ISAIAH: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Isaiah 6:9-10 God seems to be telling Isaiah that He will prevent the people from seeing and hearing and cause their hearts to be calloused, otherwise they will understand “turn and be healed.” This seems to suggest God is actually causing them to sin (to act against His will). How are we best to understand this passage?

You are by no means the first person to be confused by this passage, and there have been several approaches proposed to resolve the difficulties. Verse 9 is fairly easy to comprehend – Isaiah is told to rebuke the people for their lack of response to God. The problem comes in with verse 10 in which Isaiah is apparently being commanded to somehow harden the people's hearts on purpose. One explanation which should probably be discounted is that this passage was added to explain why Isaiah's mission to influence King Ahaz failed. (NRSV Study Bible, pp. 986-987) Other approaches are more profitable to consider.

Solution 1. Since there is no punctuation in the original Hebrew, it is possible to extend the quotation marks through verse 10 so that Isaiah is simply reiterating what he is to say in verse 9 to the people. This is the tack taken by the New English Bible, which reads for verse 10 “This people's wits are dulled... so that they cannot see.” One problem with this approach is that in Isaiah 63:17 the prophet clearly complains to God, “Why, O LORD, do you make us stray from your ways and harden our heart, so that we do not fear you?”

Solution 2. The Hebrew text (MT) that is generally used for English translations is sometimes obscure and scholars have to rely on other early texts such as the Greek Septuagint (LXX) to make sense of a passage. LXX for this Isaiah passage reads somewhat differently than the Hebrew text in that (1) the commands to hear and not understand, etc. are put in the future tense as a prediction that the people will not understand, etc. and (2) the command for Isaiah to make the people's hearts dull is changed to the statement that the people themselves have already hardened their own hearts.

In fact, the New Testament writers generally quote from LXX rather than paraphrasing MT. This particular passage in Isaiah is quoted six times in the New Testament (Matthew 13:13-15; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10; John 12:39-40; Acts 28:25-27; and Romans 11:8), and all but one uses the LXX understanding that the people are responsible for their obtuse behavior, not God. (Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, p. 600)

Solution 3. The John 12 passage above is the only one to basically quote the Hebrew version of Isaiah 6. But even in this instance, Raymond Brown (The Gospel According to John I-XII, p. 485) explains that the Isaiah passage “is not a statement of determinism but an implicit appeal to believe.”

Solution 4. Then there is a grammatical explanation for Isaiah 6:10. Walter Kaiser says that the type of grammatical “construction where the result is put for what appears to be the purpose is not unknown in Israel.” Thus, “it looked as if Isaiah would preach in order to blind the people, but this was only to be the result rather than the purpose of his preaching.” (Toward Old Testament Ethics, p. 280-281)

Solution 5. The natural process described in Isaiah 6 is the same as that seen in the people's response to Jesus' parables and Pharaoh's response to Moses. “God's judgment on his people is not that he no longer speaks to them. Rather his word is still proclaimed with utter clarity. But because the people hitherto have not wanted to listen, from now on they will be unable to.” Thus, God's hardening of hearts always follows the people hardening their own hearts. (Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 2, p. 154)

Solution 6. The question remains: Why would God do so even then? The answer may lie in God's ultimate plan of salvation. “The decree of hardening...should be read through to its conclusion in vv. 11-13, where the judgment is seen to clear the ground for new growth...Sinful Israel has come to the point where one more rejection of the truth will finally confirm them for inevitable judgment.” But that judgment will eventually bring them to a point of repentance so that they can become saved. (Derek Kidner, New Bible Commentary, p. 595)

Isaiah 7:13-15 Isaiah prophecies the virgin will be with child and will be called Immanuel. The Daily Bible commentary notes this prophecy is messianic, referring to Jesus. He was prophesied to be called Immanuel, but was named Jesus. Is this a discrepancy? Is Immanuel instead a sort of title as opposed to a name?

Most Jewish names also have meanings in Hebrew. Since many of these names contain “el” (God) or “jah/iah” (Jahweh) as prefixes or suffixes, Immanuel can be taken as either a proper name or the descriptive phrase “God (is) with us.” In the original context of the prophecy, the birth of a particular child was said to herald the fact that God was still with His people in the midst of attacks from enemies. Then, in Isaiah 8:5-8, the same word Immanuel appears in the more somber context of an Assyrian attack decimating Israel, followed by a hymn in verses 9-10 concerning a later victory by Israel over her enemies since “God is with us.”

The more important meaning for Christians concerns the longer term fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy referring to the coming of the Messiah. If the Gospel writers had recognized a discrepancy between the actual name of the Messiah, Jesus, and the name Immanuel predicted in Isaiah, they would probably not have referred to the Isaiah prophecy at all. But, in fact, Matthew 1:22-23 specifically quotes from Isaiah 7:14 and 8:8 to prove that the prophecy applies to Jesus who was, in fact, God dwelling with mankind. John probably alludes to the same prophecy indirectly in John 1:14 when he says, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us...”

Finally, we have Luke's witness, recorded in verse 31 of Chapter 1, of the angel's proclamation to Mary: “And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus.” This is practically a paraphrase of Isaiah 7:14, with the actual name Jesus substituted for the descriptive title Immanuel.

Getting back to Isaiah, it is also instructive to consider Isaiah 9:6 for another example of what the child shall be named, “For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Obviously, the Messiah can't be literally given all these names at the same time, as well as Immanuel.

Concluding with a quote from the New Bible Dictionary (p. 557): “In His birth the presence of God is to be found. God has come to His people in a little Child, that very Child whom Isaiah later names “Mighty God.”

Isaiah 48:6 What is encompassed by the “new things” to be revealed? Salvation to the Gentiles (49:6)? The Messiah?

The whole verse says: “From now on I will tell you of new things, of hidden things unknown to you.” So one place to look for the answer is in the verses that closely follow this pronouncement. The most likely suspect is found in verse 20 where God announces that the time of Israel's exile in Babylon will soon come to an end (due to the Persian conquest) and they will be able to return to the Promised Land. This is the interpretation of the “new things” according to two study Bibles and five commentaries I consulted.

The Jerusalem Bible feels that the “new things” referred to all of Isaiah's prophecies in chapters 40-66, the so-called Book of Consolation. However, this understanding does not really fit the statement that the new things will follow Isaiah 48:6b.

This passage occurs near the end of the first section of the Book of Consolation, which has the commonly accepted divisions of chapters 40-48, 49-57 and 58-66. Thus, it is possible that the new things include chapters 49-57 (which focus on the Suffering Messiah) and chapters 58-66 (which contain two of the three mentions of “Holy Spirit” in the Old Testament and approximately half of the references to God's spirit in Isaiah). Thus, the “new things” are nothing less than a revelation of the Trinity (since chapters 40-48 concentrate exclusively on the mighty deeds of God the Father).

Rikk E. Watts partially confirms this last understanding by asserting that Isaiah in this passage is referring primarily to chapters 49-57 predicting the coming of Jesus who would die for Israel's sins. (Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, pp. 205-6)

Isaiah 48:22 This verse says, “There is no peace for the wicked.” What does that mean? It doesn't seem to fit the context indicated by the title “Redemption for the Righteous” given in The Daily Bible. Also, is it related to the common saying “There is no rest for the weary”?

At first glance, this verse seems to be repeating the common Old Testament belief that the wicked will be punished by God for their behavior while they are still on earth. This idea appears often in the Book of Proverbs in sayings such as “The wicked flee when no one pursues.” (28:1); “One who is hard-hearted will fall into calamity (28:14); “Whoever digs a pit will fall into it.” (26:27), etc. These proverbs may express a general truth that often happens, but Job, for example, denies that such automatic retribution occurs by asking in Job 21:7: “Why do the wicked live on, reach old age, and grow mighty in power?”

The quandary that Job expressed is, of course, explained by the concept of eternal judgment, which is common in the New Testament but is rarely seen in Old Testament writings. This passage in Isaiah is probably one of those rare cases. Many scholars divide the book into what are called First Isaiah and Second Isaiah on the basis of different emphases and styles of writing. (This does not necessarily mean that different authors were responsible for the two parts.) Second Isaiah consists of chapters 40-66, and is itself composed of three sections (40-48, 49-57, and 58-66). Each of these three concludes in a similar refrain:

    “There is no peace, says the LORD, for the wicked.” (48:22)

    “There is no peace, says my God, for the wicked.” (57:21)

    “They shall go out and look at the dead bodies of the people who have rebelled against me; for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.” (66:24)

The parallelism of these three statements makes it clear that Isaiah in 48:22 is referring to eternal punishment of the wicked since Isaiah 66:24 is alluded to in the New Testament as a description of eternal damnation. The fact that 48:22 does not seem to fit its context is understood by the fact that its proper function is to close out the whole of chapters 40-48, not just its immediately preceding verses.

The phrase “no rest for the weary” is often taken to be a direct quote from the Bible but actually only appeared in print about the year 1900. According to Internet sources, today in Great Britain the more accurate quotation is used while we in the U.S. prefer “There is no rest for the weary.” I guess we like to complain (or brag) about our hard work more than they do and not worry as much as the Brits as to how wicked we are.

Isaiah 65:16 In this verse, God is twice called “the one true God.” However, the King James Version says that he is “the God of truth.” There seems to be a big difference between these two translations. Which one is correct?

This phrase in Hebrew reads literally “God the Amen.” The root meaning of “amen” relays the concepts of firm, true, certain or reliable. So alternative translations include the God of truth (RSV, Living Bible, Jerusalem), the God of faithfulness (NRSV), the faithful God (TEV), the God of fidelity (AB). Notice that all of them convey the same general idea except the NIV. So I don't know if majority rules in this case since all of the translations are technically possible.

It is interesting that the Old Testament practice was to say “Amen” (a) after an oath in order to agree to the consequences (Deuteronomy 27:15-26) or (b) in a liturgical setting after a doxology or benediction. In either case, the basic meaning was “Yes.” Our current Christian practice is to use the word after a prayer request with the basic meaning of “Let it be so.” This usage of Amen only came into being with the Greek translation of the Old Testament a little before the time of Christ. Jesus' own use of Amen (usually rendered as “truly” or “verily”) before his own words was totally unique in Jewish practice.

This is why Christ himself could be called The Amen (Revelation 3:14).

Isaiah 65:17-25 In describing the “New Heavens and Earth,” as it is titled, Isaiah proclaims “he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth, he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed.” I have always understood this New Heaven and Earth referring to the final, eternal heaven and earth. This passage seems to imply there will still be death and sin (accursed?) in this new heaven and earth. Can you please explain?

This is a great passage to demonstrate how those with different theologies of the future look at Scripture through different lenses.

A postmillennial understanding of Isaiah 65 is that (1) it refers to all mankind, not just the Jewish people and (2) it refers to the time period right before Christ comes again to usher in the eternal heaven and earth. Their belief is an optimistic view of the future in which the Gospel will eventually spread to all people accompanied by great advances in science and medicine. At a certain point in time, disease will have been mostly conquered and the universal influence of the Holy Spirit will result in peace on earth. Thus, when Christ comes, there will be little difference between the eternal kingdom he institutes and that already existing on earth. This interpretation takes Isaiah 65 as mostly literal except for the reference in verse 25 to all animals living in peace with one another. They would probably take this as a poetic way of describing a world in ecological balance at last.

A dispensational premillennialist understands these verses in a strictly literal manner and applies them mainly to the Jewish people living during the 1,000-year period (The Millennium) occurring after the Tribulation and before the ushering in of the New Heavens and New Earth. During this period, Christ will reign from his throne in Jerusalem, which will be the governmental and spiritual capital of the world and where animal sacrifices will be resumed. The earth will be populated by a mixture of resurrected OT and NT saints, those believers who never died but were taken up into heaven during the Tribulation, and normal human beings who can still sin and die (but only at an advanced age). To truly comprehend all the many details associated with this viewpoint, it is probably best to refer you to the writings of John Walvoord, especially The Millennial Kingdom.

Historical premillennialists share much of the basic chronological scheme of the future with the dispensationalists but with major differences in emphasis. They usually see the prophecies in Isaiah as referring to the New Israel, the church. Ethnic Jews may have some unspecified role to play during the millennial period (which may or may not last exactly 1,000 years), but it falls short of temple worship being resumed. They also realize that this passage in Isaiah is written in poetry, not prose. Therefore it should not be taken as a literal description of conditions during this time.

Lastly (but not least), one way in which some, but not all, amillennialists read this passage is as a strictly poetic prophecy of a future glorious Israel which was, however, strictly contingent on the repentance of the nation of Israel and their acceptance of the Messiah when he came – neither of which occurred. Therefore this is a future which Israel as a nation did not, and will not, inherit.

Each of these basic approaches has its strengths and weaknesses and avoids the problem you point out by denying that it describes the New Heaven and New Earth at all. If anyone is interested in pursuing this subject, I would suggest reading The Meaning of the Millennium (Robert G. Clouse, ed.) in which four scholars representing the views above are allowed to state their case in turn and get critiqued by the other four writers.

There remains the majority view among evangelical scholars, who feel that this passage does refer to the New Heaven and New Earth. After all, much of Revelation 21-22 describing the eternal state is practically a paraphrase of the last half of Isaiah 65. How do those scholars then explain the apparent presence of sin and death?

The presence of sin is perhaps the easiest issue to deal with since all commentators agree that the last half of verse 20 dealing with one who is cursed is extremely hard to translate from Hebrew to English. Neither NIV or NRSV uses the phrase “sinner” to describe the one who fails to reach 100 years, and John McKenzie (Second Isaiah, p. 199) states, “No one will die such a premature death unless he is a sinner and therefore under a curse. The line is paradoxical; the New Jerusalem will have no sinners in it.”

But what about the apparent presence of death in the New Heaven and New Earth? Derek Kidner (New Bible Commentary, p. 624) explains that in these verses “The new is portrayed wholly in terms of the old...(It) depicts the final state by means of earthly analogies...all this is expressed freely, locally and pictorially, to kindle hope rather than feed curiosity.” This does not mean that Isaiah did not believe in everlasting life for the saved, however:

    “He will swallow up death forever.” (Isaiah 25:8)

    “Your dead shall rise, their corpses shall rise.” (Isaiah 26:19)

Quoting McKenzie again, Kidner refers to Isaiah 65:22, which describes the life of a person in the New Earth to be like that of a tree and compares it to Job 14:7-9 in which the days of a man are said to not be like the days of a tree: “A tree can live on even if it has been cut down. It enjoys a kind of immortality in comparison with man.”

John N. Oswalt (The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40-66, p. 658-9) takes another approach to explain why there is no contradiction between Isaiah 65 and Isaiah's references to immortality in 25:8 and 26:19. The examples in Isaiah 65:20-25 should be read in the context of verse 19, which states that there will be no more weeping in the New Earth. These passages “simply illustrate all those things that cause sorrow, and they are used to show that such conditions will not exist in the new heavens and earth.”