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
1QIsaa 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).
B. Historical-Critical
Exegesis
The personification of
Jerusalem/Zion in Isaiah 54 as a woman barren, forsaken, and afflicted, who is
restored to her husband, receiving renewed fertility and comfort finds its
contrast with the city of Babylon personified in chapter 47 as a woman exalted
and then brought low. While Isaiah 54 does not mention ‘Jerusalem/Zion’ by
name, the usage of the second person singular feminine and the earlier
references to Jerusalem/Zion (40:2; 49:14; 51:3; 51:17; 52:1-2, 7-10) make it
clear that Jerusalem/Zion is being addressed (cf. Sawyer 151; Childs 426;
Blenkinsopp 359).
The image of the barren woman has a
long tradition in the Old Testament extending back to Sarah in Gen 11:30, who
is also called עֲקָרָה. While other women have been described thus, contra
Childs (428), this verse seems to refer back to Sarah in particular (cf.
Keil-Delitzsch 342; Sawyer 152; Motyer 445). The calling to mind of the promise
to Abraham in Gen 22:17 found in verse 3, “and your descendants will possess
the nations” (RSV/CE2), combined with the explicit mention of both Abraham and
Sarah in Isa 51:2 in connection with the comforting of Zion, would seem to
provide support for this conclusion. If this is correct, it continues the theme
of Yahweh’s overarching plan for His people found throughout Deutero-Isaiah.
The covenant that Yahweh made with Abraham is still in effect. Yahweh has not
forgotten His people (cf. Isa 49:15) and even though a time of barrenness and
desolation has fallen upon the holy city of Zion, now it has been promised that
she will again be fruitful and multiply descendants (cf. Isa 49:12, 20-21) who
will “possess the nations” (v. 3). The fecundity will be such that she will
need to enlarge her tent, stretch out her curtains, lengthen her cords, and
strengthen her stakes (v. 2). This is cause to sing forth, as now she will have
more children than before the Exile (Keil-Delitzsch 342-343). Childs (423) and
Watts (236) translate the לא in verse 1 as “never”. This does not seem to be warranted
exegetically, because Jerusalem did have
children before the Exile. Also, Isa 49:20 suggests that she even bore children
in the Exile! It is because she is
left in ruins and her children are born in a foreign land that she is said to
be barren (Keil-Delitzsch 342).
There is some question as to what is meant by
“the place of your tent” in this verse. Sawyer, noticing the allusion to Sarah
in verse 1, becomes stuck in Genesis for his interpretation and suggests that
it is the tent where Sarah lived when Isaac was born (152). This, however, does
not help to explain what the reference is to in the context of Deutero-Isaiah’s
prophecy. Keil-Delitzsch points out that Jerusalem is described as a tent in
Jer 31:38-40 (343). This would align with the earlier reference in Isa 33:20 of
Jerusalem as an “immovable tent.” Westermann suggests that the imagery recalls
Israel’s days as nomads living in tents “when the promise of increase mattered
so much. This now makes it perfectly clear that in ch. 54 the prophet’s promise
goes beyond what he had to proclaim hitherto. The promise of deliverance is
supplemented by the promise of blessing in the particular form of promise of
increase” (273).
In verse 4, with the promise of a
multitude of children, Jerusalem is encouraged not to fear. The shame she now
has from being barren will soon end with the return of her children and reunion
with Yahweh, her husband (Westermann 273). In this verse, the phrase, “the
reproach of your widowhood” is generally understood to refer to the Exile, but
there is not such agreement for the phrase, “the shame of your youth”.
Keil-Delitzsch (344) and Motyer (446) (although tentatively) hold that it
refers to the Egyptian bondage. Whybray rejects the Egyptian bondage theory and
posits Assyria’s oppression of Israel during the monarchy (185). The Egyptian
bondage view seems untenable because it predates the establishment of Jerusalem
as the capital city of David’s kingdom by over two hundred years and it is
precisely Jerusalem who is being addressed. The Assyrian oppression view also
doesn’t appear to be the case, because the “shame” seems to be the result of
something that Jerusalem did rather
than had done to her. Rather, a
better case can be made that “the shame of your youth” refers to Jerusalem’s “experiments
in extramarital relations” (Knight 247), i.e. worship of false gods. Jerusalem
had a long history of forsaking her husband, Yahweh, and committing adultery,
evidenced by the constant refrain found in 1 and 2 Kings of doing “what was
evil in the sight of the Lord” and the high places not being removed (cf. 1 Kgs
14:22-24, 15:3, 15:14; 2 Kgs 8:18, 8:27, 12:3, 14:4, 15:4, 15:35, 16:2-4,
21:2-9). This explanation fits with Deutero-Isaiah’s polemic against idol
worship and makes sense of the emphasis in verse 5 of Yahweh the husband as עשׂה
of Jerusalem. Jerusalem’s true husband is not to be found in something she
made, but rather in the one that made her.
In verses 6-8, we see that even though
Yahweh has hidden his face from Jerusalem, she is still His wife. No divorce
has taken place (Isa 50:1). The Exile is “a moment” of separation for her to
recognize who her true husband is, a moment which is necessitated by the
covenant relationship between Jerusalem and Yahweh (Knight 248). Although
Yahweh sent her away in קצף ףשׁצ, His עולם חסד remains.
Verse 9 compares Yahweh’s reunion with
Jerusalem to the promise that Yahweh makes with Noah after the Flood. No more
shall Yahweh send away his bride. Now, that Jerusalem is a taken out of her
shame and widowhood, Yahweh’s חסד shall not depart and His שׁלום ברית shall not
be removed (v. 10). The comparison of the Exile with the Flood is certainly
apt. In Genesis, God creates the world and man, Adam sins and men increasingly
grow in sinfulness and wickedness, which results in the Flood. Afterwards,
Yahweh promises never again to destroy the world by a flood and starts a new
creation with Noah and his family. Likewise, Israel is formed as a nation and
is betrothed to Yahweh. Then, Israel’s “first father sinned” and their
“mediators transgressed against” Yahweh (Isa 43:27), wickedness and sin
increases (in the form of idolatry) thereby resulting in the Exile. Afterwards,
Yahweh promises never to withhold His חסד and שׁלום ברית and promises a new Jerusalem.
Motyer makes an interesting connection
between the covenant here in verse 10 with the death of the servant in chapter
53:
Throughout
its history, the divine covenant has
always been linked with sacrifice (Gn. 8:20ff.; 9:8ff.; 15:9-18; Ex. 24:4-8;
Ps. 50:5). The link here between covenant
and peace implies a peace resting on
sacrifice—the death of the Servant (449).
A
שׁלום ברית is made elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible with similar characteristics
as found in Isa 54. In Num 25:12 (Sir 45:24), Phinehas, the son of Eleazar,
receives a שׁלום ברית because he “made atonement for the sons of Israel.” In
Ezek 34:25, Yahweh makes a שׁלום ברית with the people and promises to make them
“secure in their land” and “deliver them from the hand of those who enslaved
them.” Later in Ezek 37:21ff, Yahweh promises to “take the sons of Israel from
the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from all sides,
and bring them to their own land” and “they shall not defile themselves any
more with their idols and their detestable things, or with any of their
transgressions.” Also, “they shall dwell in the land where” their “fathers
dwelt” and Yahweh will make a שׁלום ברית with them and “bless them and multiply
them.” In Isa 54, It is due to the atonement made by the Servant in chapter 53
that allows for the renewal of the spousal relationship between Jerusalem and
Yahweh, which is sealed with the שׁלום ברית, resulting in the end of the Exile
and the promise from Yahweh to make Jerusalem secure and overflowing with
children.
Verse 11 begins Yahweh’s promise to make
the afflicted and storm-tossed one secure. The description of the Jerusalem as
“storm-tossed” connects it to the previous section through the imagery of the
“waters of Noah” in verse 9 (Sawyer 153, North 252). In verses 11 and 12,
Yahweh promises to rebuild Jerusalem with precious jewels and stones, which
Westermann suggests is to highlight the splendor of the city (277).
Keil-Delitzsch (349) and Whybray (188) suggest that this description of
Jerusalem is the basis for the one found in Tob 13:16-17. Antinomy (פוך) is a
type of black powder used by oriental women on their eyebrows and eyelids (cf.
2 Kgs 9:30) (Keil-Delitzsch 348, North 252, Childs 429). Whybray points out
that it is also a type of mortar used in 1 Chron 29:2 for building the Temple
(188). The foundation of sapphires (ספיר), pinnacles of rubies (כדכד), and
walls of precious stones would make a dazzling array of colors. This imagery of
Jerusalem dressed up in splendor appears to be in contrast to Babylon being
stripped and shamed (Isa 47:2-3) (cf. Knight 251). Noticeably absent from the
description of the rebuilding is reference to the Temple. As scholars have
suggested, it seems that Deutero-Isaiah is not at all concerned with the Temple
here. To this, Westermann asks, “What then is the splendour of the new
Jerusalem intended to signify?” He responds, “The only real possibility is that
the new Jerusalem is God’s city in a completely new way, and its glittering
splendour points directly to the divine majesty” (278).
North (253) and Whybray (188) take
the teaching that the sons receive by the Lord in verse 13 not to be a
theological or moral teaching, but rather their craft or skill required to
rebuild Jerusalem. Childs, however, connects this with the teaching of Isa
48:17: “I am the Lord your God, who teaches you to profit, who leads you in the
way you should go” (430). Childs’ explanation seems more convincing, especially
when one considers Isa 48:18-19: “O that you had listened to my commandments!
Then your peace would have been like a river, and your righteousness like the
waves of the sea; your offspring would have been like the sand, and your
descendants like its grains; their name would never be cut off or destroyed
from before me.” If the sons of Jerusalem had listened to Yahweh they would
have had peace, they would have been righteous, have a multitude of descendants,
and would be kept free from oppression. In Isa 54:13-14 and what came before,
Yahweh has granted them the covenant of peace and is going to teach Jerusalem’s
sons in order that they shall be established in righteousness and not fear
oppression. Verses 15-17 go on to describe Yahweh’s omnipotence and His
protection of Jerusalem from all danger and foe.
The second half of verse 17 gives
some difficulty as to its proper place. The problem is that it refers to the
“servants of the LORD” in the plural, which is characteristic of Trito-Isaiah,
rather than in the singular, which is characteristic of Deutero-Isaiah. Because
of this, Whybray makes the suggestion that the author might not be
Deutero-Isaiah (190). Blenkinsopp seems to suggest that the “servants” (from
Trito-Isaiah?) have inserted this passage here and thus are “appropriating for
themselves the salvation promised in the address to Jerusalem” (366). Watts
argues that it belongs as a title, beginning chapter 55 (244). His reasons for
doing so are that in all of chapter 54, the addressee has been in the feminine
singular, whereas “servants of the LORD” is in the masculine plural, which is
the same as the addressees in chapter 55. Also, Isa 54:17 speaks of the
“heritage” of the servants, which chapter 55 seems to describe. Childs, on the
other hand, finds great fault with Watts’ interpretation: “Even more disastrous
exegetically is the move of Watts (241) who designates v. 17b as the
introduction to chapter 55, thus cutting the crucial link of the ‘servants’
with chapter 54” (430). Childs holds that this passage is “a crucial link”
between the “suffering servant” of chapter 53 and chapter 54. Yet, Childs
needn’t be so quick to reject Watts’ suggestion. While there is much to reject
in Watts’ exegesis of Isaiah 54, his theory does have plausibility on
grammatical grounds. If Childs is going to reject it, he has the burden of
explaining the shift from the feminine singular to the masculine plural, yet he
does not do so in his commentary. Also, on exegetical grounds, it is not so
certain that the latter half of verse 17 has
to be with chapter 54. One could plausibly read the benefits resulting from
the actions of the servant in Isaiah 53 as being explicated for the city of
Jerusalem in Isaiah 54 and then for its people in Isaiah 55. If one were to do
this, then the latter half of verse 17 would seem more natural with chapter 55.
Yet, there is still another way to approach this problem, which is also
appealing. Motyer gives an outline of verses 11-17 in which the last half of
verse 17 fits quite nicely (450):
A1 The beautified city (11-12)
B1 Its foundation of righteousness (13-14)
A2 The secure city (15-17b)
B2 Its status of righteousness (17cd)
It
seems that there are merits to all three approaches by Watts, Childs, and
Motyer.
C. Witness to Divinely Revealed Realities and New
Testament Fulfillment
In
Isaiah 54, we see the extent of Yahweh’s love for His people through an address
to the holy city of Jerusalem. God dwelt among them in Jerusalem, but they
persistently rejected Him and sought after false gods. Yet, Yahweh continued in
His love, for even if His people forget the covenant, He will not. As a loving
husband, He takes back the wife who has wandered astray and restores her to her
dignity and security. The love that Yahweh has for His Old Covenant people is
the same love He has for His people of the New Covenant. Yahweh’s love for His
Church protects her and sustains her in existence so that even if the gates of
Hell should come against her, they shall not prevail (Matt 16:18). This love of
Yahweh shown forth in Isaiah 54 and carried over into the Church also gives
hope to each individual member of the New Covenant people. No matter how much
we sin and turn our backs against God, because of the atonement made by the
definitive Suffering Servant, Jesus Christ, if we turn to Him in true
contrition, His love and mercy shall be extended to us (cf. Isa 1:18).
In the New Testament, St. Paul
quotes the LXX version of Isa 54:1 when comparing the present Jerusalem,
allegorically signified by Hagar, who bears children for slavery, i.e. the Jews
bound to the Mosaic Law, and the Jerusalem above, allegorically personified by
Sarah, bearing children that are free, i.e. those in the Church who are free in
Jesus Christ (Gal 4:27). Paul sees the Jerusalem found in Isaiah 54 as
ultimately referring to the Church. Thus, he is arguing that only those who
have this “Jerusalem above” as their mother will truly be free. Those who
insist on going back to the present Jerusalem, which is Judaism, will have a
mother that enslaves them to the Law.
In the book of Revelation, we see
that the same precious stones and jewels which are used to rebuild the new
Jerusalem after the Exile (Isa 54:11-12), are the same precious stones and
jewels which are found in the eschatological heavenly Jerusalem of Rev 21:19. The
heavenly Jerusalem here in Revelation 21, “prepared as a bride adorned for her
husband” (v. 2), is the ultimate fulfillment of the new Jerusalem and spouse of
Yahweh in Isa 54.
In John’s Gospel, we also find Isa
54:13 quoted by Jesus in the Bread of Life Discourse (John 6:45). Christ tells
the Jews who are gathered around Him that no one can come to him unless God the
Father draws them. It is in this way that the words of Isaiah are fulfilled,
“And they shall all be taught by God.” God the Father will teach us to
recognize that Jesus Christ is His Son, and therefore we will be raised up on
the last day. In the Old Testament, God taught His people through the Law. In
the New Testament, He teaches us by inscribing His law on our hearts through
the sacrament of Baptism.
No comments:
Post a Comment