet. Of course, Assyria still threatened the Southern kingdom of Judah, and would launch a devastating attack some years later (this will become the central event of the remainder of the first half of the book [up to ch. 39]). Here God promises (expressed in the prophetic perfect: “he has increased joy”, “he has smashed”, etc.) to deliver Israel/Judah from her enemies, bringing a renewed period of peace and prosperity.

January 1: Isaiah 8:11-22

Isaiah 8:11-22

There are three pieces to this section, which bring the oracles of chapters 7-8 to a close. They seem to be only loosely connected, though thematically they all relate, we may assume, to the 8th century Assyrian crisis. The pieces may be outlined as follows:

    • Vv. 11-15—A message of warning from YHWH to the prophet, emphasizing the need to trust in Him alone
    • Vv. 16-18—A biographical notice, referring to the sealing of Isaiah’s oracle(s)
    • Vv. 19-22—A message of warning to people (Isaiah’s audience) against relying on other religious means (rather than trusting solely in YHWH’s word) in time of crisis.
Verses 11-15

The first unit begins with an introductory notice of a powerful inspired (prophetic) state that grips Isaiah:

“For thus said YHWH to me, as (with) a firm grasp (of the) hand, and disciplined me (away) from walking in (the) way of this people, saying…” (v. 11)

The central verb in the MT is rs^y` (“discipline, correct, rebuke”), yn]r@S=y]w+ (“and He disciplined me”), which fits the forceful image of God taking firm hold (qzj) of Isaiah with the hand. The idea would be of a parent forcefully disciplining a child. However, the Qumran Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) has yn]r@ys!y+ (“He turned me [aside]”), a Hiphil form of rWs (“turn [aside]”). This would fit the motif that follows, of walking on a certain path (or avoiding it). Thus, both verbs would fit the context, and it is difficult to decide between them; unfortunately, the other Qumran fragments do not contain this portion of v. 11, so there is no additional help to be found there (cf. Roberts, p. 136). I think that the context slightly favors rsy, with the overriding sense that YHWH is giving a stern warning to Isaiah.

He is to avoid “the way of this people”, where the expression “this people” should be understood in light of the earlier occurrence in v. 6 (cf. the discussion in the prior note). Assuming that we are still dealing with the historical context of the Syro-Ephraimite crisis, Isaiah was caught in the middle of this situation. Some of “the people” supported the anti-Assyrian coalition, while others would have preferred to ally themselves with Assyria. There is some indication that king Ahaz of Judah vacillated between these two positions. The prophetic message of Isaiah ran contrary to both of these practical political/military approaches, and here YHWH is warning him against falling into such worldly ways of thinking.

A key word in this message is the noun rv#q#, from the root rvq, which fundamentally means “bind [together]”. In the context, it refers to a political (and/or military) alliance, such as the anti-Assyrian coalition, formed by Aram-Damascus and Israel, which sought to force Judah (through military pressure) to join it. The prophet is directed not to think or speak in such terms, and he is also exhorted not to be afraid, nor to fear the kinds of things people fear during such times of crisis (v. 12). Rather than turning to political solutions, Isaiah and his supporters are to place their trust in YHWH alone (vv. 13ff).

The root vdq, denoting holiness and separation/ consecration, provides a contrast with rvq, and there is even a kind of alliterative wordplay between the two. It connotes the covenant bond between YHWH and His people, along with the protection that He provides for those who are faithful and trust in Him. For the faithful ones, God serves as a holy place of protection (vD*q=m!), but for others, He is a stone that trips them up and causes them to fall.

One is reminded of the use of vv. 14-15 (along with Psalm 118:22) as applied to the person of Jesus in the Gospel tradition (Luke 20:18 par; cf. also the declaration in 2:34 of the Infancy narrative). Here the  warning of judgment is equally comprehensive, addressed to the kingdoms of Israel and Judah alike—and, indeed, both would experience considerable destruction and suffering at the hands of Assyria. None of their political machinations would help them to avoid this fate, and only a remnant—including the city of Jerusalem (where YHWH’s holy sanctuary [vD*q=m!] resides)—would survive.

Verses 16-18

The inclusion of this biographical notice is curious, and originally it was probably part of the tradition in vv. 1-4 (cf. the prior note). There is certainly a continuation of the themes from that earlier passage, namely: (1) a notarized written record of Isaiah’s prophecy, and (2) the association of the oracle with Isaiah’s child. In this particular scene, there is a further juxtaposition between the presence of Isaiah’s disciples (<yd!WMl!, v. 16) and his children (<yd!l*y+, v. 18)—presumably the two children, with the symbolic names, connected with the oracles in 7:3-9 and 8:1-4. The disciples are associated with the binding (vb rWx, i.e., securing) and sealing (vb <t^j*) of the prophecy—i.e., a written record of one or more of Isaiah’s oracles, which doubtless served as a primary source for the document of 6:1-9:6 as a whole.

The children, by contrast, are associated with the message of the oracle(s), as the symbolic names and connected signs indicate. This is specified in verse 18, referring to the children as those “…whom YHWH gave to me for signs [tota)] and for portents [<yt!p=om] in Yisrael”. The oracles, and the accompanying child-signs, relate specifically to the judgment coming upon the kingdom of Israel (along with Aram-Damascus), which was fulfilled by the Assyrian conquests of 734-732 B.C.

The central statement of the episode (in v. 17), emphasizes the prophet’s trust in YHWH, contrasted with the general faithlessness of the Israelite kingdom:

“I will wait [vb hk*j*] for YHWH, the (One) hiding His face from (the) house of Ya’aqob; indeed I will wait [vb hw`q*] for Him.”

The prophet’s two declarations that he will wait for YHWH, using two different verbs, bracket the statement alluding to God’s judgment against Israel (“…hiding His face from the house of Jacob”). The ‘hiding’ (turning away) of God’s face essentially refers to the removal of His covenant-protection from the people, thus allowing for their conquest by the Assyrians.

Verses 19-22

In the first unit, the focus is on how people respond (out of fear) in a time of crisis, turning to political/military alliances as their source of hope and protection. Another way of responding is to seek out (vb vr^D*) other religious sources, apart from simply trusting in the prophetic word of God. That is the focus here in the third unit, which matches the first as a message of warning against following in the path of the people at large. The first message was addressed to Isaiah himself; the second, here, is presented as an oracle, by Isaiah, to an audience: “And (it is) that they will/may say to you…”.

The implied “they”, as the subject of the verb, are the people at large (and their leaders). In time of crisis, people will often seek out various superstitious practices to gain answers and find a sense of hope and security. Among these can be included various forms of divination—most of which are specifically prohibited in the Torah. The one mentioned here in vv. 19-22 is necromancy—attempts to obtain information and guidance from the spirits of the dead. Such things were outlawed by the Torah (e.g., Lev 19:31; 20:6, 27; Deut 18:11), but they continued to be practiced throughout Israel’s history (cf. 19:3; 26:13-19; 28:14-22; 29:4; Blenkinsopp, p. 245). The most famous Old Testament example is the episode at En-Dor in 1 Samuel 28.

The message of warning concludes on a dark and chilling note (v. 22), promising that those who resort to necromancy, looking down into the darkness of the underworld, will themselves be thrust down into deep darkness.

References above marked “Roberts” are to J. J. M. Roberts, First Isaiah, Hermeneia (Fortress Press: 2015).
Those marked “Blenkinsopp” are to Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 19 (Yale University Press: 2000).

December 31: Isaiah 8:5-10, continued

Isaiah 8:9-10

“Know (this), O peoples, and be shattered,
and give ear, all distant (part)s of (the) earth:
Gird yourselves and be shattered!
Gird yourselves and be shattered!
Devise a plan, and it shall be split (apart),
Speak a word, and it shall not stand—
for (the) Mighty (One is) with us!”

Isaiah 8:5-10 concludes with a poem (vv. 9-10) that is likely considerably later than the oracle of vv. 5-8. It is an example of the way that the Isaian oracles inspired subsequent prophetic authors and poets, expanding and developing those traditions, giving to them new meaning and theological depths. Some of this development certainly could have taken place in Isaiah’s own oeuvre, during the prophet’s own lifetime; however, the scope and setting of many of the poems in chapters 2-39 (to say nothing of the Deutero-/Trito-Isaian poems in chaps. 40-66), strongly suggests a broader scale of development, over at least several generations.

The opening word of the poem is problematic. The MT (supported by 1QIsaa and 4QIsae-f) reads Wur), which the versions seem to understand as deriving from hu*r* II (“associate with”). However, this makes relatively little sense in the context of the poem. Much to be preferred is the Hebrew (WuD=) that presumably underlies the LXX gnw=te (“know”), scribal confusion between resh (r) and daleth (d) being relatively common. The command to “know!” offers a suitable parallel to “give ear” (i.e., “hear!”) in the second line.

The “peoples” (<yM!u^) here provide a certain contrast with “this people [<u^]” in v. 6 (cf. the previous note). Only now the situation is rather reversed:

    • “the people” (Judah)
      • will be overwhelmed by the nations (Assyria)
    • “the peoples” (the Nations)
      • will be unable to overcome God’s people (Judah)

The command for the nations of the earth to be “shattered” anticipates the harsh directive in lines 3-4, which uses the same verb. This verb (tt^j*), literally meaning “break, shatter,” is sometimes used in the figurative sense of being dismayed, frightened, unable to respond, etc. The reflexive imperative of the verb rz`a* (“bind [around], gird”) suggests the action of men preparing themselves for battle. The prophetic Nation-oracles often depict the Judgment in military terms. The Assyrian invasion of Judah, though largely successful (and quite destructive), ultimately failed in the goal of capturing Jerusalem and so conquering the entire kingdom. The invasion was thwarted, through the miraculous action of YHWH, giving divine protection to His people (cf. Isa 37:33-37 par). This would serve as a type-pattern for the nations in the future—similar attempts to attack and destroy God’s people (when they are under His covenant protection) will only result in humiliation and defeat for the nations.

Even their plans—what they may intend to do against God’s people—are doomed to fail. There is cognate wordplay in lines 5-6 that is difficult to translate:

    • hx*u@ Wxu% (“Plan [out] a plan…”)
      rb*d* WrB=D^ (“Speak a spoken [word]…”)

Their plans will be “split apart” (vb rr^P*), and what they say they are going to do “will not stand [vb <Wq]”. The reason for this failure is because YHWH is with [<u!] His people. This preposition is at the root of the name la@-WnM*u!, which was introduced (famously) in 7:14 (cf. the earlier notes), and is repeated here, only in a way that essentially expounds the meaning of the name, applying it within the context of God’s covenant loyalty toward His people. The protection provided by YHWH is based on His presence, manifest supernatural power. In terms of the colorful narrative in Isa 37 par, the Divine presence/power is expressed by way of the theophanous manifestation of the “Messenger of YHWH” (hwhy Ea^l=m^) who struck the assembled camp of the Assyrian army (v. 36). At the historical level, this may refer to a plague that broke out in the camp, leading to widespread sickness and death. This would be entirely in keeping with the ancient Near Eastern (and Israelite) understanding of disease as a manifestation of Divine judgment.

December 30: Isaiah 8:5-10

Isaiah 8:5-10

“And YHWH proceeded to speak to me again, saying…” (v. 5)

Verse 5 begins a new oracle, though the references to Rezin and “the son of Remalyah” (i.e., Pekah) in v. 6 make clear that we are still dealing with the Syro-Ephraimite crisis (735-734 B.C.) which was the setting of the prior oracles. There are, indeed, a number of points of contact with the four previous oracles, including the river/canal imagery here, which may allude to the locale of the first oracle in 7:1-9, when Isaiah met Ahaz at the canal of the Siloam pool (v. 3).

“(In) response for (how) this people has refused (the) waters of the offshoot traveling softly, and having rejoiced with Rezin and (the) son of Remalyah, indeed for this (reason), see! My Lord is bringing up over them (the) waters of the (great) River, mighty and manifold—(the) king of Aššur {Assyria} and all his weight—and (they) shall come up over all its channels and travel over all its banks.” (vv. 6-7)

The basic contrast here is clear enough—between a soft/gently (fa^) moving stream and a powerful flood of water overflowing its banks. The noun j^l)v! literally means something like “offshoot”, or “branch”, but in context here certainly refers to a water-canal. It may be the name of a specific canal carrying water from the Gihon spring to the pool of Siloam (cf. the locale of the oracle in 7:3, mentioned above). This canal is contrasted with “the River” —that is, the Great River (Euphrates), with its mighty (<Wxu*) and many (br^) waters. Obviously, the Assyrian empire is being referenced, which would have been clear to the audience, even without the specific mention of the “king of Assyria”, which could conceivably be a secondary gloss.

Because “this people” refused (vb sa^m*, also in 7:15-16) the gentle-moving and beneficial waters of the canal, YHWH is bringing upon them instead the powerful and destructive waters of the Euphrates. This ‘refusal’ is defined in terms of “rejoicing” (vb cWc) with Rezin and Pekah, i.e., the kings of Aram-Damascus and Israel. There is some textual uncertainty regarding the form cwcm. The Masoretic Text (supported by the Qumran MSS 4QIsae-f) vocalizes it as a construct noun (vovm=), while the great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) apparently reads a Hiphil participle (cyc!m*). In any case, a verbal noun (from the root cwc), would seem to be correct.

The idea of “rejoicing” with Rezin and Pekah surely means, in context, supporting the anti-Assyrian coalition of Aram-Damascus and Israel. Some commentators (e.g., Roberts, p. 133f) would identify “this people” as the people of the northern kingdom of Israel, but this does not seem to be correct. The overall context (of chaps. 7-8), in my view, overwhelmingly argues for the oracle addressing the people of the southern kingdom of Judah. There must have been a portion of the Judahite population (and its ruling class) that would have been in favor of joining the anti-Assyrian coalition, and, indeed, there is some evidence that Ahaz himself vacillated between the two positions. The thrust of the condemnation is that such people are relying upon the political/military forces of the coalition, rather than placing their trust on YHWH for protection.

“And it shall pass on in(to) Yehudah, shall wash (past) and (flood) over, (even) up to (the) neck it shall touch. And he shall be stretching out his wings, filling (the) breadth of your land, Mighty-with-Us!” (v. 8)

No specific mention is made of the judgment against Aram-Damascus and Israel. Rather, it is simply assumed that the floodwaters of the Assyrian army will (or has already) overrun the northern kingdoms, and will now reach all the way “into Judah”. The entire Judean kingdom will be flooded, using the image of a person standing in water up to his/her neck. The lone ‘head’ that is left above the waters certainly alludes to the city of Jerusalem and the ‘remnant’ of Judah that survives the Assyrian invasion (in 701 B.C.). Possibly, at the historical level, this oracle is to be dated to a time after the conquest of the northern kingdoms (at least after 733-732), and thus more clearly anticipating the coming invasion at the end of the 8th century. The survival of the Judean kingdom (and the city of Jerusalem) is alluded to by the mention of the name la@-WnM*u! (±Imm¹nû °E~l, “God [is] with us”); cf. the earlier notes on 7:14.

“Know (this), O peoples, and be shattered,
and give ear, all distant (part)s of (the) earth:
Gird yourselves and be shattered!
Gird yourselves and be shattered!
Devise a plan, and it shall be split (apart),
Speak a word, and it shall not stand—
for (the) Mighty (One is) with us!”

Commentators who view vv. 9-10 as a later poem, inspired by the Isaian oracles, are probably correct. It certainly fits the way the Isaian traditions (of the 8th and early 7th century) seem to have been utilized and developed, by the author/editor(s) of chapters 2-39 (not to mention the Deutero/Trito-Isaian poems of chaps. 40-66). The promise of divine protection for Judah/Jerusalem, in the context of the 8th century Assyrian invasions, is here expanded to encompass all the nations of the earth, anticipating the culmination of the Isaian nation-oracle traditions that we find in the so-called ‘Isaian Apocalypse’ of chapters 24-27. Attempts by the nations to attack or threaten God’s people are doomed to fail, because YHWH is with His people. Here, the sentence name la@-WnM*u! (±Imm¹nû °E~l) needs to be understood as a definitive statement, rather than a name: “The Mighty One [la@, i.e. God] is with us [WnM*u!]”.

These lines will be discussed in a bit more detail in the next daily note.

References above marked “Roberts” are to J. J. M. Roberts, First Isaiah, Hermeneia (Fortress Press: 2015).