Isaiah

By John N. Oswalt

A unique commentary that explores each passage from three vital perspectives: original meaning, bridging context, contemporary significance. Isaiah wrestles with the realities of people who are not convicted by the truth but actually hardened by it, and with a God whose actions sometimes seem unintelligible, or even worse, appears to be absent. Yet Isaiah penetrates beyond these experiences to an even greater reality. Isaiah sees God’s rule over history and his capacity to take the worst of human actions and use it for good. He declares the truth that even in the darkest hours, the Holy One of Israel is infinitely trustworthy.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Zondervan
• Release date: May 11, 2010
• ISBN: 9780310872801

John N. Oswalt

Dr. John N. Oswalt (PhD, Brandeis University) is Visiting Distinguished Professor of Old Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. He is the author of numerous articles and several books, including the two-volume commentary on Isaiah in the New International Commentary on the Old Testament series and Called to be Holy: A Biblical Perspective.

Book preview

ISAIAH

THE NIV APPLICATION COMMENTARY

From biblical text … to contemporary life

JOHN N. OSWALT

ZONDERVAN

The NIV Application Commentary: Isaiah

Copyright © 2003 by John N. Oswalt

Requests for information should be addressed to:

Zondervan, 3900 Sparks Dr. SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Oswalt, John N.

Isaiah / John Oswalt.

p. cm.—(NIV application commentary)

Includes bibliographical references and indexes.

ePub edition November 2014: ISBN 978-0-310-87280-1

ISBN: 978-0-310-20613-2

1. Bible. O.T. Isaiah—Commentaries. I. Title. II. Series.

BS1515.53.O88 2003

224'.1077—dc21

2003002527

CIP

All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from The Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without prior permission of the publisher.

Contents

How to Use This Commentary

Series Introduction

General Editor’s Preface

Author’s Preface

Abbreviations

Introduction to Isaiah

Outline of Isaiah

Select Bibliography of Isaiah

Text and Commentary on Isaiah

Isaiah 1:1–9

Isaiah 1:10–20

Isaiah 1:21–31

Isaiah 2:1–5

Isaiah 2:6–4:1

Isaiah 4:2–6

Isaiah 5:1–30

Isaiah 6:1–13

Isaiah 7:1–25

Isaiah 8:1–22

Isaiah 9:1–7

Isaiah 9:8–10:4

Isaiah 10:5–34

Isaiah 11:1–16

Isaiah 12:1–6

Isaiah 13:1–22

Isaiah 14:1–27

Isaiah 14:28–32

Isaiah 15:1–16:14

Isaiah 17:1–11

Isaiah 17:12–18:7

Isaiah 19:1–20:6

Isaiah 21:1–17

Isaiah 22:1–25

Isaiah 23:1–18

Isaiah 24:1–23

Isaiah 25:1–12

Isaiah 26:1–27:1

Isaiah 27:2–13

Isaiah 28:1–29

Isaiah 29:1–14

Isaiah 29:15–24

Isaiah 30:1–33

Isaiah 31:1–9

Isaiah 32:1–8

Isaiah 32:9–20

Isaiah 33:1–16

Isaiah 33:17–24

Isaiah 34:1–17

Isaiah 35:1–10

Isaiah 36:1–37:7

Isaiah 37:8–38

Isaiah 38:1–22

Isaiah 39:1–8

Isaiah 40:1–31

Isaiah 41:1–20

Isaiah 41:21–42:9

Isaiah 42:10–43:7

Isaiah 43:8–44:5

Isaiah 44:6–22

Isaiah 44:23–45:13

Isaiah 45:14–46:13

Isaiah 47:1–15

Isaiah 48:1–22

Isaiah 49:1–13

Isaiah 49:14–50:3

Isaiah 50:4–51:8

Isaiah 51:9–16

Isaiah 51:17–52:12

Isaiah 52:13–53:12

Isaiah 54:1–17

Isaiah 55:1–13

Isaiah 56:1–8

Isaiah 56:9–57:13

Isaiah 57:14–21

Isaiah 58:1–14

Isaiah 59:1–15a

Isaiah 59:15b–21

Isaiah 60:1–22

Isaiah 61:1–11

Isaiah 62:1–12

Isaiah 63:1–6

Isaiah 63:7–14

Isaiah 63:15–64:12

Isaiah 65:1–16

Isaiah 65:17–25

Isaiah 66:1–24

Scripture Index

Subject Index

Notes

How to Use This Commentary

Thank you for purchasing the HarperCollins Christian Publishing eBook version of The NIV Application Commentary.

What is the difference between an eBook and a print book?

eBook versions contain all of the content and supplementary materials found in the original print versions and are optimized for navigation in the various apps and devices used for display. eReaders recognize text as one fluid string and are formatted in a single column. eReaders currently do not support the more complex layout seen in print version books. Therefore, some content may not appear in the same place as in the original print version, but it is structured consistently and uses hyperlinks to navigate between related content.

How do I use the eBook Table of Contents?

*Important Note: Be sure to consult your device manufacturer’s User’s Guide for device-specific navigation instructions.*

The Table of Contents is the primary navigation anchor to quickly access various parts of the eBook. It is generally formatted in the same order as the original print version and is hyperlinked as follows:

• Introductory Materials

• Commentary

• Indexes

Selecting an entry in the Table of Contents takes you to that location in the eBook. Selecting the title of that specific entry or using your device’s Back button or function takes you back to the main Table of Contents.

How do I navigate the content?

The eBook version of The NIV Application Commentary includes introductory materials, commentary, footnotes, scripture index, and subject index. Hyperlinks to the materials appear in the Table of Contents as well as the main book text.

Introductory materials are hyperlinked directly to the content-specific location in the main text.

• Select the hyperlinked entry in the article or list to go to its location in the main text.

• Select the hyperlinked entry in the main text to go back to the article or list in the Table of Contents or use the device’s Back button or function to go back to the last selection.

Footnotes in the Commentary are marked with small, hyperlinked numbers ¹ to access comments and citations.

• Select the hyperlinked number in the main text to the corresponding footnote.

• Select the hyperlinked number to the left of the footnote to go back to the main text or use the device’s Back button or function to go back to the last selection.

Scripture Index includes hyperlinks directly to the Bible Verse citations in the main text.

• Select the Scripture Index from the Table of Contents.

• Select the hyperlinked page number 1 to go directly to the citation in the main text.

• Use the device’s Next Page/Previous Page button or function to scroll through the pages.

• Use the device’s Back button or function to go back to the last selection

Subject and Author Indexes are hyperlinked directly to the content-specific location in the main text.

• Select an Index from the Table of Contents.

• Select the hyperlinked letter of the alphabet A to go to a corresponding list of entries.

• Use the device’s Next Page/Previous Page button or function to scroll through the entries.

• Select the hyperlinked page number 1 to go to the main text.

• Select the footnote entry marked with n1 to the corresponding footnote.

• Use the device’s Back button or function to go back to the last selection.

NOTES:

• The Bible Translation quoted by the authors in the main Commentary, unless otherwise indicated, is taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.

NIV Application Commentary

Series Introduction

THE NIV APPLICATION COMMENTARY SERIES is unique. Most commentaries help us make the journey from our world back to the world of the Bible. They enable us to cross the barriers of time, culture, language, and geography that separate us from the biblical world. Yet they only offer a one-way ticket to the past and assume that we can somehow make the return journey on our own. Once they have explained the original meaning of a book or passage, these commentaries give us little or no help in exploring its contemporary significance. The information they offer is valuable, but the job is only half done.

Recently, a few commentaries have included some contemporary application as one of their goals. Yet that application is often sketchy or moralistic, and some volumes sound more like printed sermons than commentaries.

The primary goal of the NIV Application Commentary Series is to help you with the difficult but vital task of bringing an ancient message into a modern context. The series not only focuses on application as a finished product but also helps you think through the process of moving from the original meaning of a passage to its contemporary significance. These are commentaries, not popular expositions. They are works of reference, not devotional literature.

The format of the series is designed to achieve the goals of the series. Each passage is treated in three sections: Original Meaning, Bridging Contexts, and Contemporary Significance.

Original Meaning

THIS SECTION HELPS you understand the meaning of the biblical text in its original context. All of the elements of traditional exegesis—in concise form—are discussed here. These include the historical, literary, and cultural context of the passage. The authors discuss matters related to grammar and syntax and the meaning of biblical words.¹ They also seek to explore the main ideas of the passage and how the biblical author develops those ideas.

After reading this section, you will understand the problems, questions, and concerns of the original audience and how the biblical author addressed those issues. This understanding is foundational to any legitimate application of the text today.

Bridging Contexts

THIS SECTION BUILDS a bridge between the world of the Bible and the world of today, between the original context and the contemporary context, by focusing on both the timely and timeless aspects of the text.

God’s Word is timely. The authors of Scripture spoke to specific situations, problems, and questions. The author of Joshua encouraged the faith of his original readers by narrating the destruction of Jericho, a seemingly impregnable city, at the hands of an angry warrior God (Josh. 6). Paul warned the Galatians about the consequences of circumcision and the dangers of trying to be justified by law (Gal. 5:2–5). The author of Hebrews tried to convince his readers that Christ is superior to Moses, the Aaronic priests, and the Old Testament sacrifices. John urged his readers to test the spirits of those who taught a form of incipient Gnosticism (1 John 4:1–6). In each of these cases, the timely nature of Scripture enables us to hear God’s Word in situations that were concrete rather than abstract.

Yet the timely nature of Scripture also creates problems. Our situations, difficulties, and questions are not always directly related to those faced by the people in the Bible. Therefore, God’s word to them does not always seem relevant to us. For example, when was the last time someone urged you to be circumcised, claiming that it was a necessary part of justification? How many people today care whether Christ is superior to the Aaronic priests? And how can a test designed to expose incipient Gnosticism be of any value in a modern culture?

Fortunately, Scripture is not only timely but timeless. Just as God spoke to the original audience, so he still speaks to us through the pages of Scripture. Because we share a common humanity with the people of the Bible, we discover a universal dimension in the problems they faced and the solutions God gave them. The timeless nature of Scripture enables it to speak with power in every time and in every culture.

Those who fail to recognize that Scripture is both timely and timeless run into a host of problems. For example, those who are intimidated by timely books such as Hebrews, Galatians, or Deuteronomy might avoid reading them because they seem meaningless today. At the other extreme, those who are convinced of the timeless nature of Scripture, but who fail to discern its timely element, may wax eloquent about the Melchizedekian priesthood to a sleeping congregation, or worse still, try to apply the holy wars of the Old Testament in a physical way to God’s enemies today.

The purpose of this section, therefore, is to help you discern what is timeless in the timely pages of the Bible—and what is not. For example, how do the holy wars of the Old Testament relate to the spiritual warfare of the New? If Paul’s primary concern is not circumcision (as he tells us in Gal. 5:6), what is he concerned about? If discussions about the Aaronic priesthood or Melchizedek seem irrelevant today, what is of abiding value in these passages? If people try to test the spirits today with a test designed for a specific first-century heresy, what other biblical test might be more appropriate?

Yet this section does not merely uncover that which is timeless in a passage but also helps you to see how it is uncovered. The authors of the commentaries seek to take what is implicit in the text and make it explicit, to take a process that normally is intuitive and explain it in a logical, orderly fashion. How do we know that circumcision is not Paul’s primary concern? What clues in the text or its context help us realize that Paul’s real concern is at a deeper level?

Of course, those passages in which the historical distance between us and the original readers is greatest require a longer treatment. Conversely, those passages in which the historical distance is smaller or seemingly nonexistent require less attention.

One final clarification. Because this section prepares the way for discussing the contemporary significance of the passage, there is not always a sharp distinction or a clear break between this section and the one that follows. Yet when both sections are read together, you should have a strong sense of moving from the world of the Bible to the world of today.

Contemporary Significance

THIS SECTION ALLOWS the biblical message to speak with as much power today as it did when it was first written. How can you apply what you learned about Jerusalem, Ephesus, or Corinth to our present-day needs in Chicago, Los Angeles, or London? How can you take a message originally spoken in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic and communicate it clearly in our own language? How can you take the eternal truths originally spoken in a different time and culture and apply them to the similar-yet-different needs of our culture?

In order to achieve these goals, this section gives you help in several key areas.

(1) It helps you identify contemporary situations, problems, or questions that are truly comparable to those faced by the original audience. Because contemporary situations are seldom identical to those faced by the original audience, you must seek situations that are analogous if your applications are to be relevant.

(2) This section explores a variety of contexts in which the passage might be applied today. You will look at personal applications, but you will also be encouraged to think beyond private concerns to the society and culture at large.

(3) This section will alert you to any problems or difficulties you might encounter in seeking to apply the passage. And if there are several legitimate ways to apply a passage (areas in which Christians disagree), the author will bring these to your attention and help you think through the issues involved.

In seeking to achieve these goals, the contributors to this series attempt to avoid two extremes. They avoid making such specific applications that the commentary might quickly become dated. They also avoid discussing the significance of the passage in such a general way that it fails to engage contemporary life and culture.

Above all, contributors to this series have made a diligent effort not to sound moralistic or preachy. The NIV Application Commentary Series does not seek to provide ready-made sermon materials but rather tools, ideas, and insights that will help you communicate God’s Word with power. If we help you to achieve that goal, then we have fulfilled the purpose for this series.

The Editors

General Editor’s Preface

ONE OF THE DIFFICULTIES of applying the wisdom of Isaiah to the perplexities of twenty-first-century life is audience. It always seems as if Isaiah is talking to someone else. Let me explain.

Isaiah, son of Amoz, spends much of his writing time relating visions of destruction and visions of blessings about the divided nation of Israel and her surrounding neighbors. Listen to some of the subject headings the NIV editors scatter throughout the book: A Rebellious Nation (Isa. 1); Judgment on Jerusalem and Judah (ch. 3); Woes and Judgments (ch. 5); Assyria, the Lord’s Instrument (ch. 8). The list goes on and on through the sixty-six chapters of the book.

Admittedly this can make for exciting reading, particularly if you enjoy hearing about other people’s problems. But it is difficult to see what the Lord-defying words and deeds of Israel have to do with us. One of the great strengths of this commentary on Isaiah, written by John Oswalt, is that he shows how to read this book—that is, how to avoid reading it solely as a chronicle of others people’s problems and to see instead how it relates directly to us. Put another way, even though Isaiah seems to be warning a country that has an immoral domestic and foreign policy, at a deeper level the warnings and judgments are for you and me.

So how are we to read this book in a way that best communicates God’s message to us?

(1) Expect to hear God’s voice to us in Isaiah’s words. This means bringing one’s faith to a reading of the text. When Isaiah tells Israel to go into the rocks, hide in the ground from dread of the LORD and the splendor of his majesty (Isa. 2:10), it may not be necessary to load up your backpack and head for the Colorado Rockies. But it is necessary to expect that in that admonition there is a message for me.

(2) Recognize that the message is not in narrative prose but is embedded in visions, oracles, metaphors, and allusions. Isaiah was not a straight-talking prophet; he was a poetic prophet. Look at the way the type is laid out on the pages of your Bible. It looks like poetry. Only rarely in the pages of Isaiah do you see the blocks of type we associate with the narrative portions of the Bible or with other books we read.

In order to understand this kind of writing we need to think about why someone chooses to write in poetic form. The most important reason is that poetry is best at communicating the sort of wisdom that our culture makes it difficult to hear.

(3) Notice that a subtle shift takes place in Isaiah that moves us away from seeing these visions as oracles aimed directly, solely, at the nation of Israel. To see this shift, a little history reminder is in order. Most of the people of Isaiah’s day (including the Israelites) were henotheists by upbringing. That is, they were used to thinking of gods as tribal gods. Each tribe, each people group, had their own god. The question was not primarily whether those gods were real (the assumption was that they were). The real question was whose god was the most powerful.

Contrast that with the way we look at God today. Most of us today assume that God is strong; our focus is on God’s relating to individuals, not to groups of people. As a result, many modern exegetes of Isaiah think that the subtle shift apparent in Isaiah is from viewing the gods as tribal gods to viewing God as the God of individuals. Perhaps. There is no question that the image we end up with in taking the Old Testament texts as a whole is not henotheistic but monotheistic, a righteous God concerned about individual persons.

But the real shift in Isaiah is toward a view of God as the Lord not of just tribes, not of just individuals, but as the Lord of all:

This is what the LORD says:

"Heaven is my throne

and the earth is my footstool.

Has not my hand made all these things,

and so they came into being?" (Isa. 66:1–2)

God reigns over all. Let the Lord be glorified that we may see your joy.

Terry C. Muck

Author’s Preface

IT HAS BEEN A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE to be able to write a second commentary on the book of Isaiah, one that focuses particularly on contemporary application. This task has proven more arduous than I originally anticipated, and the reader must judge how successful I have been. Nevertheless, it has been a profitable exercise for me and has left me with an even deeper appreciation for the prophet Isaiah and his towering accomplishment. He has written a book that is no less pointed and relevant in its application to the present than when it was first written 2,700 years ago. He has left his mark—and more importantly, God’s mark—on the world, and that mark will last until the end of time.

Having said that, I am conscious of how often I have only been able to scratch the surface of the depths contained in it. It is profoundly humbling to be able to get a glimpse of the wonders contained within the words of the prophet and then be able to express them only in part. But I have expressed them as well as I can, and I gratefully leave the result to God.

I want to express my thanks to the trustees of Wesley Biblical Seminary, who granted me a research leave during which the bulk of the writing was completed. I also want to thank Terry Muck and Andrew Dearman, who read the manuscript carefully and made valuable suggestions. The editors at Zondervan, Jack Kuhatschek and Verlyn Verbrugge, were also unfailingly helpful.

Then there were my prayer partners—Sam Biebers, Stuart Kellogg, Daniel Koehn, Keith Megehee, and James Wolheter—whose prayers carried me along through the project.

Finally, I want to acknowledge Karen, my wife and life partner, without whose unfailing love, encouragement, and care none of what I have done would have ever happened.

Abbreviations

AB Anchor Bible

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. D. N. Freedman et. al., eds. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. J. B. Pritchard, ed. 3d ed. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969.

BAR Biblical Archaeology Review

BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1959 reprint.

BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia

BKAT Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament

BST The Bible Speaks Today

BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

CB The Bible in Contemporary English

CBC Cambridge Bible Commentary

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

ConBOT Coniectania biblica, Old Testament

ETL Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses

EvQ Evangelical Quarterly

FAT Forshungen zum Alten Testament

FOTL Forms of the Old Testament Literature

HKAT Handkommentar zum Alten Testament

ICC International Critical Commentary

Int Interpretation

ITC International Theological Commentary

JB Jerusalem Bible

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JPS Jewish Publication Society

JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

LXX Septuagint

MT Masoretic Text

NASB New American Standard Bible

NCBC New Century Bible Commentary

NDBT New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. T. D. Alexander and B. Rosner, eds. Leicester, Eng.: Inter-Varsity Press, 2000.

NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament

NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. W. VanGemeren et. al., eds. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997.

NIV New International Version

NIVAC The NIV Application Commentary

NLT New Living Translation

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

OBT Overtures to Biblical Theology

OTL Old Testament Library

POT De Prediking van het Oude Testament

REB Revised English Bible

RSV Revised Standard Version

SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series

SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers

SJT Scottish Journal of Theology

SOTMS Society for Old Testament Study Monograph Series

ST Studia theologica

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, eds. Trans. G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976.

TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. G. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, eds. Trans. D. Green et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–.

TLOT Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. E. Jenni and C. Westermann, eds. Trans. M. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997.

TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries

VT Vetus Testamentum

VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplement Series

WBC Word Biblical Commentary

WTJ Westminster Theological Journal

ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZBK Züricher Bibelkommentare

Introduction to Isaiah

ACROSS THE YEARS Isaiah has come to be known as the prince of the prophets. A part of the reason for this title is the possibility that the prophet was a member of the royal family. While there is no indisputable evidence of this, the easy access to the kings that he seemed to enjoy may point in this direction. But the real basis of the claim is the nature of the book known by Isaiah’s name. There is a majesty in the book that sets it off from almost any other in the Bible. It contains an unparalleled sweep of theology, all the way from creation to the new heavens and new earth and from utter destruction to glorious redemption.

The book’s view of God is equally comprehensive: He is the austere Judge who decrees destruction on a rebellious people, but he is also the compassionate Redeemer who will not cast off a hopeless and despairing people. Nor are these ideas merely presented one after another and then left behind. Rather, they are interwoven in artful ways that suggest the symphonic art that appeared in musical style two millennia after Isaiah. Motifs appear, disappear, and reappear in ways that keep the thoughtful reader involved in an active dialogue with the writer.

Along with this intricacy is a style that moves back and forth from sonorous to lyrical. Chapters 6 and 40 are very different, yet they share the same spare, economical use of words, which makes them both memorable and effective. They have both a power and a beauty that make them unforgettable. Isaiah 52:13–53:12 is a different type of literature, but it is also an example of a style that matches beauty and power.

In many ways the book of Isaiah is the Bible in miniature. Like the Bible, the book has two major divisions, and like the Bible the main theme of the first part is judgment and the main theme of the second is hope. Beyond this, all the main themes of the Bible can be found in Isaiah. Though the Sinai covenant is not mentioned explicitly, it is everywhere assumed. It is the basis of the charges of rebellion, and it is the essential ground of the supposed relationship between God and Israel. The Davidic covenant is mentioned, and it is the foundation of the promises of the Messiah. If the house of David has failed, God’s promises have not. Here the whole question of the uniqueness of God vis-à-vis idols is explored more completely than in any other book of the Bible. And it is here that the glory of the Davidic Messiah and the shame of the Suffering Servant are brought together in a way that helps the New Testament picture of Christ make sense. So whether Isaiah was actually of the royal house or not, it is true that his work, in its theological sweep, towering vision, and powerful language, sets him apart as a prince among the prophets.

Historical Background

ALONG WITH THE princely qualities of the book are several conundrums. One of these is the fact that it seems to be addressed to at least two, and perhaps three, different settings. The first of these is that of Isaiah’s own times, from about 740 to 700 B.C. But chapters 40–55 seem to be addressed to the Judean exiles in Babylon between 585 and 540 B.C., and while the evidence is less clear than it seems to be for the preceding two divisions, chapters 56–66 seem to reflect conditions in Judah after the return from exile in 539 B.C.

On the face of it, this seems odd. No other book of the Bible does this. Several speak about future times, but no other seems to speak to future times as Isaiah does. This is one of the chief reasons why it has become common in scholarly circles to consider that the book is the result of several different authors, with those involved in writing the second two divisions having lived in those times. While it is not impossible that the book is a composite, the book itself seems to make every effort to deny that conclusion, naming only one author throughout and giving no clues as to the life-settings and places of the other supposed authors (see below on Authorship and Date). Nor, if predictive prophecy is granted to be possible, is it out of the question for Isaiah to have understood enough of the general outline of future conditions to have addressed persons in those settings.¹

But if we grant that Isaiah is responsible for the entire book, why would he have written to future generations as well as his own? Since the Bible itself does not offer an explanation, we cannot give a definitive answer. But there is a plausible possibility. In chapters 6–39, Isaiah is given a sweeping vision of God’s absolute superiority over the nations of the earth. All of history is in his hand, and he is able to deliver those who trust him out of the hands of the nations. This was climactically demonstrated in the deliverance of Jerusalem from Sennacherib narrated in 37:36–38. However, Isaiah is permitted to see the future, a time when Judah will not be trusting God in the face of the Babylonians and when the Babylonians will devastate God’s city and remove God’s people far from the land he promised to them. What then? Will not future events have invalidated what Isaiah was given for his own day?

Furthermore, Isaiah sees that though there is a return from exile (predicted in the naming of his son Shearjashub [Only a Remnant Will Return]), it will be to vastly different conditions from those that pertained before the destruction of the city. Judah will simply be a backwater in the vast Persian Empire. Judah will have no king, no army, and no independence, and it will be faced with a much more subtle danger to their distinctive faith than the outright hostility of the Assyrians and Babylonians, namely, a syncretistic outlook that encouraged them to see their God as only a local manifestation of a universal deity worshiped by all religions.

Is it not possible that God gifted Isaiah with the ability to see the future of his people in order to show them (and us) that God is still superior to the nations and their gods (see 40:15–24) even if circumstances and situations are vastly different from those in which the original revelation was given? Is God the Lord of Babylon even if Jerusalem is not delivered out of Babylon’s hands? Yes! Is God still the Lord of Judah even if he, because of her sins, has had to drive Judah from the land he promised her? Yes! Is it possible to experience the kingdom of God even if there is no kingdom of Judah? Yes! Is Judah’s God the Lord of the nations even if Judah herself is no longer a nation? Yes! If the book had ended at chapter 39, we the readers would have had an incomplete picture of God. We would not have known that God’s true lordship of history is not to be found merely in his ability to direct its events, but perhaps even more so in his ability to respond to events in such a way that his original strategy can remain unchanged. Not only is he the King of history; he is also the Redeemer of history.²

740–700 B.C.

BETWEEN 900 AND 609 B.C. the nation of Assyria was the single most prominent force, both politically and militarily, in the ancient Near East. Operating from their home base on the middle Tigris River in Mesopotamia, they had spread their domination in all directions, but especially southward to Babylon and the other southern Mesopotamian city-states and westward and then southward toward Egypt. The small nations on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea stood in the way of this latter advance. Assyria had to go through them to reach the ultimate goal of Egypt because the sea stood on the west and the desert was on the east.

Furthermore, these small nations constituted rich prizes in themselves, having amassed wealth through agriculture, natural resources, and trade. Recognizing the threat, the small nations had formed a coalition to fight the Assyrians at the city of Qarqar in northern Syria in 853 B.C.³ The outcome of the battle seems to have been inconclusive. The southward thrust of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser seems to have been slowed, but it was by no means stopped since he continued to press southward during the remaining twenty-five years of his reign. His two immediate successors continued the same aggressive policies.

All of this put immense pressure on the kings of Israel and Judah in the century between 885 and 785 B.C. Much of their time and wealth had to be devoted to attempts to deal with the Assyrian threat. But beginning in 782, there were three Assyrian kings who were less aggressive.⁴ The third of these died in 745. This meant that for about forty years prior to 745, Judah and Israel had enjoyed a respite. Coinciding with this respite, and perhaps also because of it, both nations enjoyed unusually long and stable reigns. Israel was ruled from 793 to 753 by Jeroboam II, while Judah was ruled from 792 to 740 by Uzziah (Azariah).⁵ Since it was possible to devote time and resources to things other than defense, both nations experienced a time of wealth and prosperity unlike anything since the days of Solomon.

But all that came to a crashing close with the accession of a new Assyrian monarch in 745 B.C. This man, Tiglath-Pileser III (2 Kings 15:29, called Pul in 15:19), inaugurated a new period of Assyrian aggressiveness that was to continue right up until the final disappearance of the Assyrian Empire a century and a quarter later. Suddenly everything changed. Now the predictions of imminent destruction of Israel, which Amos and Hosea had made earlier and which had seemed so far-fetched at the time, did not seem far-fetched at all. Undoubtedly the death of Jeroboam II in 753, the almost immediate assassination of his son, and the subsequent chaos of succession contributed to the sense of impending doom. It seems clear that the kingdom of Israel was ruled for at least a dozen years between 752 and 740 by two kings simultaneously, with the warlord Pekah ruling in the Transjordan area until he could take complete control in 740.

In Judah also there was a change of kingship at this time, although it was not accompanied by the chaos found in the less-stable north. Here, Uzziah was succeeded in 740 by his son Jotham, who probably had been acting as coregent with his father for some ten years before Uzziah’s death.⁶ Nevertheless, in spite of a greater stability on the throne, Judah could not help being embroiled in the wrenching crisis. By 740 the region north of the Sea of Galilee had been taken from Israel, and almost all that was left of Syria was the capital city, Damascus.

Desperate for some way of stopping the juggernaut, Israel and Syria conceived of another coalition (2 Kings 16:5–6; Isa. 7:1). None of the small countries on the Mediterranean coast had a hope of standing up against the Assyrians alone, but perhaps together they could at least achieve as much success as they had gained at Qarqar a century earlier. By this time (ca. 735) it appears that Jotham had been forced by a pro-Assyrian group in Judah to accord his son Ahaz a coregency. In fact, Jotham may have been effectively replaced, because Ahaz is the one acting as king at this point.

Undoubtedly, the call for a coalition against Assyria placed Ahaz in quandary as to whether he was a pawn of a pro-Assyrian party. To take a stand against Assyria had serious consequences if the stand proved to be futile. Whatever else the Assyrians were, they were ruthlessly efficient. Their armies showed both a higher level of organization and of armament than had been known previously in the ancient Near East, and their policies were equally well thought out. There was no lenience offered to those who insisted on opposing them, for the simple reason that such lenience might prompt others to run the risk of such opposition. To oppose the Assyrians and fail was to be subjected to as much destruction and terror as the Assyrian mind could conceive and the Assyrian might could carry out. Sieges were costly and time-consuming. If enemies could be convinced to surrender by looking at what previous enemies of Assyria had undergone, it was all to the good.

So Ahaz king of Judah had to weigh his options carefully. If he agreed to go with Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Damascus and they failed, there was no question that he himself would die by torture in as slow and as agonizing a death as possible and that his city would be systematically destroyed and his people scattered across the empire. But if he would not join the coalition, Israel and Syria would attack him; and if they were successful, they would depose him and put someone else on the throne who would be amenable to their plans (someone named the son of Tabeel, according to Isa. 7:6). There was yet another option: He could actively throw in with the Assyrians and ask them to help him as their vassal.

This latter option is what Ahaz chose. He sent a large sum of money to Tiglath-Pileser and asked for protection from his two enemies (2 Kings 16:7–9). If this seems to us at this distance as though three mice are having a fight and one of them is asking the cat for help, we must remember that Ahaz’s political options were limited. But what Ahaz seems not to have taken into account was God. Ironically, the way in which the Bible presents the account is that Pekah and Rezin had already failed in their attempt to take Jerusalem before any intervention from Assyria occurred. If Ahaz had considered God’s plans and promises, he might have saved himself a great deal of money.

At any rate, Tiglath-Pileser, perhaps using some of Ahaz’s funds, succeeded in capturing Damascus in 732. With this fortress no longer posing a danger in his rear, the Assyrian conqueror was free to push on through northern Israel and on down the coast toward the Philistine cities. Initially Hoshea, Pekah’s successor on the throne of Israel, submitted to the Assyrians and paid tribute to them (2 Kings 17:3–4). But, predictably, he wearied of that burden. Thinking he had procured help from the Egyptians, he stopped paying the tribute in 726 or 725. This was early in the reign of Shalmaneser, Tiglath-Pileser’s successor, and it was fairly common for vassals to revolt in the early years of a reign, hoping that an emperor would have too many other things to attend to in order to prosecute a rebellion. If that was Hoshea’s hope, it was a vain one, because Shalmaneser successfully besieged Samaria and captured it in the year of his death, 722.

By this time yet a third successive coregency seems to have taken place in Judah. This time it appears that the anti-Assyrian party was in the ascendancy and had forced Ahaz’s son Hezekiah on him.⁷ Hezekiah was sixteen by the time of Samaria’s fall and seems to have stepped forward to attempt some sort of rapprochement with the Israelites who remained behind after the deportations (2 Chron. 30:1–11). Perhaps the reality of the Assyrian threat had now come home to the Judeans and Ahaz’s influence was on the wane. At any rate, it seems clear that from the outset Hezekiah pursued a policy that reasserted Judah’s dependency on God and a refusal to consider any kind of a surrender to the Assyrians.

This was, of course, a high-risk position, as outlined above. With Samaria gone, the Assyrians, now led by Sargon II, pushed farther south and attacked the Philistine cities on the Mediterranean coast with impunity. By 715 the last of them had fallen. However, Sargon was not able to push immediately ahead to Egypt because for the next ten years he was plagued by revolts and incursions on his northern border, and apart from occasional punitive raids in the south was unable to follow up on his advantage. During this time Hezekiah was able to carry out his religious reforms and to fortify his country. It also appears from the book of Isaiah that there was considerable pressure among Hezekiah’s counselors for him to ally Judah with Egypt. Undoubtedly Egypt was pushing hard for this too. They could read the signs as well as anyone else. Sooner or later Assyria would be knocking on their door, and by now only Judah, the remnants of the Philistines, Moab, and Edom were left to stand in the way of that eventuality.

Finally Sargon died in 705, perhaps on the battlefield. He was succeeded by his son Sennacherib, who was shortly (703) faced with a rebellion in Babylon. The leader of this revolt was from Chaldea in extreme southern Mesopotamia. His name was Marduk-apal-idinna (the Bible’s Merodach-Baladan, Isa. 39:1). It seems probable that the events described in Isaiah 39 took place some time prior to this revolt as Merodach-Baladan sought to persuade others across the empire to join him in revolt. Whether that is the correct interpretation or not, it is clear that sometime in 703 or 702 Hezekiah led his neighbors in open revolt to the extent of capturing a Philistine kinglet named Padi and imprisoning him in Jerusalem.

Having dealt with the Babylonians, Sennacherib turned his attention to the west and, in the words of Byron, came down like a wolf on the fold.⁸ In short order he brought the hard light of reality to bear on the ephemeral dreams the coalition may have had of actually being able to stand up to the Assyrian might. The promised Egyptian help evaporated, the leading Philistine city of Ekron was captured, and the towns and fortresses of Judah (forty-six of them in all) were captured and destroyed. Only Lachish, southwest of Jerusalem, and Jerusalem itself remained. Hezekiah turned over Padi and sent a large present to Sennacherib, apparently in the hope that Sennacherib would be mollified and return home.

That was not to be the case, however. Sennacherib destroyed Lachish and made it clear he was not going home until the rebel city of Jerusalem opened its gates to him, either willingly or forcibly. He could ill afford to do anything else. There was the military problem. He could not proceed with the attack on Egypt with an enemy stronghold at his rear in position to cut his supply lines. But more importantly, there was the political problem. Hezekiah was the leader of the revolt. Assyria did not allow leaders of revolts to live. If it did, there would be no end of trouble. So Jerusalem had to fall and Hezekiah had to die.

In fact, that is not what happened. Sennacherib does not tell us why. In his own annals, he only boasts that he shut up Hezekiah like a bird in a cage and that Hezekiah paid him a huge tribute, agreeing to renew it annually. So Sennacherib returned home and, as far as his records indicate, never campaigned in the west again until his death at the hands of his own sons twenty years later. The door to Egypt, the prize for which Assyria had been straining for almost two hundred years, stood open, and Sennacherib did nothing to go through it. Instead, he was content to fill his palace with huge reliefs of the fall of Lachish. Having been denied the prize, he made do with second or third best. What happened? The Bible gives us the answer in Isaiah 37:36–37. One night most of the Assyrian grand army died at the hand of the angel of the LORD, and Sennacherib decided he had more pressing business at home.⁹

625–540 B.C.

THE ASSYRIAN EMPIRE eventually reached its Egyptian goal under Sennacherib’s successor, Esarhaddon. When Esarhaddon’s son, Ashurbanipal, came to the throne in 668, Assyria stood at the apex of its power and glory. Yet within less than twenty years of Ashurbanipal’s death in 627 B.C., the Assyrian Empire would cease to exist. What happened? A number of factors were involved, but chief among them was the resurgence of Babylon. Relations between Assyria and Babylon had always been tense, with the Babylonians regularly attempting to break free. For two hundred years Assyria had always been able to regain control, but with Ashurbanipal’s death that control was lost irrevocably.

Ironically, Assyria may have contributed to Babylon’s success this time by having decisively defeated Babylon’s enemy Elam during Ashurbanipal’s reign. At any rate, in the upheavals surrounding Ashurbanipal’s succession, a Chaldean general named Nabopolassar took the throne of Babylon and set about driving the Assyrians out. Within ten years he succeeded in this goal and was carrying the fight to the Assyrian homeland. He was aided in this by the Medes, a collection of tribes living in the Zagros Mountains on the eastern border of Mesopotamia. The Assyrians had long spoken glowingly of the warlike qualities of the Medes.

The beginning of the end for Assyria came with the capture and destruction of the city of Ashur in 614. Then in 612 the unthinkable happened. The greatest Assyrian city of all, Nineveh, fell after a siege of only three months. A claimant to the Assyrian throne fled westward with the remnants of the once-mighty Assyrian army. Landing first in Haran, they were ejected from there and fled farther west to Carchemish on the upper Euphrates in what is today Syria. There they were joined by the new Egyptian pharaoh Neco, who was probably trying to keep a weak Assyria alive as a buffer between him and the Babylonians. But in 605 the Babylonian army, now led by Nabopolassar’s son Nebuchadnezzar, struck the final blow, destroying both the Assyrian and Egyptian armies.

Following up on his advantage, Nebuchadnezzar immediately marched south, reclaiming the coastal region for Mesopotamian control. Local rulers who for a short time had acknowledged Egyptian rule quickly changed sides. Among them was the Judean king Jehoiakim. He had been placed on the throne by Neco when Neco had deposed Jehoiakim’s brother Jehoahaz in 609 (2 Kings 23:33–35). But whatever loyalty Jehoiakim may have felt to his former overlord evaporated when Nebuchadnezzar arrived. Jehoiakim surrendered, agreeing to pay an annual tribute, and gave up to Nebuchadnezzar not only some of the temple treasures but also hostages, among whom were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (Dan. 1:1–6).

But Jehoiakim’s loyalty to Nebuchadnezzar was as fleeting as had been his loyalty to Neco. After just three years he broke the solemn covenant he had made, apparently hoping that Nebuchadnezzar’s other obligations might be more important than the goings-on in faraway Judah.¹⁰ That was not to be the case with an energetic ruler like Nebuchadnezzar. First, he sent various local groups to harass Jehoiakim (2 Kings 24:2; Jer. 35:11), and then he sent the Babylonian army itself. They arrived in 598. It was that year that Jehoiakim died (2 Kings 24:6). It is hard to believe that his dying at just this point was coincidental. This is especially so since his son Jehoiachin was only eighteen and surrendered the city after only three months. But the Bible does not satisfy our curiosity on the question. At any rate, this time Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiachin and most of the royal family into captivity along with other leaders and craftsmen (including the young priest Ezekiel). The Babylonian monarch replaced Jehoiachin with his uncle Mattaniah, renamed Zedekiah.

If the picture of Jehoiakim given in the book of Jeremiah is of a hard-eyed opportunist, the picture of Zedekiah is of a waffler who tried to please all sides simultaneously while having no firm convictions of his own. The biblical writers did not even consider him to be the legitimate king. As serious as Judah’s spiritual condition was, it is clear from the example of Assyria’s repentance in response to Jonah’s preaching that if there had come a true national repentance even as late as Zedekiah’s time, the city might have been spared and history been quite different. But although Zedekiah was Josiah’s son, he was no Josiah. If he even understood the issues that all the great prophets had raised and that Jeremiah was declaring at that very moment, he certainly had no desire to address them. His popularity might have suffered.

Thus, Zedekiah asked Jeremiah for advice privately but was unwilling to support him publicly. The people drifted deeper and deeper into the kind of attitudes and behaviors that would seal their destruction. The picture God had given Isaiah 125 years earlier of a people with blind eyes, deaf ears, and fat, unresponsive hearts had come true with a vengeance. Part of their blindness was that they could not believe the city would fall. After all, they had God’s temple, where the holy sacrifices were offered. Beyond this, if God was the God he claimed to be, how could he renege on the promises he had made to their ancestors? So, persisting in injustice, corruption, and violence, the Judean people believed their false prophets, who told them God was pleased with them and would shortly deliver them from the Babylonian threat.

It was in this atmosphere that Zedekiah, listening to counselors who assured him that Egypt would help and fearing a revolt among the people if he continued to tax them to pay the Babylonian tribute, decided to rebel, as his brother Jehoiakim had done before him. One wonders whether he really understood the gravity of what he was doing. Like the Assyrians before them, the Babylonians tended to give people three chances. If there were two rebellions after the initial submission (and there always were), total destruction was the result. This was Jerusalem’s second rebellion. The results were entirely predictable. The only question was how soon the Babylonian army would arrive and how long the city could hold out.

The Babylonians began their siege of Jerusalem in 588, and the city was able to hold out for two years. But finally, as it must have done without a divine miracle, the city fell in July of 586. As unthinkable to the Assyrians as the fall of Nineveh had been twenty-five years earlier, the fall of Jerusalem was even more unthinkable to the Judeans. Had God failed? Had they believed lies about his greatness? Were his promises in vain? Had their sin been too much even for God?

All these questions and more must have filled the Judeans’ minds as they trudged off into captivity. Many were in bitter despair, believing that everything they had once believed had been proven false. But here and there throughout the group were those who refused to give up hope. We know they did not because somehow they managed to smuggle out copies of the sacred scrolls. Among these was the book of Isaiah, along with the Torah and the writings of the other prophets. How exciting it must have been for those exiles to open Isaiah and to read what is now Isaiah 40–55 with new eyes, opened by the radically new situation. There they saw that Isaiah, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, had anticipated all their questions and had provided them with answers they had never understood before. They did not need to give up hope; God had not been defeated; he had not cast them off; the Babylonian gods were not superior to him.

Undoubtedly the somewhat different approach of the Babylonians to exile from that of the Assyrians helped to promote this renaissance of hope. Whereas the Assyrians had tried to break up national groups by scattering them in various places across the empire (see 2 Kings 17:6), the Babylonians permitted such groups to settle in one place. So the Judeans were placed together in central Babylon near the Kebar River at a place called Tel Abib (see Ezek. 1:1; 3:15). Thus the faithful were able to encourage those whose faith was wavering by getting them into the study of the Scriptures, especially of the prophets. When they discovered that the prophets had foreseen their present situation in varying levels of detail, they were surely moved to see what else the prophets had seen. There they found that the prophets had not only predicted the Exile but also predicted something that had never occurred before—a national return from exile.

Of course, many could not believe such an impossible thing, but their doubt was surely shaken when they heard their contemporary Ezekiel saying the same thing. What was difficult for them to grasp was the truth that God can do new things. They thought that he could not let Jerusalem fall, and when he did, they were sure that it was because he had been defeated and that therefore the ancient promises were nullified. The thought that God might have engineered the destruction of Jerusalem in order to keep the ancient promises with a purified remnant (Isa. 4:2–6) was thinking outside the box, and it is clear both from Ezekiel and Isaiah that most of the exiles were no more able to do that than most of those before the Exile.

By its very nature paganism fosters such boxed thinking. The gods are personified natural, social, and psychological forces. They are the result of human thought that seeks to take an often-chaotic world and reduce it to a mental order. Pagan thinkers specifically do not look for the new and unique. Such things are freaks that do not produce order. Rather, they look for the recurring cycles and patterns that are always so. The pagans do not want to go some way they have never been before. That way lies chaos.

This is the basis for the biting satires on the gods that appear in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. These gods and this way of thinking are a human attempt to get control of life. What good could those things do anybody? Can the creation save the creation from the creation? Not likely! The saving God is the good Creator, who made creation in certain ways but is never bound by those ways. The only thing he is bound by is his own consistent nature. Consistent, yes. Predictable, never. To us fearful humans, frantic to control our little worlds, such a picture is frightening. It means letting go of the familiar and casting ourselves into arms we cannot see, yet believing on the basis of the Word of God and the testimony of those who have gone before that the arms are there, stronger and more loving than anything we could ever imagine on our own.

Some of the exiled Judeans believed what they read in the Scriptures and resisted the temptation to settle down in a new environment and adopt its ways. They refused to give up the ancient promises. They kept their bags packed, spiritually speaking. No better example can be found of these attitudes and behaviors than Daniel and his friends. They refused to be assimilated into the Babylonian culture and religion, looking to the Scriptures for their self-understanding. This is seen clearly when we find Daniel praying for the return from exile on the basis of what he read in the book of Jeremiah (Dan. 9:1–19). As a result, when the man from the east, Cyrus, whom Isaiah had foretold (Isa. 41:2; 44:28–45:6), appeared, these believing Judeans were not surprised. Like Daniel, they had read the Scriptures carefully and knew that the Exile would not last longer than seventy years. So when Cyrus’s decree permitting them to go home was made, they were ready.

The so-called Neo-Babylonian Empire looms large for students of the Bible because it was so pivotal in the history of Jerusalem and the Judean people. But actually, it was a brief interlude between the Assyrian and Persian Empires. It was to a great extent a one-man show. That man was Nebuchadnezzar. When he passed from the scene in 562 B.C., after a forty-three-year reign, the winds that would destroy his work were already blowing. From one point of view the Neo-Babylonian Empire only existed while the Medes caught their breath and recruited a new partner, the Persians. The Medes and an associated group, the Umman-Manda, kept control of the northern part of the old Assyrian Empire. After failing to defeat the Persians who were under the leadership of a half-Median named Cyrus, they joined forces with him. He was able to provide a cohesive leadership that had been lacking, and by 547 he had consolidated his control to the point where he began to move from his northern bases south toward the Babylonian homeland.

In the first seven years after Nebuchadnezzar’s death no fewer than three of his descendants took the throne and were removed from it for one reason or another. The man who emerged from all of this was a Babylonian official named Nabonidus, who ruled from 555 until the fall of Babylon in 539. The data about him are somewhat fragmentary; thus, historians vary widely in their estimate of him. Some see him as a scholar and antiquarian who let the crises of the empire go unaddressed. Others see him as a daring and innovative thinker who was overwhelmed by unmanageable realities.¹¹ In any case, we know that he left Babylon to live in the oasis of Tema for ten years, taking some of the chief deities of Babylon with him. He left a vice-regent named Belshazzar in charge in Babylon.¹²

Whether from Nabonidus’s neglect or in spite of his best efforts, Cyrus went from strength to strength. When he finally appeared before Babylon in 539, the city fell to him with hardly a murmur. One of the first things he did was to proclaim that any exiled people who so wished could return home and that the royal treasury would pay for the rebuilding of any damaged temples.¹³ The Judeans were ready, and some 50,000 made the long journey, reaching Jerusalem probably in 537 (see Ezra 2:64).

540–500 B.C.

IF THE PROMISES of the prophets had enabled the Judean people to survive the Exile, it is possible that those same prophets made it more difficult to survive the Return. Many of the prophets, in a manner continued by Jesus himself, had a way of telescoping future events together.¹⁴ Thus, the predictions of the messianic age and the setting up of the kingdom of God seemed to follow closely on the predictions of the Return.¹⁵ Since God had proven faithful in the Exile and then in the Return, surely now the returned exiles could look for all the nations of the world to come flowing to Jerusalem, bringing their wealth with them. Surely a descendant of Jehoiachin would soon ascend the throne of Israel in Judah, there to rule the world in righteousness and peace. Surely Jerusalem was about to become the center of a world empire.

None of these things occurred, however. Judah’s condition was not better than before the Exile; in fact, it was worse. At least before the Exile they had had a semblance of independence with their own king, government, and army. And even stripped of much of its golden finery, the temple of Solomon was an impressive structure, fit to be the palace of the God of the world. But now what? They had no king; they had absolutely no independence; they were a subdivision of a division of a Persian region, with their county seat being, of all places, in Samaria! Jerusalem was in ruins, and there was neither the wealth nor the incentive to rebuild it. As for the temple of the Lord, when the foundations were laid, it was hard to distinguish the shouts of joy from the cries of those who remembered the glory of the former building (Ezra 3:12). The prospects were so disappointing that the foundations of the new temple lay exposed for sixteen years until the prophets Haggai and Zechariah finally convinced the people to get the task underway again in 520. The rebuilding project was finally completed in 516, twenty years after it began and seventy years after the previous temple had been burned.

In the world around, Persia reigned supreme without a rival. The Babylonians had welcomed Cyrus as a deliverer, much as the people of Ukraine and Belo-Russia welcomed Hitler. But Cyrus proved much more worthy of the acclaim. His proclamation of a return for the exiles was not a fluke. Rather, it