Isaiah Chapter 36 Notes

Notes on Isaiah Thirty-six:

2^nd Kings 18-20 contains the entire story of Hezekiah’s reign, and 18:13-19:37 contains the specific story of Sennacherib’s invasion; 2^nd 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 1^st Kings 22:19-23.  (See 1^st 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 2^nd 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.

Isaiah Chapter 35 Notes

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.

[1] See notes on 2:1-4.

Isaiah Chapter 32 Notes

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.

Isaiah Chapter 27 Notes

Notes on Isaiah 27

V.1: According to Strong’s Concordance, the Hebrew word translated here as “serpent” (“fleeing serpent” and “twisting serpent”) is nachash, the same word used in Genesis 3:1 to designate the serpent that tempted Eve to sin.  I realize that that does not prove that Isaiah intended this serpent to reference the one in Genesis; nevertheless, I do think it is appropriate, ultimately, to interpret all such creatures (serpents, dragons, Leviathan) as images of Satan, from Genesis through Revelation.  The New Testament certainly makes this connection, but I believe that the book of Job also suggests it by providing detailed information about both Satan and the Leviathan: no other book in the Old Testament provides such detail on those two subjects, and while no direct connection between the two is made, the fact that they bookend the work so noticeably suggests a parallel to me.

Of course, I also believe that the dragon, or serpent, or Leviathan, may sometimes be used in a more immediate sense to refer to other evil beings or institutions (especially in Isaiah) just as Immanuel has ultimate and immediate references.  In this particular chapter, I agree with Barnes that the dragon and serpent both immediately refer to the kingdom of Babylon.  The reason I believe this is because verses 12-13 perfectly describe the Jewish return from Babylonian captivity, and they do it directly after they describe “the fortified city” that God destroys because its people lack understanding.  Without verses 12-13, the identity of this fortified city would be more difficult to determine, but as it is, I think it must be Babylon.

v. 4: The symbolism of these thorns is a little difficult.  The vineyard must represent the people of God, but the thorns could be either the evil behavior of the Jewish nation or the wicked aggression of other nations against the Jews.  I do not know which is correct.  The NRSV reads, “I will march to battle against it [the vineyard],” but Luther translates the passage to say that God will march against them (the briars and thorns)[1]

v. 5: This is sad; the repetition makes it seem like God longs for reconciliation.

Vs. 7-8: These are very difficult verses.  Barnes, writing about verse 8 states, “This expression does not convey an intelligible idea,” and one has only to look at the various translations to see how true that statement is.

Verse 7 is made up of two rhetorical questions[2], and these both claim that one party has not been destroyed as completely as another party.  I take the fact that the first party has not been destroyed as completely as the second to mean that the first party is closer to God.  This agrees with Luther’s translation, which says overtly that the first party is Israel and the second seine Feinde, “his [Israel’s] enemies.” The NKJ version translates the first rhetorical question like Luther, naming Israel as the first party, but in the second rhetorical question, it changes the identity of the first party, implying that it is God himself.[3] I do not know how this could be justified, but if it is a correct translation, it could be a reference to the crucifixion.  The NRSV translation is less specific in identifying the two parties.  It simply says “they” and “them.”

Although the NRSV says that the meaning of the Hebrew word it translates as “expulsion” in v. 8 is uncertain, all of the translations I am looking at translate the word similarly.  Thus, Luther translates it as wegschicktest“[you] sent away,” and OKJ says “thou sendest it forth,” and the NKJ says “by sending it away.”  Given the fact that vs. 12 –13 seem to reference Babylon, I think the “expulsion” mentioned here in v. 8 probably refers to the Babylonian Captivity.  If it does, then the “east wind” by which God accomplishes this expulsion could be an allegory for Babylon, the empire from the east that took the Jews into captivity.  As for what “it” should refer to in the phrases “by sending it away,” and “du es wegschicktest,” I am assuming that the writer meant Israel.  This is a little difficult, however, since what the NKJ translates as “it,” the NRSV translates as “them.”  I can see how both “it” and “them” could reference Israel, but I do not understand how one version could translate the word as a singular pronoun while the other could translate it as a plural.  Luther translates the word as es “it” but I cannot see what it refers back to.  If it refers back to Israel (a masculine noun), the pronoun should beden.  Nevertheless, despite these difficulties I still believe these verses refer to the captivity of Israel by Babylon.

---

[1] “…so wollte ich über sie [them] herfallen.”  If he had marched against the vineyard (der Weinberg), the pronoun would have been ihn.

[2] They are simply statements in Luther’s translation.

[3] “Has He been slain according to the slaughter of those who were slain by Him?”

Isaiah Chapter 26 Notes

My notes on Isaiah 26

v. 1: I believe the phrase “on that day” links this chapter with the previous one.[1]

Vs. 9-10: These two verses emphasize the fact that humanity learns most directly about the righteousness of God when he moves to judge the wicked.  One reason for this is that at such times the righteous feel vindication as well as renewed conviction for their beliefs, which the indefinite prosperity of the wicked might eventually weaken or destroy. Another reason is that the wicked are made at last to see their own works as wicked works.  In fact, v. 10 seems to indicate that this is the only way the wicked are likely to learn about righteousness.  Of course the term “righteous” does not really belong to any human in this life except Jesus, but if someone obeys (even after much failure) the dictates of conscience and reason, then I believe he or she is “righteous” as these verses define the term.  If somebody brazenly disregards these dictates and can only be convinced to change by disaster, then he or she is “wicked” as these verses define the term.  The good news is that even for the wicked (a term which includes us all, ultimately) there is hope after such disaster.

Vs. 16-19: I think “they” of vs. 16 and 19 refers to the same people as “we” does in vs. 17 and 18, i.e. the Jews.  With this in mind, I would paraphrase the poetry of verses 16-19 as follows: we have turned to you [God] for help because our wickedness brought horrible suffering [like that of a woman in labor] to us, and we were unable to do anything to relieve ourselves of the suffering [like a pregnant woman who could only give birth to wind, not a living child].  Now we know you [God] will deliver us from our suffering because we have turned to you.

I believe that is an accurate paraphrase of the verses, but I would also like to dwell a little on their poetic imagery.  The image I am most certain of is that of the resurrection of the dead.  While the use of such imagery may ultimately allude to the literal resurrection of the dead (as, for example, the sign of Immanuel in chapter 7 ultimately alludes to the Messiah) I believe its immediate purpose here is to describe the release of the captive Jews from their captivity in Babylon, a symbolic resurrection from the dead.  Ezekiel’s famous vision of the valley of dry bones is a more obvious use of the image to describe the same historical event (Ezekiel 37).

Ezekiel’s vision also makes use of the image of wind in connection with the resurrection of the dead, and I wonder if its use there could give some insight into what Isaiah means here when he describes the Jews as giving birth to wind.  In Ezekiel’s vision, the wind represents the life-giving spirit of God.  In this chapter of Isaiah, it represents the vain efforts of humanity to produce life by its own power.  I suspect that Isaiah chose wind as his symbol because its associations with the life-giving spirit of God would give the symbol an additional layer of meaning here.  Literal wind is unsubstantial from a certain perspective and so is a good symbol of vain effort, but its associations with the life-giving spirit of God would also remind Isaiah’s readers that the Jews, in trying to redeem themselves, were trying to accomplish something that only God could do.  That is why their efforts were in vain.

I am less certain of the image of the dew in v. 19.  I believe it is another symbol of life and resurrection, but I am not exactly sure how it is supposed to work.  In other words, I am not sure what it is about dew that suggests life or resurrection.  Perhaps Isaiah means to allude to the manna.[2]

---

[1] I think the phrase links sections of the book together as a single unit, even if “that day” does not refer to same event (or “day”) in the various sections of the unit.  Of course, it may, in some (or all) cases actually refer to the same event, but I do not think one has to interpret it in this way.

[2] “[I]n the morning there was a layer of dew around the camp.  When the layer of dew lifted, there on the surface of the wilderness was a fine flaky substance, as fine as the frost on the ground” (Exodus 16:13-14).  “When the dew fell on the camp in the night, the manna would fall with it” (Numbers 11:9).

Isaiah Chapter 25 Notes

Notes on Isaiah 25

v. 2: Apparently, opinions differ about which city “the city” here refers to.  If it is a specific city, then Dibon, the capital of Moab seems like a good guess to me.  I agree with Barnes[1] that Moab is used in verses 10-12 as a kind of general symbol of all wicked nations (403), so it may be that the writer had Dibon in mind when he wrote about “the city” in this verse.  In any case, whether it refers to a specific city or not, I believe its primary function, like Moab’s in verses 10-12, is to serve as a general symbol of all wicked cities.  The reason that I believe Moab and “the city” represent wicked nations and cities in general is that the scope of the prophecy is so universal and general (death shall be abolished and all peoples will feast with God and cry no more) that it makes more sense to interpret them in that way.

v. 7: Barnes believes these coverings or veils represent the moral wickedness which covers the earth (402), but I believe they represent death, especially given the fact that the next verse says God will swallow up death forever.  The NRSV translates the words as “shroud” and “sheet,” which definitely have associations with the burial of the dead.

v. 8: This must refer to the flowering of the Messianic Age, when “all peoples” (v.6) will feast with God, not just the Jews.[2]

Vs. 10-12: See also chapters 15 and 16 were Moab is the main subject.

---

[1] Incidentally, Barnes believes “the city” probably refers to Babylon (399).

[2] I believe “all peoples” refers to all of humanity because it says in the very next verse that “the shroud” (i.e. death) is cast over “all peoples,” a fate which all of humanity shares, not just the Jews.  I do not believe the phrase would refer to Jews at one moment and to all of humanity at the next.

Isaiah Chapter 24 Notes

Here are my notes on Isaiah 24.

v. 1: Barnes believed that this prophecy was directed against Judea, in spite of the fact that the word that he considers a reference to Judea is often used to refer to the whole earth.[1] Oxford’s translation, as well as Luther’s, treats the prophecy as though it were directed against the whole earth; so too do the OKJ and NKJ translations.  Based on their authority and the fact that some of the imagery references the Great Flood, an event common to the history all of humanity (not just to that of the Hebrews) I believe the prophecy is against the whole earth.

v. 2b: The German translation of this is different from any of the English ones I have looked at.  Oxford translates this as, “as with the creditor, so with the debtor.”  The NKJ agrees with this translation exactly, and the OKJ does not venture far from it either.[2] The German, however is, “dem Gläubiger wie dem Schuldner,” which I translate as, “as with the believer [i.e. a righteous person, a believer in God] so with the guilty.”  Maybe I do not understand the connotation of the German words.

v. 5: I do not know what this “everlasting covenant” refers to.  Barnes asserts that it is the laws of our conscience, which are innate (390).  Oxford claims that this is a reference to the covenant of God with Noah after the Great Flood.

v. 13: As Barnes points out, this image of the olive tree being beaten is also in 17:5-6.  There the image refers to a remnant of faithful believers who will survive the judgment of God, so I believe this image makes a similar reference here, preparing us for the following verses.

Vs. 14-15: These two verses seem to describe the songs of the faithful, perhaps the songs of the faithful remnant who survive the judgment of God.  The singing appears to be the result of heartfelt worship, and in v. 15 the prophet commands/exhorts the people to glorify God from east (the dawning light) to west (the coastlands of the sea), so I believe the worship in these two verses is genuine, but I do not understand how they segue into v. 16.

v. 16: I am not sure to whom the “I” should refer here.  It could be God or Isaiah, but in either case the speaker is suffering because “the treacherous deal treacherously,” in other words, because the people (whoever they are) are wicked.  This sentiment, conjoined to the first part of the verse with the word “but,” makes the “songs of praise” seem like the songs of hypocrites.  “From the ends of the earth we hear songs of praise, butI say the treacherous deal treacherously.”  If this is the correct interpretation, then I do not understand how it works with vs. 14-15.  Perhaps the songs of vs. 14-15 are those of the faithful remnant after the judgment, and the songs of v. 16 are those of the hypocrites before the judgment.

v. 18: The “everlasting covenant” of v. 5 may be a reference to the story of the Great flood, but I believe “the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble” is definitely a reference to the story, especially since this whole chapter is in the context of God’s judgment.  See Genesis 7:11.

v. 21: I believe “the host of heaven” here should be connected with the sun and moon of v. 23.  Not only are the sun and moon heavenly bodies, but also they will be ashamed (v. 23), which fits well with the idea that the heavenly host will be punished.  Whether these heavenly bodies are symbolic of other things (like angels or earthly kings) I cannot say.[3] Perhaps the language is apocalyptic.

v. 23: As I said before, I do not know what judgment of God this chapter refers to.  It seems to refer to the Final Judgment.  I believe this for a couple of reasons.  First, the Final Judgment is the most appropriate parallel to the Great Flood of Noah, and the prophet seems to have the Great Flood in his mind as a frame of reference.  Second, the scale of the judgment appears to be universal, not specific to Israel.  I might be persuaded to believe that statements like “the LORD of hosts will reign on Mount Zion” refer to the Christian era were it not for the fact that there was no calamitous judgment of anyone associated with the ushering in of the Christian era.[4]

---

[1] He admits this himself in his note to v. 4 on page 390.

[2] The OKJ translation is “as with the taker of usury, so with the giver of usury to him.”

[3] I suspect that they do not symbolize earthly kings because “the kings of the earth” seems to be a distinct category from the heavenly host in this verse.

[4] On the other hand, I suppose the destruction of the great statue in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream could be such a judgment.  See notes on Daniel, chapter 2.

Isaiah Chapter 23 Notes

My notes from Isaiah 23:

v. 4: I do not quite understand the metaphor here.  In general, I believe it is saying that the productivity associated with Phoenicia (Tyre and Sidon) will cease, like that of a mother who no longer bears children.  But I am not sure exactly what the mother represents.  The sea, as the means of Tyre’s wealth, could be the mother, or the fortifications of Tyre,[1] as the means of preserving the city’s ability to gather wealth, could be the mother.

v. 12: The phrase “oppressed virgin daughter” seems like a strange one to use to describe a city that is being justly condemned.  Out of context, it has the natural connotation of innocence and unjust persecution.  One can conclude from the context, however, that the writer believed that Tyre and Sidon were justly condemned, so he obviously did not intend for “oppressed virgin daughter” to signify innocence or moral purity.  My best guess is that the term “virgin” symbolizes the fact that Tyre had never been violated by an invading army before, just as a virgin has never been violated by a man.

v. 15: This is the same seventy-year reign of Babylon that the Jews would have to endure before their own deliverance.

When he writes, “The song about the prostitute,” I wonder if he is referring to a well-known song.

Vs. 17-18: Just as I did not expect the writer to use a term like “virgin” to refer to a wicked city, so here I was surprised to find him using a term like “prostitute” to refer to a city whose “wages will be dedicated to the LORD.”  I suspect that Isaiah chose these terms for the ironic and satirical significance they could have in this context.  For another instance of Isaiah’s use of irony and satire, see 6:9.  As for how Tyre’s wares could have been dedicated to the LORD, Barnes cites Eusebius and Jerome, who claim that much of the wealth of Tyre went to support Christian churches in the city (387).  I believe this, or similar support of faithful Jews before Christianity, would satisfy the prophecy’s claim.

---

[1] Of course, “the fortress of the sea” (which I am interpreting here as a reference to Tyre’s fortifications) might just as easily be another reference to the sea itself.  Hebrew poetry often made repeated reference to a singe object by using synonymous words and phrases.