Category: Old Testament: Prophet Isaiah
Blogging the Book of Isaiah: Assyria’s weird role (10.1-19)
I find Is. 10.1-19 to be one of the most fascinating passages of Scripture. In it YHWH speaks through the prophet Isaiah saying that he will be using Assyria to judge Israel for her rebellion. YHWH makes Assyria an unstoppable force, yet he is angered by her excessive destruction and brutality! YHWH refers to Assyria as his ax and his club (v. 15), yet he determines to punish them as well because they wrongly thought they did it through their own might. Assyria’s weird role before YHWH God is that the nation is his tool for judgment while also being the object of his wrath.
This raises two questions for me: (1) If Assyria is God’s tool in what sense does God have the right to judge them for doing his work? I have some thoughts here, but I’d like to hear your’s. (2) Does this give us any insight into why various nations win wars and overthrow other nations? Is there any sense in which we can say that God wanted the United States to defeat Iraq while at the same time realizing that doesn’t make the United States favored by God, but only his tool for some greater purpose in his plan?! How do you respond?
Blogging the Book of Isaiah: A divine Son (9.6-7)
When the prophet Isaiah wrote (9.6-7) of a coming King who would establish the throne of his forefather David he said some mighty amazing things. He wrote this,
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the greatness of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the LORD Almighty
will accomplish this. (NIV)
I know that other famous Israelites had names like אֵ֣ל גִּבּ֔וֹר where El is part of the name (e.g. Elijah = YHWH is God), so this doesn’t mean someone is deity. Nevertheless, there is a lot of “divinity” attributed to this character. He is a “wonderful” (פֶּ֠לֶא) counselor, which is a near divine wisdom. He is said to be the “Father of eternity” or “Everlasting Father”, which is a lot to say of any human. Yet he is a son, a child, and a prince of shalom.
The reign of this King is וְעַד־עוֹלָ֔ם, which can be a very, very long time, but it would could be a sense of “forever” as well. If we take any on of these aspects separately we can say there are reasons to avoid assuming a “divine” son, but if we read the whole thought block it is hard to avoid. Even if it is “exalted” language, it is saying something very impressive about this person.
Did the prophet know of whom he spoke? Maybe, but only through a glass darkly. Can we “prove” that this passage refers to Jesus Christ? No, but if we are Christians it is impossible to imagine who else fulfills these words. Personally, I cannot see anyone but Jesus here. Jesus is the one who is the divine counselor through the Spirit. He is the one who embodies the mighty God. He is the one who shows us the Father or “fathers” us into eternity. He is the only son/child who qualifies to be the Prince of shalom. And it is in Christ alone that we see the Davidic throne established forever.
Collection of audio on the Book of Isaiah
If you find more than what is listed, please let me know in the comments section:
Listen to the Book of Isaiah:
- English from Biblegateway.com
- Hebrew from the Academy of Ancient Languages
- Hebrew from Mechon-Memre
Mike Abendroth:
- “The Wonderful, Awful Motivation for Ministry: Part I (Isaiah 6:1-13)“
- “The Wonderful, Awful Motivation for Ministry: Part II (Isaiah 6:1-13)“
- “The Wonderful, Awful Motivation for Ministry: Part III (Isaiah 6:1-13)“
- “The Wonderful, Awful Motivation for Ministry: Part IV (Isaiah 6:1-13)“
Gregory K. Beale:
- “The Irony of Idolatry: Isaiah 6“
Walter Brueggemann:
- “Isaiah“
- “Receiving Salvation and Doing Justice: From Vision to Imperative in Isaiah” (from 2008 Laing Lectures at Regent College)
John Goldingay:
- OTS 502: The Prophets (lectures on Isaiah included)
Liam Goligher:
- “Drama of Redemption: Wounded for Me (Isaiah 52:13-53:12)“
Christine Hayes:
- “Literary Prophets: Hosea and Isaiah“
Paul House:
- “Isaiah“
- “Servant Passages“
S. Lewis Johnson:
- “Isaiah 52:13-53:12” (five lectures)
Michael Lawrence:
- “Biblical Theological Exposition of Isaiah 11“
Steven J. Lawson:
- “Standing Face to Face Before God’s Holiness I: Isaiah 6:1-8“
- “Standing Face to Face Before God’s Holiness II: Isaiah 6:1-8“
Peter A. Lilback:
- “Isaiah 41:17-20“
Michael Ross:
- “Solio Deo Gloria (Is. 42.1-25)“
Douglas Stuart:
- “Daniel, Esther, Isaiah“
- “Isaiah, Micah, and Nahum“
Bruce Ware:
- “Is. 25“
- “Is. 27“
- “Is. 36“
- “Is. 40“
- “Is. 50“
- “Is. 52“
- “Is. 54, 55“
- “Is. 56, 57“
- “Is. 65, 66“
Rick Watts:
- “Isaiah” (class from Regent College)
Blogging Isaiah
After pondering whether or not to take a class on the Book of Isaiah or the Book of Micah I settled on Isaiah for the following reasons:
(1) It is so important to NT literature, especially Pauline.
(2) Although large it fits the professor’s style of teaching. He is very much a “big picture” person while the professor teaching on Micah is a great small picture exegete. It would have been a good decision either way.
(3) The homework load is less in this class and I begin working on my thesis next semester so I can use the wiggle room.
(4) There are some books on Isaiah that I read including J. Ross Wagner’s Hearld of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans and Brevard Childs’ The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture.
(5) I think it would be fun to blog through portions of Isaiah, so expect that in 2011.
The Book of Isaiah or the Book of Micah
This upcoming semester I have the opportunity to do a semester long study on either the Book of Isaiah or the Book of Micah. Both are popular Hebrew prophets. I’d say Isaiah more so for early Christianity, but I can’t go wrong with either.
Due to the length of these two books Micah would be much more in-depth by default, but I have not yet had a chance to give sufficient attention to Isaiah which seems to me to be a bit unacceptable for someone who enjoys biblical studies.
So, who would you choose to study and why?
A Thought about Isaiah 9:6
After my meeting with Brian the other day (which initially sparked this thought), I was thinking the about names that begin with אב (ab) in the Hebrew scriptures. Some of the more popular names are Abram/Abraham and Absalom. Hebrew names have meaning. In this case, Abram is “exalted father,” Abraham is “father of a multitude,” and Absalom is “my father is peace.”
Absalom is really the shortened form of the name Abishalom; the shortened Absalom drops the י (Hebrew yod). Among many other names, a few that have the yod are Abimelech (אבימלך), Abinadab (אבינדב), Abiezer (אביעזר). They mean “my father is king,” “my father is noble,” and “my father is help,” respectively. The addition of the yod functions as a possessive suffix (אבי = “my father”).
When אבי is not used as part of a name, the yod functions as a construct marker connecting two words (generally understood in the sense X of Y, such as אבי כנען [="father of Canaan" {Gen 9:18}]). My initial observations have found אבי to stand alone, with a pronominal suffix, or joined to another word with a maqqef when it is in the construct form.
This leads me to Isaiah 9:6[9:5 MT]. The word translated in the KJV as “eternal everlasting Father” has אבי as part of it. I think, however, that this translation is misleading. First, the word in question אביעד looks just like other names with אבי in it—indeed, it is said to be a name earlier in the verse. Second, the word “Father” is not modified by an adjective. Third, Accordance 8 parses this as a construct form, translated as “Father of eternity,” which does not necessarily identify the son to be born as the eternally-existent Father. It seems that the translation “eternal/everlasting Father” comes from the Latin Vulgate (fortis Pater), rather than from the Hebrew text.
I propose that instead of “eternal/everlasting Father,” אביעד should be understood as “my Father is eternal” (I doubt this is something new with me, but I do not have any Old Testament commentaries to check). I do not see ‘abi’ad as two words in construct form, but instead a name formed by the joining of two words, as Abiathar, Abimelech, Abigail, and hosts of other names beginning with ab- are. Understanding אביעד as “my Father is eternal” accords well with the way we understand other אבי compound names. It also works well theologically where the Son is always differentiated from the Father (the Son is not the Father), and reveals who the Father is (by the name “my Father is eternal”).

