Here is a poem that I composed (for the most part) while watching last night’s conjunction of Jupiter and Venus, the celestial event that many scholars believe was The Star of Bethlehem over 2,000 years ago. (The background picture is my best attempt to photograph it.) For some of my thoughts on the magi, click here.
Chapter Forty-nine:
v. 2: I like the way these images are arranged: God makes the weapon (the sharp sword and polished arrow) and then protects it (in the shadow of his hand and in the quiver). It is a very beautiful juxtaposition of qualities to describe a dangerous weapon along with its need for protection.
Since the sword is described as being a metaphor for the narrator’s mouth (i.e. his words, his message) I assume the same is true of the arrow. John uses the image of a sword similarly in Revelation 1:16.
v. 3: “You are my servant, Israel.” This is an unexpected sentence. The servant in this chapter is the Messiah, who will save Israel (v. 5), so it seems odd to refer to the servant himself as Israel. The Oxford commentary notes that the word “Israel” here in v. 3 is “absent from some Hebrew manuscripts” and thus believes it is a gloss added by a later editor rather than a part of the original text. That makes sense to me.[1]
v. 4: I believe this verse describes the feelings of Jesus as he suffered from disappointment at the sinfulness and lack of faith in his followers. He expressed such disappointment when he said, “How much longer must I put up with you?” (Matt 17:17) and “Have I been with you all this time, Phillip, and you still do not know me?” (John 14:9) and “So, could you not stay awake with me one hour?” (Matt 26:40) And he expressed it with a look when Peter denied knowing him at the trial before his crucifixion (Luke 22:61).
This chapter is Messianic, but it differs from some earlier Messianic chapters of Isaiah in that it sometimes seems to refer to Jesus directly rather than through one of his prefiguring types (like Cyrus in 41:2-3 or Immanuel in chapter 7).[2] Verses 8-21, use the imagery of Judah’s return from Babylonian captivity, so if this chapter were to reference one of Christ’s prefiguring types, I would guess that the reference would be to Cyrus, but how can verses like 4 and 7 refer to Cyrus? When would Cyrus have said something like what the speaker of v. 4 says, or how could Cyrus, triumphant emperor of the Persians, be reasonably described as “the slave of rulers” as this servant is described in v. 7? Verse 6 is also a little awkward to apply to Cyrus. He could be said to be the savior of Israel (and thus prefigure Christ) in that he conquered Babylon and allowed the Jews to return to their homeland. He could also be said to be the savior of the rest of the known world in as much as he rid the world of the Babylonian tyrants, but it seems more natural to see Cyrus as the savior of the known world first and then as the savior of the Jews (and other individual races enslaved in the empire) secondarily as a consequence of having conquered Babylon. But here in verse 6, the servant saves Israel first, then the rest of the world.
v. 5: What “the LORD says” is in actually in v. 6.
v. 7: Saying that kings shall stand and princes fall prostrate makes me think of all these rulers in a confused scramble, eager to honor the Christ.
v. 8: The phrase “in a time of favor” begins the words of God in this section. I do not know why the NRSV does not put quotation marks here as it does in other places (like v. 6).
v. 12: I am not sure about whether these people coming from far away are Jews returning from exile, or Gentiles being drawn in to Jerusalem from all over the earth. Maybe the passage is meant to be ambiguous in order to allude to the fact that, once the Messiah comes, there will be no more Jews and Gentiles as such; everyone in the new spiritual kingdom will be a child of God.
As for the place “Syene,” I am not sure where it is. The Oxford commentary thinks it is a place in upper Egypt where a Jewish community once existed before the Persians conquered Egypt. Barnes seems convinced that it is China, citing the linguistic similarity of “Syene” with “Sina” (209-210). He makes an interesting argument, but I am not sure whom to believe.
Notice how the prophet gives four directions from which “the people” (v.8) will come to Zion: “Far away…the north…the west…the land of Syene.” Since the number of directions is four here, I would expect them to correspond to the four directions of the compass, but only two do this overtly (north and west). I might argue that the other two imply the missing directions, and that Syene (China) could fill in for the east, but it seems a stretch to suggest that such a general term as “far away” is meant to refer specifically to any direction, and thus it seems a stretch to suggest that either of these two vague directions should refer to directions of the compass.
Nevertheless, it does seem odd to me (since these chapters either refer directly to the return of the Jews from Babylon or use the return more indirectly as a metaphor for other things) that “the east” is not given as a direction from which people will come. One could argue that the Jews actually arrived from Babylon back into their homeland via the highways which approach Israel from the north, but it still seems like “the east” would have been mentioned since Babylon is to the east of Jerusalem. After all, the wise men who came to see Jesus were “from the East” (Matthew 2:1) even though they may have approached Israel from the north.
v. 15: “I will not forget you [Zion].” This is a beautiful feminine image of God. In fact, it is sort of a superfeminine image of God because he is described as a more faithful mother than some human mothers. It reminds me of Matthew 23:37: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem…how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.” And there are also other places in the Bible where feminine imagery is used to describe God. Compare the feminine personification of Wisdom in Proverbs 3:13-14,16; 4:6;8:1,12,23,27-29 with the description of Christ as the Word in John1:1-3,14. See also notes on Genesis 1:27.
The image of God as a mother is particularly poignant here because Mount Zion in Jerusalem is personified as a mother bereft of her children. By reminding her that he loves her just as she loves her own children (i.e. the Jews carried away to captivity) God assures Zion that he has not forsaken her. See verses 20-23.
v. 16: Inscribing her (Zion) on the palms of his hands is a fascinating idea. There may be no intentional reference here to the crucifixion, but it would be very good poetry if one were to make such a reference.
Vs. 20-23: This is my understanding of the imagery in these verses: Zion is a bereaved and barren mother who suddenly is blessed with such a rush of children coming to her that the land is filled to the brim. Thus, they will say, “The place is too crowded for me; make room for me to settle.” She has not known about these children because they were born away from her “in the time of …[her] bereavement” and reared by somebody else. Thus, she asks in joy and surprise: “Who has reared these?” The answer is that the kings and queens of the Gentiles have raised them. “Kings shall be your foster fathers and queens your nursing mothers.”[3] These foster parents are now happily returning the children to their rightful mother. “They shall bring your sons in their bosom, and your daughters shall be carried on their shoulders.” These same kings and queens, upon returning her children, will then acknowledge her as their High Queen and submit to her authority.
Here is my interpretation of these images: The mother Zion is a somewhat fluid metaphor: she represents both the physical (historical) and spiritual (Messianic) kingdom of Israel, and by extension, the true religion of God. The substance of these verses is derived from the Jewish return from the Babylonian Captivity. Historically, the land of Judah was bereft of its inhabitants. These were taken away and “reared” in the Gentile lands for seventy years until the Persians conquered Babylon and allowed the Jews to return to their homeland. Thus, the Gentiles returned Zion’s children to her. However, I can think of no corresponding event in the history of the physical kingdom of Judah to match the Gentiles’ submission to Zion. Persia was still Judah’s earthly master even after the return from Babylon, and after Persia, Greece, and after Greece, Rome, in the time of Christ, and Rome eventually annihilated Judah as a kingdom. One could interpret this submission as a reference to mass conversions of Gentiles to Judaism, but I do not believe that ever happened. This is only fulfilled in the Messianic kingdom of Jesus, where the Gentile world entered the kingdom by acknowledging the God of the Jews as the true God, and by submitting to his authority. See also notes on 60:14.
v. 26: Some scholars think these verses describe the desperate sort of cannibalism that people have resorted to during prolonged sieges, but I do not believe that is what the prophet intends. The wording does not suggest desperation but rather debauchery. The oppressors of the Jews will be drunk on their own blood as with wine. If this refers to the siege of Babylon (as I believe most people think it does) then my interpretation has a nice parallel with Daniel 5. The fact that these oppressors are metaphorically drunk on their own blood refers to the seductive and self-destructive nature of sin.
Isaiah Chapter Forty-five:
Vs. 1-8: All of these verses are linked thematically by the LORD’s use of Cyrus to bring justice to the world. The LORD gives three reasons in these verses for why he chooses Cyrus for this task:
1) He chooses Cyrus “so that [Cyrus] may know that it is … the LORD who call[s] [him] by [his] name” (v. 3).
2) He chooses Cyrus “…for the sake of [his] servant Jacob…” (v. 4) to deliver the Jews from Babylonian captivity.
3) He chooses Cyrus “so that they [all the peoples of the earth] may know from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is no one besides [God]…” (v. 6).
v. 3: “It is I, The LORD…who call you by your name.” Cyrus is actually named in v. 1 where the LORD addresses him.
v. 4: “I surname you.” A surname[1] is an additional name one gets because of some quality one possess. The skill one displays in one’s profession is an example of such a quality. A surname could also, by association, identify all the members of the surnamed person’s family; thus, a man who is a good smith is nicknamed John “Smith” and all his descendants inherit the surname. I suppose “Israel” was a surname for Jacob.[2]
The Hebrew word translated here in Isaiah as “surname” is kanah, which Barnes says connotes friendliness and affection (Isaiah II, 130). Strong’s Concordance agrees with this, offering “to give flattering titles” as a definition (3655). Thus, the surnaming of Cyrus implies at least two things:
1) God’s affection for him personally as the instrument of divine justice
2) God’s adoption of him as his anointed one[3] (v.1), foreshadowing the coming of The Great Anointed One, Jesus. “Anointed one,” I assume, is the surname God gives to Cyrus.
v. 8: This is a beautiful image: Salvation, watered by Righteousness from heaven, springs up like plants watered by rain.
v. 9: I believe vs. 9-13 should be read as a whole. Although Barnes does not group 9-13 together, he does note that v.9 heads a section which turns from the chapter’s initial direction. He says that this section may be addressed to “unbelieving Jews who were disposed to murmur against God.” Luther seems to have agreed with him in this because the heading he supplies for vs. 9-13 is “Gegen die Vermessenen in Israel.” [4] But I do not believe that. I believe the “you” to whom these verses are directed is either Babylon or the heathen nations in general who would doubt that God would use Cyrus to free the Jews. The Jews themselves are referred to in the third person, which makes me think that Jews are not being addressed directly: “Will you question me about my children?” and “He [Cyrus] shall …set my exiles free.”
Whoever this section is addressed to is obviously “striving with [his or her] Maker” by finding fault with God’s plan concerning Cyrus. Finding fault could mean that the person does not believe God’s plan is a good one and/or that God will not be able to bring the plan about.
v. 10: Since this verse parallels the image of the clay vessels and their maker in v. 9, I think the father and woman (mother) here in v. 10 should be understood as the father and mother (i.e. the makers) of the person who is questioning them (rather than some random father and mother). This illustrates the self-defeating nature of doubting God: whenever one does so, one doubts the roots of one’s very own existence; that is why there is “woe to anyone who” does it.
v. 13: Cyrus received rewards for conquering the Babylonian empire (v. 3), but he allowed the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple because God directed him to do so. See Ezra 1:1-2. Barnes writes that Josephus, in Ant. B. 11 chapter 1 section 2, claims that Cyrus was moved to restore Jerusalem and the temple after being shown the book of Isaiah (Isaiah I, 13).
v. 14: This grouping of Egypt, Ethiopia, and the Sabeans should be read in conjunction with 43:3, where these countries are also treated as a group. (See note there.) I think the grouping in both chapters signifies the same thing. It is idiomatic for “from west to east,” or, as in v. 6 of this chapter, “…from the rising of the sun and from the west….” Also, in both chapters these nations will be subjected to Israel or to Israel’s welfare. In chapter 43, they will be given as ransom for Israel, and here they will be brought as captives and slaves to Israel. I believe that is the proper interpretation of these passages, but I do not know how to apply it to actual events. Perhaps there is a spiritual application; after all, these passages are saying, essentially, that the world will be made subject to Israel, which is true in one sense even now as far as spiritual Israel (Christ’s kingdom) is concerned, and will be true in the fullest sense when Christ returns. See also notes on chapter 2:1-4.
v. 15: “Truly, you are a God who hides himself….” This is an interesting passage. I am not sure who the speaker is. If, as the NRSV and New American Standard translation suggest,[5]the speaker is a Jew (or Judah collectively), then I believe the writer means for the statement to be false. Outside the context of this chapter, of course, the statement certainly has true application; other passages of Isaiah (1:15, 8:17) speak of God’s hiding himself. But in the context of this chapter, the statement is difficult for me to explain in light of v. 19: “I have not spoken in secret in some dark land; I did not say to the offspring of Jacob ‘Seek me in a waste place[6].’”
I am confident that v. 19 is saying that God has not been hidden or inaccessible. The tone of v. 19 is very similar to Christ’s tone in John 18:20 where he says, “I have spoken openly to the world…and I spoke nothing in secret.” I find that the Strong’s Concordance dictionary entry for the Hebrew word translated in v. 19 as “in secret” or “secretly” is cether (5643), which the concordance says is derived “from [entry] 5641.” Entry 5641 is cathar, which is the very same word translated in v. 15 as “hides.” This makes me believe that the writer had v. 15 in mind when he wrote v. 19 and that he intended for v. 19 to rebuke the sentiment of v. 15. God is the declared speaker of v. 19, so there is no doubt that what it says is true, and what it says contradicts v. 15. Therefore, in the context of this chapter the sentiment of v. 15 is wrong if the speaker is a Jew because God specifically says that he has not hidden himself from the Jews . This does not mean that v. 19 contradicts similar expressions in other parts of Isaiah (or the Bible). In another context one might truly say of God that he hides himself from the Jews or any number of other people. I believe he hides himself even from the faithful (among both Jews and Gentiles) sometimes because he wants us to go through the spiritual exercise of seeking him out (Proverbs 25:2). I also believe he hides himself from the unfaithful, i.e., those who are not seeking him genuinely anyway. [7]Nevertheless, God never hides himself indefinitely from those who seek him with a penitent, patient, and humble heart. As Christ said, “He who seeks finds; and to him who knocks it shall be opened” (Matthew 7:8). In this chapter, when God says that he has not hidden himself, he must mean that he has not hidden himself from the Jews in the way that the (Jewish) speaker of v.15 is thinking. For instance, perhaps the speaker thinks God hides himself because the divine personality is aloof by nature or because he does not want people to find him, but the truth is that God is love and wants people to find him, even when he is hiding himself.
On the other hand, if the speaker of v. 15 is still the collective Gentile world, then it would not necessarily contradict v. 19, since v. 19 only asserts that God has not hidden himself from the Jews. It is true that he still would not hide himself from the Gentiles simply because he did not want to be found by them; nevertheless, hehad revealed himself to the Jews in a more open manner than he had to the Gentiles, even though he still loved the Gentiles and desired them to seek him.
But even if the speaker is a Gentile or the Gentile world personified, then he may also be wrong, in the context of this chapter, to say that God hides himself. In v. 20, God says, “Draw near you survivors of the nations,”[8] and in v. 22 God says, “Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth.” Such statements seem to be an open invitation to salvation for the Gentile world. Perhaps God means to suggest that the invitation has always been there for the Gentiles, but that they had so darkened their minds with idolatry that they were unable to perceive the invitation. Thus, they are wrong to say that God hides himself.
As I say, I do not know who the speaker is, but I believe the sentiment of v. 15 should be understood in one of the two contexts I have described above, depending upon whether the speaker is a Gentile or a Jew. I have no idea why the NRSV and NAS translations close the quotation at v. 14. If I knew, perhaps that would help me decide who the speaker is.
v. 19: I think the sentence, “I did not speak in secret…” should be juxtaposed with Isaiah 6:9-10 and other similar passages in Isaiah where God seems to be intentionally obscure. See notes there.
v. 20: The mention of wooden idols here reminds me of 44:13-17.
v. 24: This verse seems to parallel vs. 14 and 16. 24a = 14 and 24b = 16.
[1] According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, “sur-” as a prefix means “over” or “above;” thus, I suppose, a surname is a name above and beyond one’s birth name.
[2] See also 44:5.
[3] “Messiah” in Hebrew.
[4] “Against the presumptuous ones in Israel”
[5] These translations end the quotation marks for the Gentiles’ speech at v. 14. Therefore, I assume they are suggesting that the speaker of v. 15 is a Jew.
[6] NRSV translates “in a waste place” as “in chaos,” and the OKJ translates it as “in vain.”
[7] I know it sounds paradoxical to say that he hides himself from those who are not seeking him, but perhaps the paradox of this is like the paradoxical interaction of his will with ours whenever we make evil decisions (such as the decision not to seek him). See notes on 9:18-19 and 10:7.
[8] This is actually happening in v. 14.
The Adoration of the Magi (1894), tapestry, wool and silk on cotton warp Metropolitan University
Edward Burne Jones (with details by William Morris and John Henry Dearle)
The wise men, or magi, who came to worship little Jesus seem to have undertaken their costly, long, and dangerous trip with no other motive than to adore and honor him. They came from the east, which probably means that they came from Persia since the caste of magi originated in ancient Persia. Magi were priests in the Zoroastrian religion and scholars trained in such subjects as history, literature, and dream interpretation. They were also astrologers, which explains how they understood the significance of Christ’s star.
They followed this star to Jerusalem. I have heard many people say that it was naïve of these wise men to go to the current king of the Jews and ask where the new king was, and it has always seemed so to me as well. But now I wonder if, in fact, the wise men were assuming that the new king would be a son of Herod? Perhaps they followed the star as far as Jerusalem and then naturally thought the new king of the Jews would be born to the current king of the Jews, in the ancient capital of the Jews. Perhaps only after the new information from Herod do the wise men notice that the star has not stopped moving, that it was not leading them to Jerusalem as their preconceived ideas erroneously prepared them to believe, but rather to Bethlehem.
The fact that they were unaware of the importance of Bethlehem could support the idea that they were, if fact, Zoroastrian rather than Jewish scholars from the east. (Only the Jewish scholars seem to have had this knowledge about Bethlehem.) At any rate, it has always impressed me how these priests of another religion recognized the universal significance of the birth of this new king. The purity of their devotion is implicitly endorsed by Matthew and is a foreshadowing of the future salvation of Jew and Gentile alike.
Notes on Isaiah Thirty-six:
2nd Kings 18-20 contains the entire story of Hezekiah’s reign, and 18:13-19:37 contains the specific story of Sennacherib’s invasion; 2nd Chronicles 29-32 contains the entire story of Hezekiah’s reign, and 32:1-22 contains the specific story of Sennacherib’s invasion.
v. 3: See notes on Isaiah 22:15, 25.
v. 10: Compare this statement with Isaiah 10. It is interesting to consider how the Assyrian king came to understand that God was angry with the Jews. Perhaps the king heard from spies or rumors that Isaiah had announced that God was angry with his people and intended to punish them. Then again, perhaps God directly sent a lying spirit to the king through one of the royal oracles as he did the wicked king Ahab in 1st Kings 22:19-23. (See 1st Kings notes.)
v. 11: Barnes says Aramaic is in the same language group as Hebrew and Chaldee (Babylonian), but that the Assyrians probably spoke a dialect of Persian (7). However, the common opinion seems to be that Assyrian and Babylonian are both dialects of the Semitic language, Akkadian.
v. 12: The original words of the Assyrian here were probably quite rude references to excrement. I wonder if the Hebrew preserves their crudeness. Barnes claims that sometimes the Hebrews used euphemisms for crude language in the holy scriptures.
v. 21: Barnes seems to think the “they” of “they held their peace” refers to the ambassadors, but the 2nd Kings account of the same story says “the people” held their peace, which seems to indicate the people on the walls; that would make more sense anyway because the Assyrian is addressing them at that moment, not the ambassadors. It strikes me that their silence indicates a great deal of respect for Hezekiah’s command.
Chapter Thirty-five
v. 1: Ending the last chapter with Edom’s desolation (born out of prosperity) and beginning this very next chapter with Israel’s desolation (which will give birth to prosperity) gives this chapter that sense of irony that characterizes so much of the book of Isaiah.
vs. 6-7: God often uses the image of waters breaking forth miraculously in the desert to express his ability to deliver and rescue his loved ones. Sometimes the image is metaphorical, as 33:21 may be, and sometimes the image is literal, as when Moses strikes the rock (Exodus 17:1-7) or Hagar and finds the spring (Genesis 20:15-19).
Barnes points out a particularly beautiful use of such imagery here in v. 7. According to him, the “parched ground” (“burning sand” in the NRSV) of 7a is a translation of the Hebrew wordsharab, which he says is a cognate of the Arabic word serab, which should be translated as “mirage.” To prove this, he provides several Arabic proverbs in which the word serab clearly refers to the phenomenon of a mirage. Thus, he argues that the writer is actually saying that God will turn the mirage of water (a disappointing and dangerous illusion) into real, refreshing water. I think he makes a good argument.
vs. 8-10: This image of the Holy Way is very pleasant. Both Barnes and the Oxford commentary connect it with the return of the captives from Babylon, which seems reasonable to me. The language is idyllic, so, in as much as it does literally refer to the return from the captivity, the writer must be using hyperbole a little. In the context of the rest of Isaiah, however, I believe it also refers to the Messianic age and the beauty of that time.[1] Nevertheless, the interpretation of one part of the image is a little elusive for me. This Holy Way is such that “not even fools shall go astray” from it. I wonder what that means, especially if this Holy Way has application to the time of the Messiah. It sounds like the kind of verse that George MacDonald and others who believe in the universal salvation of humanity could get a lot of mileage out of.
Christ Crowned with Thorns
Albrecht Dürer
The Suffering Servant (Isaiah 53)
v. 1: “Who has heard what we have heard?” Who indeed? And who, having heard it, has been able to understand?[1] This question accurately predicts all the controversy that these passages about the Suffering Servant have inspired over the centuries. This is the very chapter of Isaiah with which the Ethiopian eunuch is struggling in Acts 8:30-35. It seems to me that the difficulties of this section can be divided into two types. First, there is the honest difficulty of someone who has no historical knowledge of the life of Christ. This is the Ethiopian eunuch’s difficulty. Then there is the difficulty which people who have knowledge of the life of Christ make for themselves by refusing to concede that he and this Suffering Servant are one.
“To whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?” The revealing of the LORD’s arm is a threat, a prelude to an attack from the LORD, like rolling up one’s sleeves, or taking off one’s jacket.[2] Of course, everyone to whom the arm of the LORD is revealed may not necessarily be threatened by that arm. For instance, if the LORD is defending someone against his enemies, then the revealing of the arm to that person may be an assurance of his deliverance. Therefore, I am not exactly sure how to answer this question. One answer may be that he has bared his arm to Babylon and by extension to all the evil forces that will oppose God and the Messiah[3]. I believe this is the proper interpretation of 52:10 where the LORD bares “his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations” who then witness his destruction of Babylon and deliverance of the captive Jews.
But I suspect that the person to whom the LORD reveals his arm here in 53:1 is the Messiah. If so, then clearly one sense in which he reveals his arm is to conqueror the Messiah’s enemies, as the first part of v. 12 describes. But I think there is another, ominous sense in which the LORD reveals his arm to the Messiah: He means to crush the Messiah, who has chosen to be “numbered with the transgressors” (53:12). V. 10 says, “It was the will of the LORD to crush him with pain.” In fact, I think this is the primary sense in which the question should be answered. This whole chapter is mostly concerned with the Messiah’s shocking role as a scapegoat, “wounded for our transgressions” (v.5) on whom “the LORD has laid…the iniquity of us all” (v.6). This role is so shocking that it would merit a question, almost of disbelief: “Has the arm of the LORD really been bared to the Messiah? Would God really have his Messiah undergo such things for our sake?” This also would explain the first question of the chapter: “Who is going to believe that?”
v. 2: The young plant and the root in the dry ground are metaphors for the Messiah. The young plant may symbolize the vulnerability and innocence of the Messiah. It may also refer to the fact that the Messiah was a young man when he was sacrificed.[4] The root in dry ground could symbolize either the fact that the Messiah would appear in a place (Nazareth[5]) and time which nobody expected, just as people would not look for a plant to sprout in dry ground. But it may also refer to the fact that a plant whose roots are in dry ground is not likely to look very impressive. Because of the second part of this verse (which refers to the Messiah’s unimpressive form) I suspect that this last interpretation is the main one. The young plant metaphor could be interpreted similarly since a young, fledgling plant is not as impressive to behold as its full grown counterpart.
If Christ’s physical appearance was unimpressive by nature (even before it was marred during his execution) as this scripture seems to imply, then that would compliment God’s decision to manifest himself on earth as a humble servant. He would have come as a poor carpenter with an unremarkable body rather than as a handsome, powerful king.[6] I do believe, however, that the unfathomable beauty of Christ’s spirit would so have affected those who loved him that they would hardly have been able to see him as plain or unattractive in spite of his natural appearance.
v. 4: The truly staggering quality of this chapter is how closely its description of the Suffering Servant matches Christ’s life. Who else could this be but Christ? Apparently some Jews since Christ have tried to interpret the Suffering Servant as a personification of the Israelites, or of the faithful among the Israelites. However, who is the “our” of “our infirmities”? The most reasonable answer seems to be that it is Isaiah and his readers, and surely Isaiah should be considered among the faithful of Israel, yet here he speaks of the Suffering Servant as being distinct from him. This convinces me that the Suffering Servant is not a personification of Israel, or even of the faithful of Israel. See also vs. 5 and 7.
v. 5: Notice that this Servant suffers in the place of the guilty (like a scapegoat) not along side them. Usually, however, the faithful as well as the unfaithful have suffered together throughout history. Consider, as an example, the suffering of both faithful and unfaithful Jews during the Babylonian Captivity. The suffering of this servant is unique in this regard and goes even further to convince me not to read the Suffering Servant as a personification of the faithful people of Israel. This servant is someone distinct from the people of Israel. He suffers (even though he is innocent) so that they will not have to suffer. Thus we see the terrible, beautiful irony of his purpose: “By his bruises we are healed.”
v.7: Both the faithful and the unfaithful naturally lament when they suffer, whereas this Suffering Servant “did not open his mouth.” This is yet another reason to read the Suffering Servant as Christ, who was very noticeably silent before his accusers; see Matthew 26:62-63.
v. 9: This Suffering Servant not only suffers, he dies: “His grave [italics mine] is with the wicked.” As this relates to Jesus, I suppose that saying “his grave is with the wicked” may be a reference specifically to the fact that he was buried in tombs usually reserved for rich, worldly people, or to the fact that he was executed as a criminal between two criminals. I believe that this and the next phrase “his tomb with the rich” are meant to be paralleled, to say basically the same thing twice. I believe this because that type of parallelism was a common literary convention among the Hebrews and is present throughout the Bible. According to Gesenius, the word translated as “rich” can be understood as connoting something like “worldly” (qtd. in Barnes 277). Barnes does not agree, however, that that is the proper translation here. He thinks it should be translated simply as rich, without the underlying suggestion of evil, because he sees this as a reference to the rich man’s grave which Joseph of Arimathea (a good man) provided for Christ. I agree with Barnes that this is a reference to Joseph of Arimathea’s gift of the tomb, but I do not think Joseph’s goodness invalidates the fact that Jesus was buried “with the worldly,” in an area typically inhabited by people who had been worldly in life. After all, he was not buriedwith Joseph of Arimathea.
vs.10-11: In verses 8-9, one learns that this Suffering Servant actually dies. He is cut off from the land of the living and has a grave. Yet here in v. 10 we find that God will “prolong his days,” and verse 11 says, “out of his anguish he shall see light.” If he had not died, such language could be interpreted to mean that God would vindicate him after his suffering and bless him again in this lifetime, as he did Job. But what could it mean if “his anguish” culminates in death? To me, the most reasonable answer is that God would bring him back to life. This is exactly what God did for Christ, and now Christ can see us, his metaphorical offspring, as a result of his sacrifice.
Notes on Isaiah Thirty-two
v. 1: The description of events in this chapter is so general that I do not believe it is possible to determine the specific era it refers to. Of course, as a type (at least), it applies to the Messianic Age.
v. 3: This verse must allude to other passages such as Isaiah 6:9-10 and suggest that the condition of the people described in such passages would be reversed in the time when “the spirit from on high is poured out on” the Jews.
v. 9: I wonder why the women are singled out here? Compare this passage with Isaiah 3:16 (and see note there). The Oxford commentary says women are mentioned because the Jews would have associated the act of lamentation more with women than men. Barnes suggests that the lamentation of the women parallels the barrenness of the land (the earth being associated with femininity).
It is interesting to note that no actual army is mentioned (unless metaphorically) in this chapter. Nevertheless, in the context of the previous chapters, it seems reasonable to see an invading army (Assyrian or Babylonian) as the cause of the disastrous effects listed here.
v. 15: Here “forest” must signify something good. The clause begins by saying that the events in this verse are the result of “a spirit from on high” being poured out on Judah. Therefore, when “the wilderness becomes a fruitful field,” Judah will be improved; the wasteland described in verses 13-14 will become a productive land once more. “Forest,” then, must be a hyperbolic description of the productivity of the fruitful field. It would make no sense whatsoever to see “forest” as a synonym for “wilderness” and thus as a sign of Judah’s return to misfortune.
v. 19: How odd that Isaiah would use the word “forest” again at this place; it is the same Hebrew word (ya’ar) that he uses in v. 15 to describe the productivity Judah would enjoy while the Spirit of God was poured out upon the land. Here, however, a forest is being destroyed.
Since this one verse describing ruin and destruction is inserted (with no noticeable transition) among five others that describe Judah’s peace and prosperity, I believe it should not apply to Judah but rather to Judah’s enemies. “Forest” might signify fruitfulness here just as it does in v. 15, the only difference being that the fruitfulness of v. 15 is Judah’s whereas that of v. 19 is the fruitfulness of Judah’s enemies. Barnes suggests that “forest” represents the army of the Assyrians, claiming that the same image is used in Isaiah 10:18-19, 33-34 for the same purpose (475). If Barnes is correct, we might call this inconsistent use of “forest”[1] in the same chapter a mixed metaphor (and thus an aesthetic flaw by our poetic standards), but such uses of metaphor may have been aesthetically pleasing to the ancient Hebrews. If a language itself can change and die out, why not culturally accepted poetic conventions?
[1] In one place (v. 15) “forest” seems to mean productivity, and in another (v.19) it seems to mean an army.
Notes on Isaiah Chapter Twenty-eight
Vs. 1-4: These verses definitely apply to the Northern Kingdom (Ephraim) and the destruction that awaited it at the hands of the Assyrians.
v. 5: I am not as certain about whom this verse should apply to. What makes the interpretation a little confusing is the fact that Isaiah applies the metaphor of a garland (and a diadem) to both Ephraim and the Remnant. He juxtaposes Ephraim’s garland of drunkenness with the Remnant’s garland of glory (their faith in God). The difficulty is in determining whether the Faithful Remnant is a remnant of Ephraim’s people or of Judah’s. I believe the prophet is referring to Judah. I know that Isaiah shifts his focus to Judah at some point in the chapter because he mentions Jerusalem in v.14, and I think that the shift occurs here in v. 5 because God gives the Faithful Remnant of his people strength “to turn back the battle at the gate,” a feat which Judah accomplished during the Assyrian invasion (2nd Kings 19:32-34) but which the Northern Kingdom did not.
v. 7: This verse should be considered carefully by anyone who believes that mind-altering substances can enhance one’s ability to experience God. Isaiah’s judgment here is that such substances mar and confuse one’s knowledge of God.
v.9: I agree with Barnes in interpreting these words as those of the indignant, drunken prophets. Their speech might be paraphrased in this way: “Who does he [Isaiah] think he is, teaching us? And who does he think we are, to be taught by him? Does he take us for children?”
v. 10: Barnes and the Oxford commentary agree that these words are the drunken prophets’ mockery of Isaiah’s instructions/warnings. Barnes claims that the lines form an intelligible complaint against Isaiah’s teaching. He believes the drunken prophets feel insulted by Isaiah because he treats them like children, constantly emphasizing the same simple teachings over and over without recognizing the drunken prophets’ dignity and intelligence. Luther agrees that the words are those of the drunken prophets as they mock Isaiah, but says they are nonsense and cannot be translated. I tend to agree with Luther because of the way I read v. 11.
vs. 11-31: This is another example of Isaiah’s satirical, ironic tone. It reminds me very much of God’s words to him in chapter six[1]:
“Go and say to this people: ‘Keep listening, but do not comprehend; keep looking, but do not understand.’ Make the mind of this people dull…that they may not listen with their ears, and comprehend with their minds, and turn and be healed.”
Note the similarity with the verses here in chapter 28:
“Truly with stammering lip and with alien tongue he will speak to this people. Therefore, the word of the LORD will be ‘precept upon precept…[i.e., blah, blah, blah]’ in order that they may go and fall backward and be broken and snared and taken.”
Isaiah says that since the drunken prophets would not heed his sensible message (v.12), God will speak to them with an unintelligible tongue (v.11), and that this unintelligible tongue will sound exactly like their own unintelligible mockery of Isaiah’s message (v.13).
The Oxford commentary considers this stammering lip and alien tongue to be the language of the Assyrians; However, I do not believe this.[2] I believe, given v. 14, that the message here is obviously intended for Jerusalem. Bearing this in mind, and the fact that these scoffers will be “broken, and snared, and taken,” if I were going to interpret this alien tongue as a literal foreign language, then I would say the language should be Babylonian[3] since only the Babylonians broke, snared and took captive the inhabitants of Jerusalem; the Assyrians never did these things to the holy city. Besides, the events of vs. 11-12 take place before the events of v.13, (“Therefore the word of the LORD will be to them…”) not afterwards. If, as the Oxford commentary suggests, the alien tongue is the Assyrian language, then the events of vs. 11-12 would have to take place afterthe Jews are “broken, and snared, and taken” by the Assyrians (since, only then would they be forced to listen to the Assyrian language.)[4] But as I say above, I believe the stammering lip and alien tongue are metaphors for the LORD’s good advice, which the evil and ignorant prophets can only hear as useless, unintelligible babble. Since they have chosen to take refuge in lies (v. 15), the truth sounds foolish to them.
v. 26: I think this passage makes an interesting contribution to our understanding of what it means to be inspired and taught by God. The prophet says that the farmer is taught his craft by God. This seems like a statement that would apply to any farmer, and since I am a farmer (well, a gardener) I can say that I learned my craft of gardening from God. I also can testify that he did not teach me this craft as directly and obviously as a human mentor would have; his lessons were subtle and by degrees over time. They were so subtle, in fact, that some people might not even be aware of the presence of their teacher. Sometimes, when God inspires someone, or communicates with them, or teaches them, his presence is undeniable, irresistible, and overwhelming. But I think passages like this one suggest that inspiration is not always so obvious. Actually, I suspect that this method of inspiration is the more common type. After all, every farmer (indeed every craftsman) leans by this type of inspiration.
[1] See also 29:9-12.
[2] See notes on 33:19.
[3] Barnes does believe that it refers to the Babylonian language.
[4] I have not forgotten that time references are difficult to nail down in Isaiah, but all things considered, I think this reference is more comprehensible than others.
THE GLORY OF KINGS - A proposal for why God will always be the best explanation for the existence of the universe.
SWEET RIVER FOOL - Alcoholic, homeless, and alone, Snody despaired of life until a seemingly chance encounter with Saint Francis of Assisi led him to the joys of Christ and the redemption of his soul…
ENOCH WALKED WITH GOD - Enoch had a beautiful soul and walked with God in many ways. This book invites children to imagine what some of those ways might have been while presenting them with a wonderful model for their own lives.
The Eastern Gate Press 
Notes on the Book of Daniel: Introduction
Tags: Christian apologetics, Commentary on Daniel, fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible, Larry Hunt Bible Commentary, messiah, Messiah in Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar, prophecy in the Bible, When was the Book of Daniel written?
Introduction
The book of Daniel falls roughly into two sections. The first section (chapters 1-6) is narrative and focuses on the story of Daniel, a Jew who was carried into exile as a youth by the Babylonians in 605 B.C. The second section (chapters 7-12) is apocalyptic and contains prophecies which are attributed to this same Daniel. The author of the first section is unknown. This section refers to Daniel in the third person, so perhaps he did not write it himself, although referring to oneself in the third person is not uncommon. (Christ referred to himself in the third person sometimes for rhetorical effect.) The second section presents itself as the work of Daniel, and I am content to believe that this is true. Those who reject the idea that Daniel himself was responsible for this section do so because the prophecies in it so closely match events which were centuries in the future (relative to Daniel). In other words, such people usually do not believe in the possibility of prophecy. They do not dispute the interpretation of most of the prophecies since the events to which the prophecies refer are so clear in most cases; they are, therefore, forced to conclude that this section of the book is actually history, masquerading as prophecy either for poetic/creative purposes or for outright fraudulent ones whose aim is essentially political. The Oxford commentary provides one additional argument for believing that the prophecies were written much later than Daniel’s lifetime:
But this argument seems very weak to me, even cosmetic, its principal purpose being to support the preheld conclusion that “the visions are presented pseudonymously, that is, under the name of an ancient figure who ‘foresees’ what is to come…” (1253). Along these same lines, Oxford also writes, “The increasingly detailed descriptions of the period following the division of Alexander’s empire up to the Hellenization crisis under Antiochus in 167 B.C.E. suggest that the apocalyptic sections were composed on the eve of the Maccabean revolt…” (1253). Note that the latest date Oxford assigns to the book’s composition is 167 B.C. Their assumption is that any “prophecy” referring to events beyond this point in history will be vague or erroneous because the “prophet” is no longer writing history masquerading as prophecy; instead, he is trying to predict the future by using his own reason and imagination. Thus, of 11:40-45 they say, “[N]o longer reporting what happened, the author envisions what will occur.” Then, to support this view they point out that Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), whom they take to be the king in 11:45, died in Persia, not Palestine as the prophecy says.[1]
But those who follow this line of thinking (which I will hereafter refer to as the Skeptical Argument) run into serious problems when they attempt to identify the fourth kingdom that certain visions refer to.[2] This fourth kingdom first appears in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in chapter 2. Daniel says that the dream refers to four kingdoms, each succeeding the previous one. Daniel himself reveals the identity of the first kingdom. It is Babylon: “You O king [Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon]…are the head of Gold” (2:37-38). There are only three reasonable candidates for the remaining three kingdoms. They are the Medo-Persians, the Macedonians (i.e., the Greeks), and the Romans. There are no other kingdoms to choose from. Each succeeds the previous one as the dominant world power. More importantly for the book of Daniel, each succeeds the other in ruling over Judea. The difficulty of reconciling this fact with the Skeptical Argument’s theory of dating the book is that Roman rule of Judea succeeds Macedonian rule nearly one hundred years after the date which that theory assigns for the book’s composition: Pompey captures Judea for the Roman Empire in 63 B.C., and yet nobody that I am aware of claims that the book of Daniel was written that late. This means that even if the Skeptical Argument’s dating is correct, the book of Daniel still accurately prophecies events in the future relative even to the skeptics’ date of its composition.
Additionally, the central theme of all the visions of Daniel is the coming of the Messiah and the establishment of his eternal kingdom. According to Daniel, this event takes place in the time of the fourth kingdom and is symbolized by the rock which strikes the feet of the statue in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. To me, the proper interpretation of this element of the dream is as straightforward as that of many other visions in the book. It refers to Jesus and the establishment of his kingdom in the first century A.D., while Judea is under the dominion of the Roman Empire, the fourth kingdom. But this event is nearly two-hundred years after the latest date that the Skeptical Argument assigns for the book’s composition.
To attempt to explain this, skeptics must reject Rome as the fourth kingdom. They replace it with Greece and thus list the four kingdoms as Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece (Oxford 1258). This is an incredible stretch. Media and Persia are usually considered a single empire. Notice that Daniel’s vision clearly treats the Medes and Persians as a single empire in 8:20 (See notes on 8:3 for further reasons to see Media and Persia as a single empire.)
I am aware of no linguistic arguments against believing that the book was composed in Daniel’s lifetime. The language itself is certainly no barrier to such a belief. Chapters 2:4b-7:28 (corresponding roughly to the first section, the narrative one) are in Aramaic, “the common language of the Near East from the time of the Babylonian exile until the conquests of Alexander the Great” (Oxford 1253). The rest is in Hebrew.
[1] See notes on 11:40-45.
[2] See notes on chapters 2 and 7.