Isaiah: A Commentary

By Brevard S. Childs

In this important addition to the Old Testament Library, now available in a new casebound edition, renowned scholar Brevard Childs writes on the Old Testament's most important theological book. He furnishes a fresh translation from the Hebrew and discusses questions of text, philology, historical background, and literary architecture, and then proceeds with a critically informed, theological interpretation of the text.

The Old Testament Library provides fresh and authoritative treatments of important aspects of Old Testament study through commentaries and general surveys. The contributors are scholars of international standing.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Westminster John Knox Press
• Release date: Nov 1, 2000
• ISBN: 9781611643619

Brevard S. Childs

Brevard S. Childs (1923–2007) was Sterling Professor Emeritus of Divinity at Yale Divinity School. 

Book preview

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF ISAIAH

Selected Bibliography

P. Ackroyd, Isaiah I–XII: Presentation of a Prophet, Congress Volume Göttingen, SVTSup 29, Leiden 1978, 16–48; reprinted in Studies in the Religious Tradition of the Old Testament, London 1987, 79–104; H. Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josia Zeit, WMANT 48, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1977; J. Barton, Isaiah 1–39, OT Guides, Sheffield 1995; W. A. M. Beuken, Jesaja 33 als Spiegelbild im Jesajabuch. ETL 67, 1991, 5–35; D. M. Carr, Reaching for Unity in Isaiah, JSOT 57, 1993, 61–80; B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, London and Philadelphia 1979, 311ff.; Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments, London and Minneapolis 1992; Retrospective Reading of the Old Testament Prophets, ZAW 108, 1996, 362–77; R. E. Clements, Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem, JSOTSup 13, Sheffield 1980; The Unity of the Book of Isaiah, Int 36, 1982, 117–29; C. Hardmeier, Jesajaforschung im Umbruch, VF 31, 1986, 3–31; D. R. Jones, The Tradition of the Oracles of Isaiah of Jerusalem, ZAW 76, 1955, 226–46; L. J. Liebreich, The Compilation of the Book of Isaiah, JOR 46, 1955/6, 259–77; 47, 1956/7, 114–38; R. Rendtorff, Zur Komposition des Buches Jesaja, VT 34, 1984, 295–320; J. F. A. Sawyer, The Fifth Gospel: Isaiah in the History of Christianity, Cambridge 1996; C. R. Seitz, Isaiah 1–66: Making Sense of the Whole, Reading and Preaching the Book of Isaiah, ed. C. R. Seitz, Philadelphia 1988, 105–26; G. T. Sheppard, The ‘Scope’ of Isaiah as a Book of Jewish and Christian Scriptures, New Visions of Isaiah, ed. R. F. Melugen et al., JSOTSup 214, Sheffield 1996, 257–81; B. D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, Stanford 1998, 6–31; M. A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1—4 and the Post-Exilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition, BZAW 171, Berlin 1988; Isaiah 1—39, FOTL 16, Grand Rapids 1996; M. E. Tate, The Book of Isaiah in Recent Research, Forming Prophetic Literature, Fs J. D. Watts, ed. J. W. Watts et al., JSOTSup 235, Sheffield 1996, 22–56; J. Vermeylen, L’unité du Livre d’Isaïe, The Book of Isaiah, ed. J. Vermeylen, Leuven 1989, 11–53; H. Wildberger, Jesaja, das Buch, der Prophet und seine Botschaft, Jesaja, BK x/3, 1982, 1509–1713; H. G. M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction, Oxford 1994.

The interpretation of the book of Isaiah has gone through many important changes during the last hundred years. Because this history has been reviewed often (cf. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament, 311ff.; Tate, 22ff.; Sweeney, Isaiah 1—39, 31ff.), there is no need to repeat it in detail, but merely to draw a few main lines.

The initial literary critical commentary of B. Duhm brought to bear on the text a new level of penetrating literary analysis, and his division of the book into three major parts (chapter 1—39; chapter 40—55; chapter 56—66) has been a major influence on the study of the book ever since. The application of form criticism to Isaiah, represented by scholars such as Wildberger and Westermann, sought to show the effect on the composition of traditional oral patterns and to break out of an impasse that developed when too great an emphasis fell on distinguishing between genuine and non-genuine passages (e.g., Marti). However, the approach did little to halt the atomizing of the book and at times even exacerbated its fragmentation. Most recently, new methodological approaches such as redactional criticism have sought to trace larger horizontal layers of editorial shaping. These approaches have discerned forces of redactional activity that have sought to lend a measure of coherence and unity to the diverse parts of the book of Isaiah as a whole (Vermeylen, 11ff.).

Within the last three decades the most creative work of Isaiah has fallen largely into this last category of redactional criticism for four reasons. First, the issue of the structure of the book has occupied much attention. Within the English-speaking world, P. Ackroyd’s illuminating essay (1978) coined the phrase presentation of a prophet. Ackroyd’s concern was to go beyond the familiar issues of authorship and historical setting and to raise the question of how the editor wished to render his material. He argued that it was not by harmonizing the great diversity, but by the recognition of the full impact of the prophet on the editor, even when using different forms of presentation. Duhm had assumed that each of his larger divisions had developed mostly independently of each other and that only at a very late date were they joined. Now the emphasis shifted, not only to the presentation in the individual sections (1—12; 13—23; 36—39), but to the linking of chapters 33—35 and to the function of the parts within the whole (cf. Seitz, Sweeney Isaiah 1—39). The effect has been to raise a host of new and fresh interpretive questions.

Second, the emphasis on structural and editorial shaping is an indication of a major paradigm shift that has occurred regarding the very nature of prophetic literature. The shift involves the recognition of the force of textualization of the oral tradition into a written corpus. Whereas the earlier form critics tended to see the creative periods lying within the oral stage, later critics have discovered a continuing process of reinterpreting the written text. Whether this reinterpretation is called extension (Fortschreibung) or midrash (Clements, Isaiah and the Deliverance), it assumes that a corpus of written texts was continually evolving in response to changing historical forces. The result is that interpreters have become reluctant to eliminate verses as meaningless glosses, but to reckon with the possibility of an intentional expansion on the part of an editor.

Third, there has arisen a new interest in the book of Isaiah as a whole, but in a form that differs markedly from the traditional view that defended unity in terms of single authorship. In a well-known article (The Unity of the Book of Isaiah) R. Clements outlined his understanding of the unity of Isaiah in terms of a redactional process in which at least four distinct layers can be identified: an eighth-century (preexilic), a seventh-century (Josianic), an exilic, and a postexilic redaction. This shaping process was largely driven by Israel’s changing historical fortunes. In addition, one of the startling new developments within the last three decades has been the attention paid to different redactional layers within Second Isaiah, a collection that previously had been largely regarded as of one piece. It is now widely held that the concluding chapters of the book (65 and 66) are closely related to the first chapter, and that a conscious intention can be discerned toward uniting the various parts into some form of coherent literature as a whole (Liebreich, Compilation 259ff.).

Fourth, another feature of importance within the rubric of redactional criticism has been the role assigned to retrospective reading of the prophet. Whereas it was once thought that First, Second, and Third Isaiah could each be assigned to different historical periods with some consistency, now it has emerged that the earlier material has often been reinterpreted by the later. A growing consensus now suggests that the heart of the entire redactional process lies with Second Isaiah, whose influence reshaped First Isaiah and largely determined the form of Third Isaiah (cf. Rendtorff, Williamson). According to some new hypotheses, Second Isaiah has been assigned the role of transforming the inchoate material of First Isaiah by means of a retrospective interpretation in order to reflect the disastrous experience of the destruction of Jerusalem in 587. Clearly such an approach raises a great number of new and difficult interpretive issues (Childs, Retrospective Reading).

In the light of these newer exegetical challenges in the field of Isaianic studies, I think that it is in order to set forth my own approach in this commentary. Although I have learned much from the many modern studies of the book of Isaiah and identify myself in many respects with the newer methods, I still have enough serious reservations over the state of the field as to wish to move in a different direction from that represented by both the left and right. My concern is to develop my interpretation of the book in an exegetical form rather than as a theological or hermeneutical tractate.

First, I remain deeply concerned with the unity of the book, which I agree cannot be formulated in terms of single authorship. In this respect, I differ from the traditionally conservative approach represented by E. J. Young, Oswalt, and Motyer, among others, which, in my judgment, results in a literary and theological flattening of the richness of the prophetic witness. I plan to develop a commentary on the entire canonical scope of the sixty-six chapters that the received tradition designated as the prophecy of Isaiah. By the term canon I am not merely addressing its formal scope, but including the quality of the theological testimony identified with the prophet Isaiah. A major question of concern is to develop in what sense one can truly speak of the canonical corpus as the word of God to Isaiah. The complexity of the issue is especially clear when one considers that the historical eighth-century prophet does not appear in the book after chapter 39. With the majority of modern scholars, I strongly doubt that the problem can be resolved by portraying the eighth-century prophet as a clairvoyant of the future. A much more subtle and profound theological reflection is called upon to do justice both to the unity and diversity of the biblical corpus.

Second, I agree with the modern redactional stress on the multilayered quality of the biblical text. However, in my opinion, it is fully inadequate to find the unity of this book in a succession of redactional layers, each with its own agenda, which are never ultimately heard in concert as a whole. To end one’s critical analysis by outlining a seventh-, sixth-, and fifth-century redactional succession, each with an absolute dating, fails to reckon with the book’s canonical authority as a coherent witness in its final received form to the ways of God with Israel. Ultimately, the analysis of distinct layers and compositional growth must be used to enrich the book as a whole, rather than to fragment it into conflicting voices of individual editors, each with a private agenda. In the end, it is the canonical text that is authoritative, not the process, nor the self-understanding of the interpreter.

Third, one of the most important recent insights of interpretation has been the recognition of the role of intertextuality (cf. Beuken). The growth of the larger composition has often been shaped by the use of a conscious resonance with a previous core of oral or written texts. The great theological significance is that it reveals how the editors conceived of their task as forming a chorus of different voices and fresh interpretations, but all addressing in different ways, different issues, and different ages a part of the selfsame, truthful witness to God’s salvific purpose for his people. The fact that one cannot always determine the direction in which the intertextual reapplication flows is a warning against assigning too much importance on the recovery of sequential trajectories as the key to meaning.

Fourth, I remain critical of those interpreters who attempt to force exegesis into narrowly defined structuralist categories, or who restrict its only legitimate role to synchronic analysis. The relation of the synchronic and diachronic dimensions is an extremely subtle one in the Bible and both aspects must be retained (cf. Childs, Biblical Theology, 98ff.; 211ff.). Basically, my resistance to much of postmodern literary analysis derives from theological reasons. Although I have learned much from modern literary techniques, I differ in my theological understanding of the nature and function of scripture. I regard the biblical text as a literary vehicle, but its meaning is not self-contained. Its function as scripture is to point to the substance (res) of its witness, to the content of its message, namely, to the ways of God in the world. For this reason I remain highly critical of many modern literary proposals, which are theologically inert at best, and avowedly agnostic at worst.

Finally, regarding the place of the New Testament in an Old Testament commentary on Isaiah, the primary task of the latter is to hear the Old Testament’s own discrete voice and to honor its own theological integrity. Yet as a Christian interpreter, I confess with the church that the Old and New Testaments, in their distinct canonical forms, together form a theological whole. However, to deal adequately with the New Testament far exceeds the scope of an Old Testament commentary and the ability of this author. Nevertheless, I have offered a few probes of crucial texts that have played a prominent role within Christian tradition. I am fully aware that the full task remains still to be undertaken.

In recent years there have been a few attempts made to trace the role that the book of Isaiah has played in various periods in the history of the Christian church. Many of these volumes are useful and filled with learning (e.g., J. F. A. Sawyer). Yet I remain critical of approaches that, when tracing the appropriation of the book of Isaiah, assume that the major forces at work were largely cultural. Often the concentration falls on the misuse of biblical texts. What is missing is the ability to see the effect of the coercion of the text itself in faithfully shaping the life of the church—its doctrine, liturgy, and practice—in such a way as to leave a family resemblance of faith throughout the ages. In search of this goal, the voices of the great Christian interpreters—Chrysostom, Augustine, Thomas, Luther, Calvin—remain an enduring guide for truthfully hearing the evangelical witness of Isaiah in a manner seldom encountered since the Enlightenment.

2. INTRODUCTION TO ISAIAH 1—39 (FIRST ISAIAH)

A special introduction to First Isaiah is hardly necessary. The major introductory problems are covered in the commentary. There is a brief review of the major exegetical problems before each of the major sections: 1—12; 13—23; 24—27; 28—35; 36—39. In addition, the function of the sections is often summarized in the concluding chapter.

Following Duhm’s initial division of the book as a whole into three parts, it was often assumed in popularizations of the critical approach that the material of First Isaiah was to be dated preexilic in contrast to the exilic and postexilic dating of Second and Third Isaiah. Of course, this is a major misunderstanding of Duhm, who pointed out from the start that a large amount of late material was found within this first division. He reckoned with a lengthy process extending from an eighth-century core, centered in chapters 6—8, to a late Hellenistic collection in chapters 24—27.

Much energy in recent times has focused on establishing the manner in which the very divergent sections of First Isaiah were formed into its final form of the book. Duhm’s view was that the collection of chapters 1—39, along with Second Isaiah (chapters 40—55), had largely developed independently of each other, and only at a very late date had been joined. At this point much criticism has set in, and a great variety of new proposals have been made, including several that envision a process of mutual influence exerted among the various sections during most of the process of growth. Some of this controversy will be reviewed when it directly impinges on the interpretation, especially regarding the functions of chapters 33, 34—35, and 36—39.

In general, I remain much less certain than many that the precise stages in the compositional history of the book of Isaiah can be recovered. Moreover, I would also question whether these decisions play the exegetical importance that have been assigned to them. I recognize that some structural divisions are clearly intentional and of much importance (e.g., chapters 12 and 39). However, I wonder whether others share a fortuitous element in their positioning, and it is a modern anachronism to require a clear and rational reason for every structural division.

Perhaps the one example of a major revision of Duhm’s classic distinction between the three Isaiahs is the recent case made for seeing the structure of the book of Isaiah falling into two basic parts, namely, chapters 1—33 and 34—66, and in assigning chapters 32—33, 34—35, and 36—39 to transitional roles in linking the two major sections. Sweeney (Isaiah 1—39, 43ff.) has recently summarized the major argument for this new structural analysis. Some of his points are well taken and of interest. However, in the end, I would judge that Duhm’s divisions are still to be preferred. In addition to Duhm’s literary and historical reasons for accepting chapters 1—39 as a discrete section, my major reason is a theological one. The sharp break between the collection of oracles in which the person of the eighth-century prophet is foundational for the tradition ends in chapter 39. Beginning with chapter 40, the message of the book functions in a different fashion apart from any role for the historical figure of Isaiah. Rather, the authority of the prophet continues and encompasses the remaining chapters, but in a strikingly different manner. To shift the major division to chapter 34 blurs this crucial shaping of the Isaianic corpus, and therefore I feel the hypothesis is to be rejected (cf. the commentary on chapter 40).

3. INTRODUCTION TO ISAIAH 1—12

Selected Bibliography

H. Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung, WMANT 48, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1977; K. Budde, Jesaja’s Erleben. Eine gemeinverständliche Auslegung der Denkschrift des Propheten (Kap. 6, 1–9, 6), Gotha 1928; R. E. Clements, The Prophecies of Isaiah and the Fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C., VT 30, 1980, 421–36; M. A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1—39, FOTL 16, Grand Rapids 1996, 65ff; H. G. M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction, Oxford 1994.

Certainly one of the most complex and controversial portions of the book of Isaiah is the initial collection of oracles in chapters 1—12. There is general agreement that chapter 1 constitutes an introduction of some sort, but the scope covered by the superscription remains in dispute. Again, a wide scholarly consensus recognizes a closure in chapter 12, which is sharply distinguished from the succeeding oracles. However, the remaining structural elements of the section all present difficult problems that need to be addressed in detail. For example, how is one to explain the stark contrast between oracles of judgment and those of salvation, which are often juxtaposed in a brittle fashion (e.g., 2:6)? How is one to understand the present position within the book of Isaiah’s temple vision in chapter 6? Is the repetition of an apparent refrain in 5:24 (and again in 9:12ff.) an indication of a literary interpolation?

Very early in the critical study of these chapters an important hypothesis was developed under the rubric of Isaiah’s Denkschrift (memoir). Accordingly, it was argued that the earliest core of the book was to be found in chapters 6—8 and was basically derived from the prophet’s own historical experiences. More recently, this hypothesis has come under increasing attack and the issue calls for close reexamination.

In his commentary of 1892, Duhm had assigned a goodly number of passages within chapters 1—12 to a postexilic date (e.g., chapter 4). His analysis still retains support from many. During the last few decades critical attention has tended to focus on discerning a widespread redactional reinterpretation of the earliest core of First Isaiah by an exilic author akin to Second Isaiah. This issue has been greatly sharpened by the writings of both Clements and Williamson.

The very influential book of H. Barth in 1977 mounted a case for a major redaction of First Isaiah during the reign of King Josiah in the late seventh century expressing opposition to Assyrian aggression. He reckoned that it extended from chapter 2 to at least chapter 32. Many scholars continue to support Barth’s reconstruction (e.g., Clements, Sweeney), but probably with less confidence than earlier. At least enough uncertainty exists to require a fresh appraisal.

Finally, the continuing debate over Isaiah’s messianic message turns largely on the analysis of texts within this initial collection: chapters 7, 8, 9, and 11. Although it is unlikely that a consensus of opinion will soon emerge, the importance of the problem again requires careful study.

4. Isaiah 1:1

The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

Selected Bibliography

O. Loretz, Der Prolog des Jesaja-Buches (1, 1–2, 5), Altenberge 1984, 13–23; M. A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1—4 and the Post-Exilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition, BZAW 171, Berlin 1988; G. M. Tucker, Prophetic Superscriptions and the Growth of a Canon, Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology, ed. B. O. Long and G. W. Coats, Philadelphia 1977, 56–70.

The superscription of the book designates its prophetic author, the nature of his message as divine relevation, the addressee as Judah and Jerusalem, and the time frame of his preaching. The latter spans the period from King Uzziah (783–742; cf. 6:1) through the reign of King Hezekiah (715–687). The heading āzôn (vision) is used in a weak sense comparable to Obadiah 1 and Nahum 1:1.

The major controversial issue turns on the question of how much of the succeeding parts of the book are covered by this initial superscription, which is generally recognized as part of a late editorial shaping of this corpus of prophetic material. Since there are other superscriptions also ascribed to Isaiah in 2:1 and 13:1, some scholars have limited the range of material covered by the first heading either to chapter 1 or to chapters 1—12. The reasons for assuming that the initial superscription is intended to include the entire book of Isaiah will emerge more clearly in the succeeding commentary. Briefly stated, the decision turns on the evidence of a process of intentional redactional rendering of the whole of the Isaianic material into a unified corpus.

The scholarly discussion regarding the scope of the material covered by the superscription has been dominated by the concern to determine the original redactor’s intent. Few modern commentators would question the importance of this question, although it often remains impossible to arrive at a conclusion of certainty.

However, there is another aspect of the problem relating to the function of the superscription. In the final literary form of the book of Isaiah, 1:1 now introduces the entire book. Even if there were fortuitous literary and historical factors involved, the present position of the superscription affords it an important hermeneutical function. The fact that the dating of Isaiah’s preaching is concluded with the reign of Hezekiah has important implications for the interpretation of chapters 40—66. Regardless of the many signs of post-Isaianic dating, the superscription functions to define the historical setting of the prophecy of Isaiah to the preexilic period and thus shapes the understanding of the later parts of the book as well. The reader is not encouraged to extend the historical setting of Isaiah’s ministry beyond the reign of King Hezekiah (who dies at the end of chapter 39), but is instructed to interpret the material within the historical framework established by the superscription. Thus, the basic hermeneutical issue is posed at the outset. The reader is pressed to reflect on the nature of this prophetic corpus. Is there another way of understanding the prophetic claim of Isaianic prophecy for this entire collection when the prophet himself does not ever appear after chapter 39? This issue will be pursued further throughout the commentary, but especially in chapter 40 and following.

5. Isaiah 1:2–31

1:2      Hear, O heavens, and listen, O earth

for the LORD has spoken:

"Children have I reared and brought up,

but they have rebelled against me.

3      An ox knows its owner

and an ass its master’s stall.

Israel does not know,

my people does not understand."

4      Ah, sinful nation,

people laden with iniquity,

brood of evildoers,

depraved children.

They have abandoned the LORD,

spurned the Holy One of Israel,

turned their backs on him.

5      Why will you be beaten anymore,

that you persist in rebellion?

Every head is sick

and every heart afflicted.

6      From head to foot

no spot is sound—

wounds and welts

and festering sores,

not cleansed or bandaged

or soothed with oil.

7      Your land is desolate,

your cities scorched with fire.

Before your very eyes foreigners strip your land—

a wasteland overthrown by foreigners.a

8      And the daughter of Zion is left

like a booth in a vineyard,

like a hut in a cucumber field,

like a city under siege.

9      Unless the LORD of hosts

had left us some survivors,

we would be like Sodom,

no better than Gomorrah.

10    Hear the word of the LORD,

you rulers of Sodom.

Listen to the instruction of our God,

you people of Gomorrah!

11    What need have I of all your sacrifices?

says the LORD.

"I am fed up with burnt offerings of rams,

and the fat of stuffed beasts.

I have no desire for the blood of bulls,

of sheep and of male goats.

12    Whenever you come to enter my presence—

who asked this of you,

this trampling of my courts?

13    Stop bringing empty gifts;

the smell of sacrifice is abhorrent to me.

New moons and sabbaths,

and the calling of assemblies—

I cannot endure iniquity and sacred assembly.

14    Your new moons and fixed seasons

fill me with revulsion;

they have become a burden to me.

I cannot endure them.

15    When you lift up your hands in prayer,

I will hide my eyes from you.

Even though you offer countless prayers,

I will not listen.

Your hands are stained with blood.

16    Wash yourselves clean,

remove your evil deeds

from out of my sight.

Cease to do evil,

17    learn to do good.

Seek justice,

aid the oppressed,b

support the rights of the orphans.

Plead the widow’s cause.

18    Come, let us debate our case together.

Though your sins are crimson,

they can become white as snow;

though they are red as dyed wool,

they can become like fleece.

19    If you are willing and obedient,

you will eat the good things of the land.

20    But if you refuse and rebel,

you will be eaten by the sword,

for the LORD himself has spoken."

21    How she has become a harlot,

the faithful city!

She was once full of justice,

where righteousness dwelt—

but now murderers.

22    Your silver has turned to slag.

Your wine is diluted with water.

23    Your rulers are rogues

and cronies of thieves.

They all love bribes

and chase after gifts.

They do not defend the cause of the orphan,

and the widow’s case never reaches them.

24    Therefore, this is the declaration

of the Almighty, the LORD of hosts,

the Mighty One of Israel:

"Enough! I will vent my anger on my foes;

I will wreak havoc on my enemies!

25    I will turn my hand against you,

and smelt away your dross as with lye,

and remove all your impurities.

26    I will again make your magistrates what they once were,

and your counsellors like those of old.

Afterward you will be called

City of Righteousness, Faithful City."

27    Zion will be redeemed by justice,

her repentant ones with righteousness.

28    But rebels and sinners together will be destroyed,

and those who forsake the LORD will perish.

29    For one will be ashamed of the oaks

in which you have delighted,

and disgraced because of the gardens

that you have coveted.

30    You will be like an oak with fading leaves,

and like a garden without water.

31    The strong manc will become tinder,

and his work a spark,

and both of them will burn together

with none to quench.

a. Emendation yields like the overthrown of Sodom (cf. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah, 245).

b. The meaning of the clause is uncertain. Some suggest the translation, restrain the violent.

c. The Hebrew āsōn is uncertain (NEB, the strongest tree; NJPS, stored wealth).

Selected Bibliography

J. Becker, Isaias—der Prophet und sein Buch, SBS 30, Stuttgart 1968, 45ff.; J. Begrich, Die priestliche Tora, Werden und Wesen des Alten Testament, ed. P. Volz et al., BZAW 77, Berlin 1936, 63–80; E. Ben Zvi, Isaiah 1:4–9, Isaiah, and the Events of 701 B.C.E. in Judah, JSOT 5, 1991, 95–111; H. J. Boecker, Redeformen des Rechtslebens im Alten Testament, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1964, 68ff.; K. Budde, Zu Jesaja 1—5, ZAW 49, 1931, 16–40, 182–211; 50, 1932, 38–72; D. Carr, Reaching for Unity in Isaiah, JSOT 57, 1993, 61–80; B. S. Childs, Retrospective Reading of the Old Testament Prophets, ZAW 108, 1996, 362–77; M. Delcor, Les attaches litéraires, l’origine et la signification de l’expression biblique ‘prendre à temoin le ciel et la terre,’ VT, 1966, 8–25; G. Fohrer, Jesaja 1 als Zusammenfassung der Verkündigung Jesajas, Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie (1946–65), BZAW 99, 1967, 148–66; Y. Gitay, Reflections on the Study of Prophetic Discourse: The Question of Isaiah 1 2—20, VT 33, 1983, 207–21; B. Gosse, Isaïe 1 dans la rédaction du livre d’lsaïe, ZAW 104, 1992, 52–66; J. Jensen, The Use of Torah by Isaiah, CBQMS 3, Washington 1973, 68–84; D. R. Jones, Exposition of Isaiah 1, SJT 17, 1964, 463–77; 18, 1965, 457–71; 19, 1966, 319–27; 21, 1968, 320–27; L. J. Liebreich, The Compilation of the Book of Isaiah, JQR 46, 1955/56, 259–77; 47, 1956/57, 114–38; O. Loretz, Der Prolog des Jesaja-Buches (1:1–2, 5), Altenberge 1984; R. F. Melugin, Figurative Speech and the Reading of Isaiah 1 as Scripture, ed. R. F. Melugin, M. A. Sweeney, New Version of Isaiah, JSOTSup 214, Sheffield 1996, 282–305; L. G. Rignell, Isaiah Chapter 1, ST 11, 1957, 140–58; M. A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1—4 and the Post-Exilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition, BZAW 171, 1988, 101–33; Isaiah 1—39, FOTL 16, Grand Rapids 1996, 73–87; J. Vermeylen, Du Prophète Isaïe à L’Apocalyptique, I, Paris 1977, 37–111; H. G. M. Williamson, Relocating Isaiah 1:2–9, Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah, ed. C. C. Broyles, C. A. Evans, VTSup 70, 1, Leiden 1997, 263–77; J. T. Willis, An Important Passage for Determining the Historical Setting of a Prophet Oracle—Isaiah 1:7–8, ST 39, 1985, 151–69.

1. Structure, Genre, Setting, and Function

The chapter is made up of a series of smaller units that differ in meter, form, and historical background. Usually they are so divided: vv. 2–3; 4–9; 10–17; 18–20, 21–26; (27–31). The units do not stand in a chronological sequence. The description of Zion’s physical desolation (vv. 7–8) now precedes the portrayal of Israel’s opulent but empty cultic exercises (vv. 10–17) from an earlier period. Often a catchword connection is evident (cf. vv. 9 and 10).

Form-critically, different genres are represented, such as accusation (vv. 2–3), invective (vv. 4–9), torah instruction (vv. 10–17), trial summons (vv. 18–20), dirge and promise (vv. 21–26). Much energy has recently been expended in refining the analysis of the form and function of these various genres (cf. Sweeney, Isaiah 1—39). There is some justification for this attention because the discrete units have left traces from their prehistory. However, the major point to be made is that these separate units have been given a new function within a literary context that is distinct from their original role. They now form an introduction to the book as a whole. The determination of its present function is exegetically far more important than recovering an earlier oral stage.

It is a fortunate characteristic of the recent interpretation of chapter 1 that the importance of determining the literary function of the passage within the larger corpus has been recognized and pursued with great energy. Fohrer’s well-known essay (Jesaja 1) pointed in a fresh direction when he suggested that chapter 1 was an intentional composition, joined by catchwords that serve as a compendium (Zusammenfassung) of the preaching of Isaiah. It functioned to present a sequence of the prophet’s major themes of sin, judgment, and possible salvation. Other commentators then spoke of the chapter as a general preface and guide (Clements), or as an exhortation calling for repentance (Sweeney, Isaiah 1—4, 119–23). More recently, Carr (Reaching for Unity) questions whether chapter 1 is simply a summary, since so many important themes are missing. He suggests that it serves as an invitation to read what then follows. Most recently, Williamson (Relocating, 264ff.) argues that nearly all of the parts of the chapter derived from a prior written form of the words of Isaiah. Williamson then seeks to demonstrate the close connection between 1:2b–3 and 30:9, between 1:4 and 5:7ff., and between 1:5–9 and 30:15–17. The argument remains, of course, speculative, but helpful in showing the high level of continuity of chapter 1 with the preaching of Isaiah, even when redactionally shaped.

Finally, there is general agreement that vv. 27–31 present a different sort of problem. Fohrer reflected the older literary critical perspective when he regarded vv. 27–28 as a gloss and vv. 29–31 a fragment of some kind (cf. below for a different approach). Scholars continue to differ in dating the redaction of the chapters to the exilic or postexilic age.

Regarding the question of the original historical setting of the subunits, the majority opinion assigns the material largely to the eighth century. In spite of the majority position, vv. 7–9 are thought most likely to reflect the period following Sennacherib’s invasion in 701. Obviously the reference to Israel’s excessive cultic activity (vv. 10–17) stems from an era prior to the later disaster.

Although the direction of recent research on chapter 1 has been often very illuminating, in my opinion much of it has not been fully on target. It has missed the dominantly theocentric function of the chapter. The focus is not on Isaiah, who remains solely a vehicle; nor does it fall primarily on Israel. Rather, the introduction focuses immediately and throughout the chapter on God. It recounts his overwhelming anger toward Israel, offers examples of the nation’s rebellious behavior, and then turns to God’s effort to bring his people into obedience. The chapter concludes with the exercise of God’s will both to punish and to restore Zion according to his own purpose. The dirge over the city is ended through an eschatological reversal that restores the faithful city. Zion’s redemption is not just a possibility (Fohrer) that is realized only by repentance, but a transformation derived solely from God, into which salvation Israel is invited to enter through true repentance.

2. Exposition

[1:2–3] The divine accusation begins within the widest possible context of calling the heavens and the earth to bear witness to God’s charge made against his people, rebellious children, who, in spite of the loving care of a father, are without sense. The idiom of appellation appears also in ancient Near Eastern texts, but in Isaiah 1 it functions largely rhetorically and should not be linked in a heavy-handed way to a theology of creation. The accusation is made, not in forensic terms as a breaking of God’s law, but in a parabolic form of wisdom. Israel has less understanding of its Lord than even the most stupid of domesticated animals. Still, the two different idioms, law and wisdom, bear testimony to the same subject matter: Israel’s total alienation from its God to whom it owes its life and well-being.

Recent commentators have tended to stress the element of biblical diversity, suggesting that the Isaianic imagery of royal ideology is independent of the language of the Mosaic covenant. Yet the issue is more complex than first meets the eye. The initial formulaic appellation to the heavens and earth to bear testimony to God’s charge (v. 2) has its closest parallel in the first verse of the Song of Moses (Deut. 32:1–43), which has been profiled with a narrative framework interpreting the call to heaven and earth to witness against Israel (31:28). Already in Deut. 4:26 in direct speech God calls heaven and earth to testify against Israel, but in chapter 31 the theme of Israel’s coming apostasy is expanded. The Song of Moses calls upon the heavens and earth to witness to God’s faithfulness and Israel’s corruption (v. 4b). In fact, many of the themes of Isaiah are sounded in similar vocabulary. Israel is a perverse nation, children without faithfulness (v. 20), with no understanding (v. 28), from the vine of Sodom and from the fields of Gomorrah (v. 32). God will punish them with a foolish nation, and scatter them afar (v. 26). Yet the one who wounds also heals (v. 39) and will vindicate his people (v. 36). Delitzsch writes perceptively that the present of Isaiah corresponds to the future of the Song of Moses (56).

The hermeneutical point to make is neither that Isaiah is directly citing from Deuteronomy 32, nor is the Deuteronomist dependent on the prophet. Rather, the relationship is of a different order from a simple literary or redactional linkage. The intertextuality has arisen because finally the collections of the law and the prophets have been united within the body of Israel’s scriptures, and thus for later readers—both Jew and Christian—a strong resonance has been unleashed between the two even though there is no hard evidence that an original intertextual connection was intended. Thus, while it is exegetically correct to stress the diversity between the law and prophets at an earlier time, it is equally important to recognize the coercion of the united biblical text toward revealing the coherence of the selfsame subject matter.

[4–9] The form of the unit is that of an invective delivered by the prophet, but it has been linked by association of context (people, children) with the preceding. The prophet chastises the people for doing evil, abandoning Yahweh, and treating him with contempt. The term sin ( a ā’āh) is not a deviation from some ideal norm, or simply missing the mark, as often suggested, but in the context is directly related to rebellion against God by Israel’s action. This produces the condition of a people laden with iniquity (‘āwôn). The holiness of God is thus repudiated by a people whose entire life now reflects the exact opposite character (cf. Ps. 78:40ff.).

Often in prophetic speech an invective ushers in a harsh word of divine threat (e.g., Amos 6:4ff.), but the verses that follow describe a judgment already fallen. The imagery is of a rebellious slave who has been repeatedly beaten by his master. He is covered with bleeding wounds, bruises, and stripes, which have all begun to fester and sicken the entire body with infection. As yet no remedy for healing has been administered. The pus has not been wiped clean, the wounds have not been bandaged, no soothing oil has been applied. Then the imagery shifts abruptly to the land that lies desolate, with cities gutted by fire and ravished by foreign invaders. Jerusalem alone, daughter of Zion, remains utterly isolated and forlorn, like an abandoned child, isolated and useless. Often commentators draw attention to Sennacherib’s proud boast of shutting up Hezekiah like a bird in a cage (ANET, 288).

Then again the prophetic message shifts and a brief glimmer of light enters into the grim picture when the prophet focuses once more on God. Zion would have been extinguished (a subjunctive mode is introduced) were it not for the plan of God. The prophet does not here develop an elaborate theology of the remnant, but only hints at a few survivors who have escaped the devastation. This remnant—the leftovers—prevents Zion from being utterly destroyed like Sodom and Gomorrah. However, to interpret this verse simply as a postexilic addition, ascribing to the survivors a hope for political restoration, badly misses the heart of the prophetic message. Rather, an alternative to Israel’s desolation is given in the form of confession. The remnant are the preserved of God and with them Isaiah personally identifies: Yahweh had left us some survivors. There is a new life from the old. Within chapter 1 this note is only briefly sounded, but the theme will be developed in great length in the succeeding chapters.

[10–17] This unit opens with a sharp polemic against Jerusalem’s thriving cultic practice. It is linked with the preceding oracle by a catchword, Sodom and Gomorrah, but the imagery has shifted its focus to become now a symbol for a sinful people, indeed the antithesis of the people of God. Both the leader and the people of Jerusalem are indicted in the attack.

Much scholarly debate has occurred in an effort to determine precisely whether the genre stems from priestly, prophetic, or wisdom circles. The argument has become quite sterile without much exegetical illumination. All three strains are involved in some fashion, but the search for sharp, form-critical distinctions is quite fruitless. Like other prophets before him (1 Samuel 15; Amos 5), Isaiah confronts a multitude of worshippers who crowd into the temple to fulfill their sacrificial obligations. He is fully knowledgeable concerning the various types of sacrifice (holocaust, cereal offerings, etc.) as well as the various appointed sacral feasts. However, he mixes them all together, riding roughshod over careful priestly protocol, in order to reject them all as an abomination before Yahweh, indeed before the very God whom they believed had called for these forms of worship.

Israel’s offerings are deemed empty, abhorrent, and its sacred liturgy a trampling in God’s courts. God’s reaction is portrayed in graphic language. He is fed up, weary and disgusted before this tedious ordeal, and is even filled with revulsion toward Israel’s carefully orchestrated rituals. To suggest with Kaiser that this outburst is a contrived construct from the early postexilic period is unconvincing. The attack rings with the same authority as does that of Amos (chapter 5) or Jeremiah (chapter 7), and represents a powerful minority voice within Israel’s religion without any clear parallels from ancient Near Eastern sources. The older hypothesis from the nineteenth century that the prophets were opposed to sacrifice in principle has been generally rejected as misconstrued. The prophetic attack is highly specific—it even includes prayer (v. 15)—and is directed to this moment of deep religious distortion within Jerusalem.

Similarly, the remedy to this intolerable situation is offered in highly concrete imperatives, and is not a general ethical program that can be fixed within historical parameters. Before the Holy One of Israel, Israel must wash itself—Your hands are stained with blood—and remove these evil deeds from God’s sight. Violence and pious assembly (v. 13) are intolerable before divine purity. Then God’s demands for a radical reversal are stated in blunt, straightforward language, the meaning of which Israel is assumed to know, since the commands are addressed to the will: Cease to do evil, learn to do good.

Next, specific examples follow that are heaped up in quick succession: Seek justice, aid the oppressed, support the rights of the orphans. Plead the widow’s cause (v. 17). This is the word of Yahweh (v. 10); it is also torah, not in the strict sense of Mosaic formulation, but as imperatives commensurate with everything that Israel had learned from its long historical experience with its God. These are not universal ethical teachings, but a highly existential application of the divine will that had long since been revealed to Israel, and now delivered with a fresh poignancy to a corrupt, complacent, and self-righteous population.

[18–20] The unit is clearly separated from what precedes and follows. The language is forensic: let us test each other, let us come to a legal understanding, let us debate our case together. The divine offer is conciliatory, but not at this juncture forgiving (cf. Boecker for the structure of a trial). The two subsequent clauses in v. 18 are to be rendered as conditional rather than construed as interrogative or ironical statements, which are less suited to the juridical context. Even though Israel’s sins are grievous—crimson red—they can still be rendered free of blemish and pure. There is yet a chance, but placed before Israel is a clear-cut decision, one determined not by intention, but action. If obedient to the way of life prescribed by God, Israel can enjoy the gifts of the land. But if the people remain rebellious, the alternative is destruction by the sword. The purpose of God for his people has always been for salvation. Israel’s future is not determined by some blind force of fate, but stands before the consequences of its own decision.

[21–26] There is general agreement that vv. 21–26 comprise a unit. The form is initially that of a dirge (cf. Isa. 14:4ff.; Ezek. 28:12ff.) which functions as an invective, and which is followed by a threat to God’s enemies, concluding with a promise to Zion. The faithful city and dwelling place of righteousness, Zion, is now characterized as a harlot. The imagery shifts to silver becoming slag, and wine adulterated with water. The city has lost its purity. Then in v. 23 the figures are dropped in place of a literal portrayal of Zion’s sorry condition. Both ruler and people are corrupt, engaged in bribery and theft. No one defends the rights of the abused orphan and widow.

As a result, Yahweh, Lord of hosts and Mighty One of Israel—both ancient terms associated with war—arises in anger against his enemies. The language of judgment returns to the earlier figure of dross, which is now smelted with fire and heat. Thus Yahweh resolves to restore Zion to its earlier state as a righteous city with just judges and counsellors as at the beginning. The emphasis of the promise falls fully on the sole and magisterial decree of God to execute his will for Zion. The focus is completely theocentric and emerges from the divine decision. It is not pictured as a combined effort, dependent on Israel’s willingness to cooperate, but is a part of God’s future, both as envisioned and executed. For the shape of the book of Isaiah as a whole, it is highly significant that this eschatological note of redemption forms an integral part of the introductory chapters to the Isaianic corpus and is hardly an afterthought dictated by wishful thinking of postexilic editors.

[27–28] One of the most difficult aspects of chapter 1 turns on the concluding verses. Duhm set the critical stage with his sharp literary analysis. Accordingly, vv. 27–28 reveal by their uneven meter and different concept of Zion’s state of slavery that the verses are an exilic or postexilic addition. Certainly his argument is well taken that vv. 21–26 form a well-structured unity which comes to an end with an inclusio in v. 26. Recent conservative attempts simply to blend vv. 27–28 in a harmonious continuity (Watts, Motyer) have not recognized the extent of the problem. Modern redactional critics have argued that the sharp division made between the righteous and the sinners is foreign to Isaiah’s thought, but rather characteristic of postexilic Judaism (cf. Isa. 59:17ff.; 65:3, 17). Also, the tension between the authentic government of Zion and its present corrupt rulers is different from the polarity described above (Vermeylen, 105ff.). As a result, the verses are seen as a retrojection of postexilic conditions into the eighth-century preaching of Isaiah.

Moreover, if the historical context has been correctly reconstructed, the passage assumes that Jerusalem has already suffered judgment. The addition reflects the continuing tensions within the devastated city, which has not yet returned to normalcy (cf. Clements, Sweeney, Isaiah 1—39). In my opinion, there are major problems with this interpretation, which shares a characteristic failing of the usual approach to the retrospective reading of the prophets (cf. Childs). These various redactional approaches assume that a correct meaning of a text is only obtained by a referential reading based on a reconstructed literary or historical context. The effect is to disregard the present function of this multilayered text within its canonical context.

In contrast, I would argue that vv. 27–28 are a good example of textual extension (Fortschreibung). From the experience of the exile, Israel discovered a different dimension of vv. 21–26. It was not that the Isaianic text had to be adjusted to fit the social realities of a later time, but exactly the reverse. From the coercion of the biblical text Israel learned how correctly to understand the new postexilic situation. Desolate Israel clung firmly as never before to the promised salvation of Zion and the final destruction of God’s enemies. The scribal editor confirmed the promise of Isaiah as true: Zion—as far as it was truly Zion—would surely be redeemed. Moreover, this promised salvation would stem solely from God’s justice (mišpā ) and from his righteousness ( edāqāh), not from Israel’s virtue. Rebels and sinners who forsook Yahweh would not partake of this salvation of Zion, but be destroyed. Thus, this textural extension confirmed Isaiah’s promise as true, and by using the vocabulary of Israel’s later (postexilic) experience defined more clearly the implicit Isaianic concept of Zion as a faith reality, distinct from merely a political entity, but still containing the wicked along with the faithful. Finally, it is a crucial hermeneutical observation to note that the textual extension retained the initial eschatological perspective of vv. 21–26 and did not render it into an inert historical artifact from Israel’s past, which is a failing of most retrospective interpretations.

[29–31] There still remains the problem of interpreting the final verses of the chapter. Duhm’s proposal has considerable support that these verses were a fragment from a larger Isaianic polemic against the practices of a fertility cult found especially in the Northern Kingdom (Isa. 2:6ff.; Hos. 4:11ff.). Israel will be ashamed before its sacred trees and gardens, which do not give life. Such cultic worshippers are compared to decaying vegetation that will soon be consumed. These verses have been joined to v. 28 as an illustration of the fate of rebels and sinners. However, the connection is quite brittle. The shift from the third person plural (they) to the second person (you) can be somewhat eased if the first verb is construed as an impersonal. Clearly the redactor used vv. 29ff. as an illustration of the punishment of the wicked, who are bracketed by the repetition of the same adverb, together (vv. 28, 31).

The history of this editorial process remains somewhat obscure. If one assumes that a redactor used a genuine, eighth-century Isaianic fragment in vv. 29–31 and joined it with vv. 27–28 as an illustration of the judgment of the wicked, several problems emerge. How is one to conceive of an editor joining an ancient preexilic fragment to a postexilic extension in vv. 27–28? Clements feels that it is more reasonable to assume that vv. 29–31 constitute an even later addition than the extension in vv. 27–28 and that this addition was a redactional creation, not an ancient Isaianic fragment. The major case against Clements’s hypothesis turns on the larger redactional shaping of the entire Isaianic corpus. There is much evidence to suggest that chapters 65—66 were edited in such a way as to conform to the themes, even specific vocabulary, of chapter 1 to form a massive literary inclusio to the entire book of Isaiah. The portrayal of the wicked still in Zion after its redemption in chapters 65 and 66 is patterned after 1:28ff. The direction of the intertextuality seems in this case to be from chapter 1 to chapters 65—66, especially since the content of vv. 29ff. shows no signs of postexilic retrojection.

In sum, the best solution appears to be to assume that a postexilic editor shaped his textual extension in two very different ways. Verses 27–28 are a textual expansion used to interpret the relation of the righteous and the wicked within the redeemed community. Verses 29–31 constitute a genuinely Isaianic fragment that served the editor as a graphic illustration of the judgment announced to the wicked who do not share in Zion’s future. One cannot, of course, rule out the possibility that a postexilic form of cultic apostasy played a role in the editorial choice of this Isaianic fragment to illustrate a similar pattern of continuing rebellion against Israel’s true worship.

6. Isaiah 2:1–4:6

2:1   The word that Isaiah son of Amos saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.

2      It will happen in the latter days

that the mountain of the house of the LORD

will be set over all other mountains,

and will be lifted high above the hills;

and all the nations will stream to it.

3      Many people will go and say:

"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,

to the house of the God of Jacob,

that he may teach us his ways

and that we may walk in his paths."

For out of Zion will go forth the law,

and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

4      Thus he shall judge among the nations,

and arbitrate for the many peoples;

and they will beat their swords into plowshares

and their spears into pruning hooks.

Nation will not lift sword against nation,

nor ever again be trained for war.a

5      O, house of Jacob!

Come, let us walk

in the light of the LORD.

6      Surely you have rejected your people,

the house of Jacob,

for they are full of divinersb from the east

and of soothsayers like the Philistines,

and they strike bargains with foreigners.

7      Their land is full of silver and gold,

and there is no end to their treasures;

their land is full of horses,

and there is no limit to their chariots.

8      Their land is full of idols;

they bow down to the work of their hands,

to what their own fingers have made.

9      So humankind is brought low

and all people will be humbled—

do not forgive them!

10    Go into the rocks,

and hide in the ground

before the terror of the LORD,

and from the dreaded splendor of his majesty.

11    Haughty human looks will be brought low,

and the pride of men humbled,

and the LORD alone will be exalted

in that day.

12    For the LORD of hosts has a day of waiting

against all that is proud and mighty,

against all that is high to bring it low,

13    against all the cedars of Lebanon,

tall and lofty,

and against all the oaks of Bashan;

14    against all the towering mountains

and against the high hills;

15    against every lofty tower

and every fortified wall;

16    against all the ships of Tarshish,

and against every stately vessel.

17    Human arrogance will be brought low,

and the pride of men humbled;

and the Lord alone will be exalted

in that day.

18    As for the idols, they will vanish completely.

19    And men will enter caves in the rocks

and the holes in the ground

before the terror of the LORD,

and from the dreaded splendor of his majesty

when he rises to terrify the earth.

20    On that day men will fling away

to the rodents and bats

their idols of silver and their idols of gold,

which they made to worship,

21    to enter the caves of the rocks

and the cleft of the cliffs

before the terror of the LORD,

and from the dreaded splendor of his majesty,

when he rises to terrify the earth.

22    Oh, stop glorifying man,

who has only a breath in his nostrils.

What is he really worth?

3:1 For lo, the sovereign LORD of hosts

will remove from Jerusalem and Judah

prop and stay,

every prop of food

and every prop of water,

2      soldier and warrior,

judge and prophet,

soothsayer and elder,

3      the captain of fifty and man of rank,

counsellor, magician, and enchanter.

4      And I will make mere boys their princes,

and babes will rule over them.

5      and the people will oppress one another,

man against man, neighbor against neighbor,

the young will bully the old,

and the riffraff the honorable.

6      If a man seizes his brother

in the house of his father (saying),

"You have a cloak,

you be our leader,

take charge of this heap of ruins,"

7      he will cry out on that day, saying,

"I have no remedy;

in my house there is neither bread nor cloak.

You will not make me leader of the people."

8      For Jerusalem has stumbled

and Judah has fallen,

because they have spoken and acted against the LORD,

defying his glorious presence.

9      Their partiality and judgment testify against them;

like Sodom they proclaim their sins.

They do not hide them.

Woe upon them!

They have earned their own disaster.

10    Tellc the righteous it will be well with them,

for they will enjoy the fruit of their deeds.

11    Woe to the wicked! All will go badly for him,

for what his hands have done

will be done to him.

12    Youths oppress my people

and women rule over them.

O my people, your leaders mislead you

and confuse the direction of your paths.

13    The LORD takes his place in court;

he rises to judge peoples.

14    The LORD brings an indictment

against the elders and princes of his people:

"It is you who has ravished the vineyard,

the plunder from the poor is in your house.

15    How dare you crush my people

and grind the faces of the poor?"

says the Lord GOD of hosts.

16    The LORD says:

"Because the daughters of Zion are so vain

and walk with their necks extended,

flirting with their eyes,

moving with mincing gait

and jingling feet,

17    the LORD will make bald

the scalps of the daughters of Zion,

and the LORD will uncover their foreheads.d

18    In that day the LORD will strip away the finerye of the anklets, the headbands, and the crescents; 19 the pendants, the bracelets, and veils; 20 the headdresses, the armlets, the sashes, the perfume boxes, and the amulets; 21 the signet rings and nose rings; 22 the festive robes and the capes and cloaks, the purses; 23 the lace gowns and linen garments, the turbans and shawls.

24    So instead of perfume there will be a stench;

and instead of a girdle, a rope;

and instead of well-set hair, baldness;

and instead of a rich robe, sackcloth;

instead of beauty, branding.

25    Your men will fall by the sword,

your warriors in battle.

26    And her gates will lament and mourn,

ravished, she shall sit upon the ground.

4:1   In that day, seven women will seize one man, saying,

"We will eat our own food and provide our own

clothing, only let us be called by your name.

Take away our disgrace!"

2      In that day the branch of the LORD

will be beautiful and glorious,

and the fruit of the land

will be the pride and glory of Israel’s survivors.

3      and those who remain in Zion

and are left in Jerusalem,

everyone enrolled in the book of life,

they will be called holy.

4      When the LORD has washed away

the filth of the women of Zion,

and cleansed the bloodstains of Jerusalem from its midst

by a spirit of judgment and by a spirit of purging,

5      then the LORD will create over the whole shrine

and over her festive gathering

a cloud of smoke by day

and a bright flame of fire by night;

for over all the glory there will be a canopy.

6      And there will be a booth for a shade by day

from the heat of the sun,

and a refuge and hiding place

from storm and from rain.

a. A textual comparison of vv. 2–4 with Micah 4:1–4 lies outside the scope of this commentary.

b. An object such as diviners (qôse mîm) appears to have fallen out by haplography (cf. BHS).

c. The MT is often emended to read blessed (’ašrê).

d. Clearly a euphemism.

e. The identification of the jewelry is uncertain.

Selected Bibliography

P. R. Ackroyd, A Note on Isaiah 2, 1, ZAW 75, 1963, 320–21; J. G. Baldwin, " ema as a Technical Term in the Prophets," VT 14, 1964, 93–97; J. Becker, Isaias—der Prophet und sein Buch, SBS 30, 1968, 49–50; J. Blenkinsopp, Fragments of Ancient Exegesis in an Isaian Poem (Jes 2, 6–22), ZAW 93, 1981, 51–62; G. I. Davies, The Destiny of the Nations in the Book of Isaiah, The Book of Isaiah, ed. J. Vermeylen, Leuven 1989, 93–94; G. von Rad, The City on the Hill, The Problem of the