Bride Of Yahweh: An Exegesis of Isaiah 54

A. Outline and Structural Analysis

54:1-10—The Fecundity of the Barren Wife.

         1-3: Call for Jerusalem to rejoice and promise of renewed fertility.

         4-8: Reunion of Yahweh with His bride.

         9-10: Comparison to the covenant with Noah.

54: 11-17—The Security of the Afflicted City.

         11-14: The rebuilding of Jerusalem.

         15-17: Yahweh’s protection of the city.

            The structure of Isaiah 54 would seem to suggest two major sections, vv. 1-10 and vv.11-17. Blenkinsopp divides the chapter into three main sections: vv. 1-8, vv. 9-10, and vv. 11-17a, with v. 17b as a concluding statement summarizing the whole (360-361). His basis for doing so, is that “the only clear markers in the text itself…are the references to who is speaking” in verses 6, 8, 10, and 17. There are, however, a few problems with the ratio for this division. First, if the basis of the division is based on who is speaking, why not add another division after verse 6, which Blenkinsopp skips over? Second, in his translation, he skips over the יהוה אמר at the end of verse 1, which would further complicate his division based on references to the speaker. Finally, the references to the speaker do not seem to be the only basis for dividing the text. One could make a plausible argument for dividing the text based on the addressee marked out in verses 1 and 11. Blenkinsopp points out that BHS and 1QIsa^a also divide the text in the way I have suggested and it seems to be the preferred one based on the context of the chapter (360). Whybray, Westermann, North, and Sawyer also make the same division (though not necessarily for the same reason as myself). Thus, the assessment of Watts that “form-critical analysis has agreed on dividing the chapter into four sections: vv 1-3, 4-6, 7-10, and 11-17” is a striking one (236).

Well, He Is Right, Of Course.

Brit Hume was asked to comment about Tiger Woods on FOX News Sunday and said that if Tiger is looking for a way to find redemption and forgiveness, he should turn from Buddhism (which Tiger apparently is and which does not have a doctrine of redemption) to Christianity.



Hume is absolutely right. This is not a matter of proselytism or intolerance or whatever anti-Christians and liberals want to make it out to be. It is objective fact. Isaiah 1:18 says: "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow." Christ died to bring forgiveness to the world. He came specifically for the sinner (whether it be for the average person who sins daily in some small way or someone like Tiger, who has committed a grave sin such as adultery). The forgiveness that Christ came to give is infinite. No sin is too great! As long as you come to God with a humble, contrite heart seeking forgiveness, He will grant it to you.

See how much Christ loves us, that He has given us the sacrament of Confession! He knows we are going to sin after baptism. Yet, instead of allowing us to go off into damnation through personal sin, He provides a way that we may get back in the state of grace, back to union with God.

Brit Hume is spot on with his assessment. Hopefully Tiger will take him up on it and turn to Christ, the only one who can grant to him the forgiveness and redemption he needs. Keep Tiger in your prayers.