The Salvation of the Lord

Twenty-Five Studies on Major Themes in Isaiah 1–39

by David Gooding

Sometimes it is easier to believe that God’s Word is inspired than to believe that all of it is profitable for us today. David Gooding leads us through the contents and themes of the lesser known part of the prophecy of Isaiah. Rather than simply being a collection of prophecies that are assembled in no particular order, he argues that the material is deliberately arranged according to dominant themes, and explains what those dominant themes are. This series will deepen our understanding of Isaiah and show us that those portions of God’s Word that at first seem difficult are just as profitable as the rest.

Available Formats

---

Read

1: An Overview of the Prophecy of Isaiah

The Contents of the Book and the Aims of These Seminars

Book recommendations

Let me start with one or two books related to our topic. For the Hebrew of Isaiah, the analysis of the poetry of Isaiah, and for a good deal of analysis of the book as a whole, I would strongly recommend The Prophecy of Isaiah by Alec Motyer. There is no greater expert on Hebrew, and a lifetime spent in analysing the poetry and the structure of Isaiah has now been expressed in this book. It is complicated reading, as you might expect, but I recommend it. If you use it, you will find that Motyer is of a very strongly Reformed theological persuasion, but he is a dear brother in the Lord, and a friend of mine, too, for which I am very grateful.

Now, it has come to my knowledge that one of our number here has brought a copy of this book along and in the largeness of his heart is prepared to have you look at one or two pages. How much he will charge if you read too many pages, I don’t know. You’re not allowed to steal it from him, nor to be found surreptitiously reading it in his bedroom at night. However, it is a book that is worth having for serious scholarship, and for all matters of Hebrew arising in our study of Isaiah, I shall appeal to this book.

Another useful tome, well, it’s not a tome, really, but a monograph that may not be so well-known, is entitled The Burden of Babylon by a certain Seth Erlandsson. It is a study of Isaiah 13:2–14:23. Its helpfulness resides in his attempt to relate the various portions of Isaiah to the current historical situation. One of his suggestions in particular is interesting and helpful, at least in my estimation. He points out what is a well-known fact, that when Assyria became the leading world power, it conquered Babylon but ruled Babylon generally by a vassal king, though the king of Assyria was technically and legally the king of Babylon.

That is a thing perhaps to be remembered as we read through the first thirty-nine chapters of Isaiah. ‘The king of Babylon’ can be the vassal king of Babylon, such as Merodach-Baladan was, who we find mentioned in chapter 39. Or, legally speaking, it can refer to what we call the king of Assyria, because he was technically the king of Babylon. What is more, the king of Assyria had to go from time to time to Babylon to the festival in which he was nominally appointed by the god and have his face slapped by the priest of Marduk or somebody, which I think he thought a very small price to pay for the emperorship of Assyria.

The sacking of Babylon

Remembering that Babylon was thus subject to Assyria at the time, and its king was a vassal king perhaps makes more sense of a passage like Isaiah 21, which you might even now care to look at.

And he cried as a lion: ‘O Lord, I stand continually upon the watch-tower in the daytime, and am set in my ward whole nights: and, behold, here comes a troop of men, horsemen in pairs.’ And he answered and said, ‘Babylon is fallen, is fallen; and all the graven images of her gods are broken unto the ground.’

And then the prophet adds,

O thou my threshing, and the corn of my floor: that which I have heard from the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, have I declared unto you. (vv. 8–10 rv)

Now, it is frequently said that these verses refer to the fall of Babylon under Cyrus the Medo-Persian. Erlandsson suggests, per contra, that it does not refer to that event at all, but to the sack of Babylon by the Assyrian emperor Sennacherib. It is the fact that at a certain time Sennacherib, being no longer able to put up with the revolts and the conspiracies of the king of Babylon, went to Babylon and sacked it and destroyed it. He turned the canals and the river over it and laid it waste.

That was an enormous scandal in the ancient world, similar to what it would have been if Herr Hitler, in the course of his adventures, had destroyed the Vatican. Erlandsson suggests that it makes much more sense with the context of Isaiah, if the reference to the fall of Babylon here in chapter 21 is to the sacking by Sennacherib and not to the sack and capture of Babylon by Cyrus.

To start with, God could certainly, through Isaiah, have foretold of the sacking by Cyrus. That’s not the point. More to the point is that the capture of Babylon by Cyrus was a matter of great rejoicing for the Israelites, for whereas Nebuchadnezzar had taken them captive to Babylon, after seventy years Cyrus came along and captured Babylon, and let as many of the Israelites go home as would. It was no great disaster for the Israelites. Moreover, when Cyrus captured Babylon, he did not destroy it, as you remember in the story from Daniel. He diverted the river and came up through the riverbed while Belshazzar was holding his party. Cyrus had no need to destroy the city, and he didn’t destroy it. And, whereas his capture of the city was not a disaster for the Israelites, in the context of Isaiah 21, as you see, the news that Babylon has fallen is a tremendous shock and grief and panic to Jerusalem.

If you ask why that should be so, then the easy answer is as follows. Judah and her kings, from time to time, had listened to the blandishments of Merodach-Baladan and other such kings of Babylon, and had been tempted to join in alliances with Babylon and others of the near eastern little states, in order to rebel against the king of Assyria. The news that Babylon, instead of triumphing and prospering in its conspiracies, had now fallen, would have been a very big shock to the party in Jerusalem that was all for making alliances and joining the king of Babylon in his conspiracies against the king of Assyria.

You will remember from your study of the book of the Revelation that when in chapter 14 it is announced, amongst the many announcements of what has happened under the reign of the beast, ‘Babylon is fallen’, that comes before the destruction of the beast by the return of the Lord Jesus. That future Babylon is, in that book too, destroyed by the beast, before the beast itself comes to its end.

That is by the way and incidentally, just to suggest to you that this book by Erlandsson is worth your study because of its analysis of the Hebrew of these chapters and its thesis about their relationship to the Babylon of the time under the reign of the emperor of Assyria. It could be, perhaps, that in the famous chapters 13 and 14, where the king of Babylon is brought low, that there you are reading of ‘the king of Babylon’ in the sense of the Assyrian emperor, who was technically king of Babylon. But that is just a suggestion to you.

Contributions to our studies

You will notice that this year I have not asked a few brethren from time to time to give us a devotional study of any particular passage. Rather, I have made provision in the timetable for a number of sessions that I have called, with great expectation, ‘Questions and Contributions’. It is not with great expectation of questions (I’m afraid of all of them) but of the second bit, the expectation of contributions. I am told that you have been reading Isaiah assiduously in preparation for this week together. And, as I shall be saying in a moment, my own difficulties as I try to study Isaiah are not so much to supply the devotion and to pick out here a paragraph and there a verse that so obviously refer to our blessed Lord, and thus provokes our devotion; my particular difficulty is with the seemingly endless detail and wondering where to get a handle on it. You could quote me a verse from Isaiah, and I wouldn’t know whether it came from chapter 2, 14, 31, 56, or where. For many verses sound alike in so much detail. I thought, therefore, as well as questions, that in those particular sessions, I could encourage you to play your part in helping me, and helping your brethren, by making contributions and observations.

It was also my suggestion (so you may blame me for it) not to have a roving mic, because having one consumes a lot of time. Instead, I suggest evening exercises to strengthen your lungs, so that when you do make contribution you stand up, like Goliath addressing David; not that I shall bring you low, but that we all can hear what you have to say as you contribute what has meant much to you, or what you feel a verse or two verses, or the passage, is about. And do consider one another; it is not so much sermons that we shall be listening for as contributions, small or great, to the understanding of some of the detail of this great book.

The aim of our studies

As I’ve already indicated, my own aim (it may not be yours; let’s all have our own individual aims) is to seek out, if possible, the continuity within these thirty-nine chapters that we shall be investigating. As I say, I tend to get overwhelmed by the detail, and the detail, of course, is exceedingly important. Every jot and tittle is inspired of God, therefore attention to the poetry and the detail of the poetry—the metaphors and the similes and the arranging of the stanzas of the poetry, because much of it is verse—is important. I enjoy that, and in Motyer’s book you will find these things analysed in great, great detail. My first quest, however, is to ask whether there are any discernible major themes going through these chapters that will, so to speak, help to organize the detail around common themes that make it much easier to understand, and then to remember, and then finally to preach.

Of course, if you are the kind of preacher that loves to take a verse or half a verse and preach on the six major nouns in the verse, or the six major clauses, well, then you are among the famous preachers, and do it by all means. However, what we are looking for in these few days together, I suggest, is not just one or two verses here or there that could yield sermons, profitable as they are.

It is possible to preach a sermon on a verse without knowing what the verse before was saying, or the verse afterwards. Isn’t that so? Witness the story of Elisha and Naaman, on which many a preacher has held forth, with great profit to the conversion of souls. They have expounded the way that Naaman got cleansed but broke off before they come to the difficult verses, how that Gehazi contracted the leprosy as a result of it, which might have spoiled the gospel message somehow. So, the preachers very often omit that bit. Well God bless them.

It’s right to preach what we know, even if we don’t know the next verse. But to help ourselves this week, in serious study of Isaiah, we shall be trying to see the larger context, and how these details cluster together around prominent themes, if they do. If we have to decide they don’t, and you have to take each part of a verse by itself, unrelated to the rest, well, so be it; we’ve no ground for complaint if God has written it so.

The contents of Isaiah

I have put in your notes the contents of Isaiah. It is not expected that we shall get beyond chapter 39 in these days but, just for a moment, let us get a bird’s eye view of the whole of the prophecy.

Chapters 1–35: Prophecy

1. The Assyrian threat
2. The deportation of the ten tribes
3. The Assyrian advance and virtual siege of Jerusalem
4. The threat turned away: Jerusalem saved

Chapters 36–39: History

1. Hezekiah’s valiant stand against the demands of the king of Assyria
2. Hezekiah’s grave illness and recovery
3. Hezekiah’s compromise with the king of Babylon

Chapters 40–66: Prophecy

1. The deliverance from exile in Babylon and the restoration of Jerusalem

I suggest to you that there are three major parts to the prophecy. There are chapters 1–35, which is prophecy strictly so-called. Then there come chapters 36–39, four chapters that are by way of being history. Then, in the third section, 40–66, another group of prophetic chapters. That is common knowledge. We shall eventually have to ask ourselves what the relation of those four historical chapters is to the surrounding prophecy.

On the next page of notes I have listed, somewhat haphazardly, a few contents to remind you of the various parts of these three major portions of the book.¹

Salvation of Jerusalem from the Assyrian(s)			Salvation of Jerusalem and of Hezekiah			Future Salvation from Babylonian Captivity
First Movement—Chs. 1–35—Prophetic			Second Movement—Chs. 36–39—Historical Narrative			Third Movement—Chs. 40–66—Prophetic
Part 1: 1–12	Part 2: 13–23	Part 3: 24–35	Part 4: 36–37	Part 5: 38	Part 6: 39	Part 7: 40–48	Part 8: 49–57	Part 9: 58–66
The sins of God’s people in general and of the house of David.	Ten oracles against the nations.	Judgments on the earth, on the host of the high ones on high, on the kings of the earth.	Jerusalem saved from the Assyrian siege through divine intervention.	Hezekiah’s illness and recovery.	Hezekiah’s fatal mistake: shows treasures to Babylon.	The rediscovery of the only true God-Creator.	The discovery and recognition of God’s suffering servant.	Repentance in readiness for, and at, Christ’s second coming.
The rod of God’s anger, the Assyrian.	Downfall of Babylon’s king (Sennacherib) ‘the Assyrian’.	The punishment of the swift serpent, the crooked serpent; he shall slay the dragon.	Envoy and letter of Assyrian king.	The writing	Envoy and letter of Babylonian king.	Jehovah’s servants:	Kings shall shut their mouths at him.	The final restoration.
				of King Hezekiah.		Messiah
						Jacob
						Cyrus
Immanuel on the throne of David.	He comes to Sheol—the grave.	The way of holiness.	Hezekiah of David’s house stands against Assyria.	I go to the gates of the grave.	Hezekiah	To liberate Israel and make them a true witness to God.	His grave	The new heavens and the new earth.
					of David’s house compromises with Babylon.		with the wicked and with the rich.
the highway from Assyria.	The kings of the nations rise from their thrones.	the song of the ransomed.	Assyrian king.	Jehovah was ready to save me.		No peace to the wicked.		Their worm shall not die . . . their fire shall not be quenched.
			Nineveh.		King’s treasure and sons.		He shall prolong his days.
Jehovah is my song.	The seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.
			Murdered by his sons.		Babylon.		He shall see his seed.
							No peace to the wicked.

I suggest that the first major movement in the book goes from chapter 1 to chapter 35, and that it is concerned with the salvation of Jerusalem from the threat of Assyria.

The historical portion, in its first two chapters (36 and 37), provides the actual historical account of the final siege, or what was virtually a siege, of Jerusalem by the armies of the Assyrian king, and how God dealt with them and saved Jerusalem at the very last moment. Chapters 38 and 39 of the historical chapters have other material, and we shall think of that later. However, in chapter 39 we have a link with what follows, for if in movement one (chapters 1–35) Isaiah prophesied that the Assyrians would never take Jerusalem and that it would be saved from the Assyrians, chapters 36 and 37 give us the history that relates how the Assyrians did not, in fact, manage to take Jerusalem and Jerusalem was saved. Chapter 39 goes on to tell us that because of a very serious indiscretion on the part of Hezekiah who entered negotiations with an embassy from Babylon, from Merodach-Baladan, Isaiah prophesied to him in the name of the Lord that the days would come when Hezekiah’s treasures and the treasures of the royal house of David would be carried away to Babylon. Moreover, the king’s sons would be carried away to Babylon, and they would become eunuchs in the palaces of Babylon. Since Hezekiah was the reigning monarch in the line of David, for his sons to become eunuchs was a very serious consequence for the royal house of David. So chapter 39 serves as a historical hinge that leads on to the third major part of the book, from chapter 40–66.

There is self-evidently a coherence, therefore, in the material of the book. The first thirty-five chapters deal, I repeat, with the threat of Assyria, but the assurance that the Assyrians, whatever else they took, would never take Jerusalem city. Then, the third major part, which is not, you notice, the threat of Babylon. It doesn’t even record the attack of Nebuchadnezzar the Great on Jerusalem. That topic is dealt with at great length by the prophet Jeremiah, who lived in the years just preceding the attack by the Babylonians, and lived through the siege, and saw some of the consequences as Jerusalem fell: the royal house was extinguished, and the temple destroyed. Isaiah, who lived much earlier, is not given to prophesying about the attack of Babylon. What he is given to tell us is Israel’s eventual deliverance from Babylon. So that when you compare the first thirty-five chapters with chapters 40–66, you will see there is no duplication of theme.

Chapters 1–35 are full of the threat of the Assyrians, with very vivid poetry describing their oncoming march, town by town by town, till it gets you on tip-toe, and the hairs of your head are standing up as you hear the troops approaching and see them coming perilously near Jerusalem. It is all about the threat of Assyria coming gradually nearer and nearer the city, until eventually the armies surround Jerusalem. It is very dramatic stuff. And the prophecies are geared to the Lord’s people, and particularly the Lord’s people in Jerusalem, pleading with them to dare to believe that the Assyrians will never take the city. It is a very different message in chapters 40–66. There is no threat of Babylon drawing near, as in Jeremiah, but now it is devoted totally to the deliverance of the people of God from captivity in Babylon.

That then is a way the book coheres.

Themes, prophecies and interpretation

In the notes that I have given you, which I don’t propose to go through in detail, I have suggested that as we come to chapters 1–35 we should look for the major themes rather than taking the time to deal with too much of the detail. I have suggested also that though there are passages that self-evidently refer to our blessed Lord and will warm our hearts and reduce them to worship, we must try to see those prophecies, too, within their historical context. There will arise the question of how they are to be interpreted, and to what particular periods they refer.

These glorious prophecies in the first thirty-five chapters refer to the restoration of Israel and Judah. Do they refer to the restoration under Ezra and Nehemiah? Must we not keep an eye open in case they do? What would these prophecies have meant to the people of Isaiah’s day? What would they have meant to Daniel? How many of these prophecies were fulfilled at the return under Cyrus? Cyrus himself is named in the first third of Isaiah, and his deliverance of Israel is mentioned explicitly. How many of the prophecies, therefore, refer to the restoration of Israel in the time of Cyrus? But then, how many of the prophecies of our Lord were fulfilled when he was born in Bethlehem, or in the course of his earthly ministry? And, shocking though it might be to some, how many of the prophecies were fulfilled in the course of the Acts of the Apostles? We must certainly keep our eyes on the New Testament, and particularly the Acts of the Apostles and some of the Epistles, as they refer to Isaiah and announce his prophecy has been fulfilled at that time, at least in part. How many of these prophecies refer to our present situation when Gentiles have been brought under the standard raised in the house of David? And how many refer to the end of this age, and to the remnant of Israel in those final days under the persecution of the future Assyrian? How many refer to the millennium, and how many refer to the eternal state?

You see the possibility of confusing me at every turn, don’t you? I ask for your mercy to be upon me as you make your contributions, so that we can keep clear in our minds the various possibilities, and help each other to understand what we are talking about. If I am talking about the restoration under Ezra, and you are talking about the millennium, well, we could be talking at cross purposes if we weren’t careful. So, let’s be on our guard.

Structure and thought flow in Isaiah 1–35

Finally, let’s begin to acquaint ourselves with a rough scaffolding that I have put around chapters 1–35. It is an attempt to group these chapters according to their leading themes, according to their thought flow. Now, I say it once, and I am emphasizing it: it will not break my heart (and certainly nobody else’s) if eventually you decide the structure here put before you is not true, and you scrap it completely. I shall admire your zeal and research. In my estimate, this suggested structure is merely a scaffolding.

Sometimes, if you want to examine a large building, the only way you can do it effectively is to build a scaffolding around the building and look at it after climbing up the scaffolding. Once you’ve found what the building is about, you can scrap the scaffolding. And sometimes you can have different scaffoldings. What does it matter so long as we come to understand the features of the building? However, thought flow remains. There is thought flow; there is structure; there is patterning. As I often say, now abide three things: thought flow, structure and patterning. And the greatest of these is thought flow, of course. That’s what we are at, to try and see the flow of thought that came from the Holy Spirit as he inspired Isaiah.

Part 1A (1:1–6:13)	Part 2A (13:1–19:24)	Part 3A (24:1–27:13)
Heaven and earth called to listen as	Cosmic convulsions on the day of the Lord	Cosmic convulsions: earth’s foundations shaken
God denounces his people’s rebellion.	Five oracles about the nations.	The punishment of the host of the high ones
The song of the vineyard:	I will break the Assyrian in my land (14:25–26).	on high, of the kings of the earth (24:21), of the serpents and the dragon (27:1).
What could have been done more to my vineyard? I will lay it waste (ch. 5).	Zion’s role as a refuge for the smaller nations at the approach of Assyria.	The Lord shall reign in Zion.
God’s judicial blinding of Israel.	The conversion of Assyria,	The feast for the nations.
The scattering of the nation.	Egypt and Israel.	The swallowing up of death (ch. 25).
But the holy seed remains.	A highway between Assyria	The song of the vineyard (27:2).
	and Egypt (19:23).	The song of the strong city (ch. 26).
		The return of Israel from Assyria and Egypt (27:13).

Part 1B (7:1–12:6)	Part 2B (20:1–23:18)	Part 3B (28:1–35:10)
God rebukes the disbelief of	Five further oracles about the nations	God rebukes the pride and arrogance of Israel and the scornful men of Judah.
the house of David.		Scorning and rejection of the word of God leads to judicial blinding.
God’s anger against Jacob.	No escape for the nations from Assyria: even Babylon falls (20:1–6; 21:9).	Going to Egypt for help instead of trusting God results in disaster.
The rod of God’s anger, the king of Assyria.	The bad and good stewards of the house of David (ch. 22).	The converted in Zion shall see their teachers accept God’s word, and Christ as King.
The virgin born Son on the throne of David.		The coming of Christ in judgment (ch. 34).
The re-gathering of God’s people.
the highway from Assyria (11:16).	The restoration of tyre and the songs of the harlot (ch. 23).	The highway of holiness (35:8).
the song of salvation: God’s anger turned away.		The songs of those returning to Zion (35:10).

So, first to part one, which I have suggested goes from chapters 1–12 inclusive. Why would anybody say that? Because at chapter 13, you will notice, there begins a series of oracles, in the older English versions translated as ‘burden’. In 13:1, we read, ‘The burden of Babylon . . .’; in 15:1, ‘The burden of Moab . . . ’, and so forth and so on. Chapter 13 begins a series of ten oracles, ten burdens, that obviously form a thematic whole by themselves. There is nothing quite like that series in the first twelve chapters. It is easy, therefore, to come to the tentative conclusion that chapters 1–12 form a unit. And chapter 13, beginning the burdens, ends at chapter 23, where you have the final burden for the moment: ‘The burden of Tyre’ (23:1). So, chapters 1–12 inclusive, therefore, form the first part. Chapter 13:1 to the end of chapter 23 is the second major part²

If we judge by the nature of the contents, then the third part will go from chapter 24 through to the end of chapter 35, because at the end of chapter 35 you cease from prophecy, strictly so-called, and you come to the four historical chapters. It is the fact that the book by Alec Motyer that I recommended to you holds that chapters 36 and 37 are really to be taken in conjunction with the first thirty-five chapters, and of that we can make up our minds as we go along. However, roughly speaking, the nature of the contents leads me to this tentative conclusion, that the first major part goes from 1:1 to the end of chapter 12, the second major part, the series of burdens, from 13:1 to the end of chapter 23, and then the third major part from 24:1 to the end of chapter 35.

Major themes

My details here are a very arbitrary selection, but if you just squint for a moment at the details I have mapped out, you will see there are certain themes that keep popping up. They are easy enough for anybody to see and everybody attending this conference has seen them long since, and a good many more besides.

Restoration: the highway back

There is this question of the highway. Look at the middle columns and the end of what I’ve called Part 2A: a highway between Assyria and Egypt (19:23). Look, if you will, at the end of the first half of Part 3A: the return of Israel from Assyria and Egypt (27:13). Or, to come back to the end of column one, Part 1B: the highway from Assyria (11:16). Or look at the end of Part 3B: the highway of holiness (35:8), and the return of God’s people to Zion (v. 10).

Incidentally, look at those songs with which those three major columns end. At the end of the first column is the song of salvation, in chapter 12. In the second column are the songs of the harlot, in chapter 23. (Strange that they should come, but they do. I didn’t write Isaiah.) At the end of column three are the songs of those returning to Zion, in chapter 35. This question of the highway back, in other words, the restoration of the people of God, is going to be one of the major themes of these first thirty-nine chapters. Notice how all three great columns in Isaiah 1–35 end, and prepare to sing your private hallelujah! They all end up with songs of victory and gladness and praise to the Lord: the restoration of his people, and even the restoration of Tyre, strange though that may seem.

On this question, before we leave it, we must prepare ourselves for the astonishing statements at the end of what I have called Part 2A. There is to be, says chapter 19, not only a highway between Assyria and Egypt; but Assyria and Egypt, if you please, are going to get converted! And not only will they reconcile the one to the other, but along with Israel, they are going to be the three chosen of God, so that it will be Assyria, Egypt and ‘my people, Israel’ all together. Take warning that when we come to that passage I shall cease and you will do the speaking and tell me when this was fulfilled; or, when it is going to be fulfilled and how it is going to be fulfilled. I look forward to the fulfilment, anyway, and I look forward to what you will have to say about the matter. There is this tremendous emphasis, therefore, on restoration.

Cosmic implications

Another significant thing I would point to is how the three major parts begin. In chapter 1 of Isaiah, when the first verse has announced the timing of the vision, God begins his message with an appeal to the heavens and to the earth to give ear to what God has now to say as he denounces the rebellion of his people. Now, it is a common literary motif in Scripture, as elsewhere, for God or his people, when they have something important to say, to appeal to heaven and earth to listen, particularly when what they are called upon to listen to is, as it were, a law case as the prosecution presents its case. The calling of the very heaven and earth, by their creator, to witness against this rebellious people, is not merely a way of speaking and thus to be dismissed as we proceed. That is a terrible reality, for Israel’s departure from God had, and has, cosmic implications.

It has cosmic implications for God Almighty. Why so? Because, if it is true that God chose Abraham and called him out from among the nations and built from him a unique nation for the purpose of witness to the one true God, Lord Creator of heaven and earth, as a protest against the idolatrous interpretation of the world by the surrounding nations; and if it is true that God Almighty chose Israel that he might through them give his detailed law as the moral governor of the universe, that men might know God’s moral and spiritual standards; and if it is true that the God of heaven and earth chose Israel to be eventually the vehicle through whom the anointed Messiah, Immanuel, would come, then if that nation, so called and so appointed by God, rebelled against God, what will God say to heaven and earth? How shall he justify himself? It is a problem that Paul felt deeply in his heart and records for us in Romans 9, 10 and 11. For, if it be true that Israel were called and theirs were the fathers and theirs was the giving of the law, and theirs was the glory—God himself dwelling in their tabernacles and temples; and of whom, according to the flesh, Messiah was to come, and that same Israel has rejected Messiah, how would God make any sense out of his calling of Israel before the nations? How will he justify it, and what will he do about it? If the house of David was installed, not merely to lead Israel in the past to their pinnacle of near empire, but installed so that of that royal seed the Messiah himself should come, and King Ahaz by his utter folly instituted disaster for the royal house of David, until eventually Nebuchadnezzar suspended it completely, what will God say about it? We should not underestimate the problem that it set to God, if we may thus talk in human terms.

You say, ‘Why didn’t Moses take God’s offer when Israel made the golden calf, and God said to Moses, “Look here Moses, I’ll tell you what. I’ll destroy the rest of Israel, and I’ll start with you, and make you a nation”?’

Well that would have solved the problem, wouldn’t it? Moses was of the seed of Abraham, and if all the other seeds had been destroyed, God’s promise would have been fulfilled if it was through the seed of Abraham, via Moses, that the Saviour would eventually come. But Moses wouldn’t hear of it. What now will God say to the nations about the failure of his people?

So, this is a problem with which God himself now deals, as he calls on heaven and earth to hear what he has to say.

But look how Part 2 begins. For if 13:1 gives an oracle against Babylon, yet almost at once, from verse 4 onwards, the language it uses is eschatological language.

They come from a far country, from the uttermost part of heaven, even the Lord, and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land. . . . Behold, the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger; to make the land a desolation, and to destroy the sinners thereof out of it. For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. And I will punish the world for their evil . . . (vv. 5, 9–11 rv)

We are now, once more, in the context of the cosmic. You may say that these words are the normal words of prophecy, talking about the future; and this is poetry and so forth. Well, so it is, but it is the kind of language which our Lord at the end of the Gospels used of his second coming. And it is the language the Revelation uses. This matter, therefore, of Israel’s disobedience and God’s allowing Israel to fall captive to the nation, and then its solution to the problem is cosmic in its proportion.

Look, then, finally, if you will, to how (on this particular analysis) the third part begins. I warn you that expositors far better and more qualified than I wouldn’t have the break just there, but this, again, is only tentative scaffolding. When the ten oracles are finished, chapter 24 begins with cosmic disturbance.

Behold, the Lord makes the earth empty, and makes it waste, and turns it upside down, and scatters abroad the inhabitants thereof. (v. 1 rv)

And in the course of this announcement we read,

The earth is utterly broken, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly. The earth shall stagger like a drunken man, and shall be moved to and fro like a hut; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it, and it shall fall, and not rise again. (vv. 19–20 rv)

The implications are cosmic, and they are not only to do with our world. But look at the mysterious language of 24:21.

And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall punish the host of the high ones on high . . .

Who are they?

. . . and the kings of the earth upon the earth. And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited. Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed. (vv. 21–23 rv)

Whatever you make of it, there is the problem of Israel and Judah put into cosmic proportion here.

I think I’ve said enough for the moment to show that, overall, Isaiah, from chapter 1 to chapter 66, stands in three major parts. Most people agree about that, and little more need be said. You can divide it according to the nature of the literature contained therein. I hope I have said enough to justify the use of this tentative scaffolding in chapters 1–35, to show that there are leading themes that will help us, if we grasp them, to attach the detail significantly, and help us then to try to see how the detail in each part adds and contributes to the theme that is being dealt with. Let these scattered introductory thoughts suffice, then, for our deliberations so far.

¹ The full size version of this chart can be found in the Appendices.

² The full size version of this chart can be found in the Appendices.

2: God’s Response to the Rebellion of His Children

Part 1A (1:1–6:13)

We must now make an attempt to study in slightly more detail what I have called Part 1A. In the notes I have supplied, I have listed six passages.

1. God’s denunciation of his people’s rebellion (1:1–31)
2. A prophecy of millennial glory (2:1–4)
3. God’s denunciation of his people’s sin (2:5–4:1)
4. A prophecy of millennial glory (4:2–6)
5. God’s denunciation of his people’s sin (5:1–30)
6. A vision of the King and his throne (6:1–13)

As I understand them, those six passages belong together, though other people would think differently, particularly about 6:1–13. We can examine that, therefore, when we come to it.

Context: asking why that comes here

You will see on the list of the six passages that I have underlined some of the points, because of their special contents. Chapter 1:1–31, generally speaking, is God’s denunciation of his people’s rebellion, though in the course of that denunciation some small detail is given about God’s proposal to cleanse his people, and restore them. But when one comes to 2:2–4, we have ceased from denunciation altogether, and in those few verses we have a brilliant and heart-warming prophecy of the day when the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and all nations shall flow to it, and many people shall go and say, ‘Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord.’ There shall follow a disarmament, and the nations shall learn war no more. It is a marvellous prophecy. The question arises as to what that has got to do with the first part, with God’s denunciation of his people’s rebellion that fills chapter 1. Would it make any difference to this prophecy of millennial glory if it had occurred at the end of chapter 66, instead of occurring here? Why does it occur here? That is the question I shall be asking you. And there is, you will remember, at the end of this short session, a period of questions from me and contributions from you.

The passage from 2:5–3:26 returns to the matter of God’s denunciation of his people’s sins. Then at 4:2–6 we read another of these glorious prophecies, of blessing that shall come with the coming of Messiah. It is couched in terms that are repeated in the book of the Revelation, some of them in places where the Revelation is talking about the eternal glories. Once more the question that arises is, why here in the narrative? What has this got to do with the great denunciation of sins that has preceded it? At 5:1 and throughout the whole of chapter 5, when the prophecy of millennial glory has ceased, we return once more to God’s denunciation of his people’s sin.

We might well ask: why didn’t God do all three denunciations at once and get it over with? Why space it out like this? The question that will arise, however, is as follows. I have listed here 6:1–13. You will remember that this is the tremendous vision that Isaiah was given when he saw the Lord high and lifted up, and the train of his robe filled the temple, at which time Isaiah seems to have been commissioned to his work. There are many that feel, and perhaps rightly, that 6:1–13 does not end this first part but begins the next part. They may well be right; it’s for you to decide. But the question will arise anyway: what has chapter 6 got to do with its context? Perhaps it has nothing to do with what has gone before, and everything to do with what follows on. Exercise your good senses by considering the problem.

The first denunciation (1:1–9)

The focus of Isaiah’s prophecy (1:1)

Let’s start looking at the detail a little bit and look at chapter one. Notice with me what the topic of the prophecy is, according to Isaiah.

The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. (1:1)

The prophecy of Isaiah, throughout all its parts, is primarily concerned with Judah, and Jerusalem particularly. Yes, Isaiah was ministering before the ten tribes were taken away into captivity, and therefore from time to time he talks about them and talks about them at length. However, whereas the ten tribes were not spared, and when Assyria first came they took the northern part, then they took another part, and then subsequently they took the whole lot of them away and they were virtually wiped out as an independent nation, and Judah was ravaged by them, Jerusalem was never taken by the Assyrians. The prophecy, therefore, announces itself as that which Isaiah ‘saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem’.

Let me make, therefore, one simple observation about that. It would be worth our while always remembering that sometimes Jerusalem is used as a personification of the people. Our Lord, for instance, outside of Jerusalem towards the end of his earthly ministry said,

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! (Matt 23:37)

He is addressing the city. The city is in one sense the buildings and the location, and, in another sense, the city is the people. So, if you come to Belfast city, that very famous city (let an Englishman say so) you will find a banner unfurled across the front of the city hall, and the banner informs the world: ‘Belfast says, No.’ I shan’t tell you what it is that Belfast says no to but, as you see, Belfast stands for the people of Belfast. And so we are all interested from time to time to hear what Washington says, let alone Paris, and Berlin. However, whereas at any one time, the city is the people and the people are the city, the city goes on. If it is God’s purpose to save Jerusalem city, that does not necessarily mean his purpose is to save everyone that ever was a citizen of Jerusalem, does it?

We shall have to remember that kind of distinction as we go through Isaiah. When the Lord talks about saving Zion and saving Jerusalem, exactly what does he mean? Does he mean all the people that ever were citizens of Zion? Or does he mean the city as an institution that has survived down the centuries? Whatever citizens have come and gone, Washington remains Washington, whether Mr Bill Clinton or Mr George W. Bush is in power there. That is a simple matter.

They have rebelled (1:2)

Without more ado then, we come to God’s appeal to the heavens and earth to hear, for the Lord has spoken. This is what the charge is: ‘Children have I reared and brought up, but they have rebelled against me’ (v. 2). We notice the metaphor expressing the relationship between God and the people. We see God as a parent, who has brought up Israel as his children, educated them, and trained them according to his fatherly principles. However, now like errant teenagers or worse, he says, ‘they have rebelled against me.’ We notice the ugly word ‘rebelled’. It is not just that they have been ungrateful, or lost interest, but they have rebelled. The Hebrew word is: to rebel against authority, against a covenant that has been made and against relationship. The swiftness and the directness, the few words used to describe the sin, are all the more effective to expose its bare, stark enormity. Rebelled. The nation appointed by God to be his witness in the earth, to be the stewards of his law, the holders of Jerusalem city, the vehicle of his promises and the coming Messiah, that nation has rebelled against that very purpose, and against God.

The nature of the rebellion (1:3)

I take it that the two comparisons that now follow are meant to expose the unnaturalness of Judah’s sin.

The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master’s crib, butIsrael does not know, my people do not understand. (v. 3)

Notice there is no ‘but’ in the original, and without a conjunction the emphasis falls more heavily on the noun, Israel: ‘The ox knows his owner, and the donkey his master’s crib: Israel does not know, my people do not understand.’ The idea is that the ox knows the owner, and the donkey knows its master’s manger, that is, the owner who possesses it and the master who feeds it. Israel knows neither. Ox and donkey are mere animals, but they instinctively know and recognize master and feeder. Israel, being human, ought to see and know and recognize her relationship with God more clearly than animals. It is poetry, of course. It is exceedingly vivid analysis and denunciation of Israel’s sin.

‘Israel does not know, my people do not understand.’ So, the understanding or the perceiving is a deeper thing than just not knowing. There is, of course, pathos in ‘my people’ as distinct from the formal identity ‘Israel’. Notice the possessive ‘my’. It is not ‘the people’ but ‘my people’. And so the relationship: ‘my people’. Understanding, perceiving, discernment is more than knowledge of facts; it is the ability to perceive the significance of them.

Their character and actions (1:4)

Now in verse four comes an exclamation: ‘Ah’! Like a broken-hearted parent.

Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, children who deal corruptly! They have forsaken the Lord, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are utterly estranged. (v. 4)

This is the nation’s character and state: a sinful nation, a people loaded with guilt, a seed that is a brood of evildoers, and children that deal corruptly. Then we read what they have done. They have forsaken the Lord, they have despised, or spurned, the Holy One of Israel; they have separated themselves ‘and gone backward’ (v. 4 rv), and turned their backs on God.

God’s dilemma (1:5–7)

That, as we said earlier, leads to the statement of the problem, the dilemma, God had; namely, what to do about them and with them.

Why will you still be struck down? Why will you continue to rebel? The whole head is sick, and whole heart faint. (v. 5)

The meaning is, ‘You know that when you revolt more you will be stricken more. Why do you go on revolting when you know that it will mean that you will be stricken more, when already the whole head is sick and the whole heart faint?’ And he continues,

From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but bruises and sores and raw wounds; they are not pressed out or bound up or softened with oil. (v. 6)

There are the metaphors, and we shall not be able to spend time discussing them individually, but they are the metaphors. Now you will get the reality to which the metaphor refers.

Your country lies desolate; your cities are burned with fire; in your very presence foreigners devour your land; it is desolate, as overthrown by foreigners. (v. 7)

Already, the armies of the foreigners have come. Already from time to time, they have devastated the countryside. Being armies, they feed off the land as any ancient army would, and therefore the place is desolate of food and anything the invading army can lay its hands on. These are the metaphors.

The strength in the use of metaphors

You will remember how, when the New Testament writer Jude, and also Peter in 2 Peter, talk about the false teachers, they indicate in one breath the kind of false teaching they got up to. Jude talks about them and says they are like Cain; they are like Balaam; they are like Korah. These are historical examples that help you to know the false doctrine that these false teachers propagated in the church. But then knowing the fact is one thing; feeling it in your very innards is another thing. Hence the metaphors Jude and Peter use: clouds without water, cursed vines plucked up by the roots, and so on and so forth. Here come the metaphors. As preachers, they are worth studying, aren’t they? Our job, like the Hebrew prophet, is to get across the facts and to help people feel the facts. And sometimes the use of vivid metaphors is better than shouting, if you see what I mean, better even than thumping the desk.

Isaiah is full of such metaphors. God is bringing home to his people what sin is really like. Oh, the metaphors and the poetry of Isaiah! We shall not have the time to go into it much, but I recommend Motyer’s book (or any other book you can get hold of) that will explain, not only the metaphors, but the particular significance of some of the verbs that are used in the Hebrew.

So in 1:5–7 we are faced with God’s dilemma of what to do about his rebellious people, because the chastisements God has already allowed have turned the body politic, so to speak, sick from head to toe, and the country has been devastated.

The effect on Zion (1:8–9)

And the daughter of Zion is left like a booth in a vineyard, like a lodge in a cucumber field, like a besieged city. (v. 8)

The daughter of Zion is Jerusalem, of course. This is another way of personifying the city. Isaiah indicated this was going to be about Jerusalem, and so it is. She is left as a booth in a vineyard, as a lodge in a cucumber field, and as a besieged city. These three similes indicate how isolated Jerusalem has become. Jerusalem sat upon a mountain, and you who have been to Israel have seen it. It is sitting up there on its mountain, as distinct from the coastal route that goes at the foot or the Jordan valley on both sides. But when now the enemy has come and filled the land like a great flood of water, as Isaiah calls it elsewhere, then Jerusalem is sitting up exposed. It is all solitary with the waters up to its neck, as another chapter says. It is left solitary because of the invasion.

As we come to the end of that first denunciation in verse nine, notice the mercy of God appearing through the cloud of denunciation. This is a response of the people, presumably, or Isaiah.

Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, we should have been like unto Gomorrah (v. 9 rv)

But the Lord has left a remnant. Do any of you remember where that is quoted in the New Testament?

Audience: Romans 9.

DWG: Yes, Romans 9. Would you kindly read it, in a stentorian voice, sir, that all can hear?

Audience: ‘And as Isaiah said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodom and been made like unto Gomorrah’ (v. 29 kjv).

DWG: May I further enquire of you, sir, in what context is Paul saying that? Is that a prophecy of the future, as far as Paul is concerned? What is it he is saying?

Audience: Current prophecy fulfilled.

DWG: Yes, Current prophecy fulfilled. So, in the time of Paul, there had been left a remnant. Tell me just a little bit more about that remnant. It was a remnant, obviously, of Israel, yes? Were they Christians?

Audience: Yes.

DWG: This remnant of Israel is part of the church? Is that what you are saying?

Audience: Yes.

DWG: Yes. Well, thank you for that, for now. You will hear more of that from these others, later on!

As we said in the first talk, one of the problems that we will meet through Isaiah is the question: to what do these prophecies refer? Sometimes they have multiple reference, don’t they? Here is one that Paul takes up and refers to his own nation, in Romans 9 and following. In Romans 11 again, ‘Has God permanently cast them away? God forbid,’ he says. ‘He has not cast them away.’

How do you know, Paul?

‘Well, there’s a remnant left.’

How do you know that?

‘I’m part of it. I also am an Israelite.’

Paul felt himself to be part of that remnant of Israel that God had left, and was now, of course, incorporated into the church. But then we shall read of a remnant of Israel in future times, and so forth and so on. This is just a little advance notice of some of the questions that we shall come across later on.

The second denunciation (1:10–20)

The second denunciation in this particular part of Isaiah runs from 1:10 onwards. The first denunciation was about Jerusalem in general and the people. Now it comes to a denunciation of their religion, their supposed spiritual exercises. It begins, ‘Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom!’ (v. 10). We are carrying on now from verse 9. These are not rulers of Jerusalem but ‘rulers of Sodom’. You will remember how the Revelation talks of this, won’t you? Revelation 11 speaks of that great city that is ‘spiritually called Egypt and Sodom’ (see v. 8).

Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom! Give ear to the teaching of our God, you people of Gomorrah! ‘What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. When you come to appear before me, who has required of you this trampling of my courts?’ (Isa 1:10–12)

Now, it becomes obvious as we read through this that God is not saying that the Levitical system was crude, primitive religion, and he never did ask for it at all. Some liberal scholars have tried to maintain that position. It is not true, of course. God is not saying the whole Levitical system of offerings was a bad thing; he himself ordained it. What he is complaining against is now made clear in verse 13:

Bring no more vain offerings.

Why are they vain? Why are they empty? Why are they meaningless?

incense is an abomination to me;

Why is that so?

New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations—I cannot . . .

And the idea of what he says next is, ‘I cannot put up with it, together with . . .’. The Lord is saying, ‘I cannot put up with iniquity combined with, at the same time as, the solemn meeting.’ To go through all the details of the Levitical rituals and the niceties of the temple, and to be leading a life of evil, injustice, immorality and commercial and social iniquity; God cannot endure it. It makes a mockery of their religious services.

That is still a message that sometimes we ought to preach, isn’t it? The sheer danger of thinking that adhering to ritual and ceremony is enough, even if our commercial and social life is below God’s standard. God won’t put up with it.

When you spread out your hands . . . (v. 15)

You will remember the phrase in the Epistles, the ‘lifting up of holy hands’ (see 1 Tim 2:8). If in an Eastern manner you hold up hands like this, but your hands are stained with blood, or dirty with filthy lucre or something, you are inviting God to inspect your works. We need to remember it, of course.

When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. (v. 15)

He is denouncing them on their religious side, when socially and commercially and legally they are indulging in oppression and sometimes, indeed, in murder.

Now comes an exhortation.

Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause. (vv. 16–17)

It’s like a machine gun going off. You notice the tempo of the exhortations: Woomf! Woomf! Woomf! That also is deliberate and effective poetry. And yet, once more, conciliation is in the air, isn’t it? After the denunciation and the stern exhortation to break off sinning, and the positive of what they have to do, now come these next verses.

Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool. If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be eaten by the sword; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken. (vv. 18–20)

Here is the call to reason the matter out; and the alternatives are given. Obedience, on the one hand, is to ‘eat the good of the land’. At the first level of meaning this means that the enemy will be rebuked and driven out of the land; and the people can go back and cultivate their inheritance in Judah. However, ‘if you refuse and rebel, you shall be eaten by the sword’. We ought to remember the situation. With the enemy armies already in the land and having destroyed a lot of it, God still gives them, at that late moment, the option.

The third denunciation (1:21–24)

Now we have one more denunciation. We have had the denunciation in general of the nation and their relationship with God; the denunciation of their false religion, rites, and ceremonies. Now comes the denunciation of their social, commercial and legal life. It begins, ‘How the faithful city . . .’. Notice that emphasis down the page in verse 26, ‘the city of righteousness, the faithful city.’ Here in verse 21 we read that the faithful city has become n harlot. The relationship has been de-sanctified, profaned.

How is the faithful city become an harlot! She that was full of judgement! Righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers. (v. 21 rv)

She has gone off standard. Again here we have two metaphors, ‘Your silver has become dross, your best wine mixed with water’ (v. 22). And in particular, now, it is the rulers, the ‘princes’ (v. 23) that are being denounced, since they are immediately responsible for the commerce and the legal system in the nation.

Three denunciations then, come at the beginning of Isaiah’s prophecy. We will need to return to consider what follows, but for now we will pause and reconvene for our first session of questions and contributions, with the emphasis on the latter³

³ A portion of this session was not recorded. Note that the prophecy of 2:1–4 is treated in Session 5.

3: Questions and Contributions

Matters of Interpretation

Psalm 102 as it appears in Hebrews

Audience: Could we look at the use of Psalm 102:25–27 in Hebrews 1:10–12? In Psalms, it seems like the psalmist is speaking directly to God, but in Hebrews 1 the insistence is that it is about the Son in particular. I’m wondering, is there a way to know that from the Psalm itself?

DWG: Let’s read the passage in Hebrews.

And, ‘You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.’ (1:10–12)

That is quoted under the rubric of verse 8: ‘But of the Son’, or ‘Concerning the Son.’ Of the Son he says. ‘Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever’, and so forth. Then, secondly, it says ‘You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth’ (v. 10).

Many people, including many expert commentaries, say that the Christians of course believed that Jesus, being the Son of God, was the agent in creation. Therefore, though the psalm appears to be talking about God the Father, as we should call him, the Christians held that, by definition, everything that could be said of God the Father is true of the Son. And if God created, the Son created, and so that’s that. In other words, they are saying that these quotations are not being offered as evidence for the deity of Christ; they are just statements that stem from your prior belief that he is the Son of God, and therefore this also would be true of him.

I myself hold the view that, no, it is not Christians just presuming that because Jesus is the Son of God you can take this psalm that was written about God and apply it to Jesus, because that kind of thing would cut no ice with the people the writer of Hebrews is talking to, and with their unconverted relatives. You have got to prove to them, from their Old Testament Scriptures, that Jesus is the Messiah and that the Messiah is God. It has got to be that way round. Therefore when the writer takes up the topic of Jesus as the high priest, it’s no good saying, ‘Who said Jesus is a high priest?’

Well, Peter said so.

‘Who on earth is Peter, or Paul for that matter?’

To convince a Jew, you have got to cite his own Old Testament, that the Aaronic priesthood, instituted by God and defended by God when Korah rebelled against it, was eventually to be set aside. How would you prove that? Well, you quote Psalm 110, and you ask, ‘When was Psalm 110 written, before Aaron or after Aaron?’

‘Oh, centuries after Aaron.’

I see. But then at that time, God is speaking of another priesthood: ‘You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek’ (v. 4). And the writer to the Hebrews says, ‘He does away with the first in order to establish the second’ (Heb 10:9).

Who said that the offerings were to cease? To an orthodox Jew, that was a hideous blasphemy, for God had ordained them. Yes, but Psalm 40 said, ‘Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me’ (see v. 6), and Hebrews quotes it (10:5).

It is that kind of argumentation all the way through Hebrews. In other words, it is not just the writer saying, ‘We say it is so; bother you.’ He has got to show it is so from the Old Testament. Seeing that is so, I think that behind this quotation from Psalm 102 lies the considered view of the writer that this is God talking to the Messiah. It is God talking to him when God says to the Messiah, ‘You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands’ (see Ps 102:25–27; Heb 1:10–12). However, in order to demonstrate that, I should need an hour, I should think, because it gets itself involved with the translation that is to be found in the Greek Old Testament.

In the Greek Old Testament these verses are not ascribed to God, for the Greek Old Testament has a somewhat different pointing of the Hebrew, and therefore a different interpretation of the drama of Psalm 102. Psalm 102, like many psalms, is a very dramatic psalm, just as, for instance, Psalm 2 is. First you get one speaker, and then without warning you get another speaker, and then you get the reply of a third speaker. It is a dramatic psalm. So Psalm 102, according to the Septuagint, is a similarly dramatic psalm, the result of which is that the words here quoted are referred not to God, but to the Messiah. But then I should have to demonstrate that, and that becomes complicated. I couldn’t possibly do it now, sir.

Jerusalem that will be

Audience: In Isaiah 2 we read of the future exaltation of Jerusalem.

It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, and many peoples shall come, 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.’ (vv. 2–3)

Micah 1 speaks of the temple itself, using similar language.

Hear, you peoples, all of you; pay attention, O earth, and all that is in it, and let the Lord God be a witness against you, the Lord from his holy temple. For behold, the Lord is coming out of his place, and will come down and tread upon the high places of the earth. (vv. 2–3)

Can you comment on the significance of these events?

DWG: Thank you very much. From that quotation in Micah, you see the two foci of attention. The Lord will come down ‘out of his high place’ (presumably heaven), and ‘come down’ to this particular spot.

I would like, before we proceed and come to the nub of the matter, to ask a question from Psalm 68.

O mountain of God, mountain of Bashan; O many-peaked mountain, mountain of Bashan! Why do you look with hatred, O many-peaked mountain, at the mount that God desired for his abode, yes, where the Lord will dwell for ever? The chariots of God are twice ten thousand, thousands upon thousands; the Lord is among them; Sinai is now in the sanctuary. You ascended on high, leading a host of captives in your train and receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the Lord God may dwell there. (vv. 15–18)

My question to you is the obvious one, I think. When this psalm is quoted in the New Testament: ‘You have ascended on high . . .’, what exactly is that talking about?

Audience: It’s quoted in Ephesians 4.

Therefore it says, ‘When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.’ (In saying, ‘He ascended’, what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) (vv. 8–10)

DWG: Yes. So, that’s talking of our Lord’s resurrection and ascension into glory?

Audience: Yes.

DWG: So, let us take it for the moment that the Lord will come, as Psalm 68 says, and Jerusalem shall yet be the centre from which the law of the Lord will go forth. Can we reach a tentative conclusion on that? Yes? Good. If that is so, now tell me about this other description of what that will mean in Micah.

Audience: I have a question. When we get to the verse that says, ‘He will teach us his ways,’ it reminds us of what the new covenant says in Hebrews 8.

I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbour and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord’, for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. (vv. 10–11)

I wonder if this is not talking about the millennium, the way most people would see it, but in another sense that we read here where we ask him to ‘teach us his ways’. I take it that in the millennium the new covenant will be such that everybody will know it automatically in their hearts.

DWG: Yes, I think I see your point, sir. I myself would say that this passage in Isaiah is talking about many nations. The covenant that he made with the house of Judah and the house of Israel shall be fulfilled, but this is talking about many nations going to Jerusalem. Have I got it right, that this is talking about the nations of the world recognizing Jerusalem as the centre of true justice and righteousness in the world?

Audience: Definitely.

The denunciations revisited

Audience: I just wanted to contribute a possible answer to an earlier question of yours about what this passage has to do with the denunciations and judgments in the context in which it’s found. Earlier on, we read in Isaiah 1:24 through to the end, that Jerusalem would be purified by a process of judgment. It would go from being the unfaithful city to becoming the faithful city, through a process of divine judgment. Then, chapter 2 through to the end of chapter 4 really enlarges upon that process, first giving the prospect, the vision, then going through the judgment, and then arriving again at division. Now it is through a different metaphor, that of the vine. But then you go through the same process again from chapter 5 where you have the song of this unfaithful vineyard, if we can call it that, that gives the wild fruit, but it ends up with the songs of salvation in the end in chapter 12, with Zion restored. In chapter 13, you have all of these processes of judgments through the ten burdens, and then, finally, a group of songs through chapters 23–27 or so, where, again, Zion is restored. So, there is this pattern that keeps repeating, sometimes quite detailed and enlarged, as the process of judgment arrives at a final salvation for Zion.

DWG: Yes, indeed, and I can see in 2:5 the force of the appeal, ‘O house of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the Lord.’ If it is true that one day Jerusalem shall be, because of the Lord’s presence therein and the house of the Lord as his administrative centre, the centre of the government of God in such fashion that Gentile nations will, of their own accord, flow to it and say, ‘Hadn’t we better start learning his ways?’; and learning the ways of God, come to their disarmament, so to speak, and peace among the nations, then how stupid it would be for Jacob to do anything other than that now.

Audience: Yes. It shames them.

DWG: Oh, surely it does. The denunciations have talked about their horrible injustice, their mockery of religion, and the world doesn’t need to be told when it sees religion that’s merely superficial: praying to God on the Sabbath and giving elaborate sacrifices on the Sabbath, and then the next day cheating in business. Or, making much of religion and yet oppressing the poor, as Christendom has, say, in Russia for centuries. If one day, Jerusalem, being purged of that misrepresentation of God, is going to be the centre of God’s teaching of the nations, well, that is a marvellous thing! That is God adhering to his original promise in creating Jerusalem. Does anybody here remember who founded Jerusalem?

Audience: David.

DWG: Yes, David founded Jerusalem. It was there that God decided that, eventually, the temple should be built. The tabernacle had been all over the place. The tabernacle, as such, was never at Jerusalem. It was the decision taken by God, first of all through David, to found Jerusalem and then eventually to guide David to have this temple built under Solomon at Jerusalem. This is the long tradition, and this chapter says that God is going to adhere to it in spite of Israel’s and Judah’s defection. God is not going to be beaten! God is never going to leave the field and say, ‘Well, I tried that project, you know, and it didn’t work, so I scrapped it.’ Not on your life, he isn’t!

Audience: It seems in chapter 1 that God is trying to get their ear, to get them to hear and learn and do, but in these few verses, they don’t have an option.

DWG: No, they’re not going to have an option.

Audience: They had no choice but to adhere to God’s plans, and they have to. So, isn’t that a change?

DWG: Well, of course, Isaiah will go on to tell us how the Lord is going to enforce this. He will tell us by what means this vision will be turned into a reality. We shall be told about the king, later on, who is going to do it.

Audience: So why doesn’t he do it now?

DWG: Ah, sir, now you’ve got a big question, haven’t you? Why doesn’t he turn you (I’m not being rude) and me into perfect saints forthwith?

Audience: That’s right. Why?

DWG: Well, because he is going to use with us what he used with Jerusalem. It is a matter of his training, his chastisement, his purging, sir.

Audience: Second Peter 3.

DWG: What does that say, sir?

Audience: The last few verses of 2 Peter 3 say,

Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. (vv. 14–18)

DWG: Amen.

Audience: I just wanted to expand a little bit on what someone else touched on. In 1:8 we saw Zion was desolate, that it was brought low like a cottage, like a lodge, like a besieged place. Now in 2:2 we see it exalted. Then in 1:20 we find that they refused, they rebelled. And now in verse 2:3, they say, ‘He will teach us of his ways, so that we will walk in his ways.’ Then in 1:25, in that section, we see that he said, ‘I will turn my hand upon you,’ but the way that he turns his hand upon them was to send the enemies in. Now in 2:4 they beat their swords into ploughshares.

Similarly, I’d just like to comment that 2:2 is a response to what is said earlier. In 1:5–8 the metaphor is speaking of Zion being desolated and surrounded by her enemies, those who are later described as those who came like a flood up to the neck’ (see 8:8). Here in 2:2 the top of the mountains will be exalted, and the nations will flow into them as they come to worship. Then, the response to the second denunciation is, ‘Come now, let us reason together’ (1:18), and in 2:3 they say, ‘Come and let us go to the mountain of the Lord, he will teach us his ways’. Rather than he will reason, it is he will teach.

DWG: Thank you very much for that; that is very good. So, we are getting the impression, then, that already this vision of the future, spoken of in terms relating to the rebellion of the people of God and their travesty of the law of God, one day is going to be reversed. I think very few nations, if they wanted to know how to carry on politically, would go to Jerusalem at the present, but one day they will. And the fact is that God says it here. How it will be done, and how he will deal with Israel to bring all this about, is the subject of the prophecy that will yet ensue. That gives us the courage to go and face all the detail, doesn’t it? The fact is, he’s going to do it anyway, and that gives us courage to read further and to find how it will be done.

What it means for Scripture to be fulfilled

In an earlier discussion a question was raised about a matter of interpretations that is relevant to our studies in Isaiah. It was this, that sometimes it is difficult to understand how the New Testament can say that such and such an Old Testament Scripture was fulfilled in such and such an event, because when one looks back to the passage that the New Testament quotes, the facts as given in the Old Testament seem not to bear relationship with the matter quoted in the New. So, let me take some of the examples that are normally and usually quoted.

Out of Egypt I called my Son

We start with Hosea 11:1.

When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

The straightforward reading of that verse in Hosea shows that it was not a prediction. This is a reference to something that happened centuries before in history, when Israel was a child, that is, nationally a child. God says, ‘Then I loved him and called my son out of Egypt’, through Moses and the Passover, of course. Seeing this was a record of an historical event, and didn’t begin to be a prediction, how can Matthew say (as he does in fact say) in his nativity stories, that that Scripture was fulfilled? The portion in Matthew is in chapter 2.

Now when [the wise men] had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, ‘Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.’ And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I called my son.’ (vv. 13–15)

The problem is this. How can the New Testament say that the verse from Hosea, which was never a prediction but referred to an historical event in the past, was fulfilled when the angel told Joseph and Mary to take the child Jesus to Egypt, and eventually indicated that the time was come for them to bring him back out of Egypt? That raises the question, therefore, as to what the New Testament means by the term ‘fulfil’. We easily comprehend the term if it is the fulfilment of a prediction, but the New Testament uses the term fulfil, not just of predictions being fulfilled, but of other things that are fulfilled in a somewhat different sense.

Until it is fulfilled in the kingdom

To show that is so, let me quote you now the Gospel by Luke, and the words of our Lord as he sat down at the Last Supper with his apostles.

And he said to them, ‘I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.’ (22:15–16)

Once more, the Passover was not a prediction. The yearly Passover in Israel was the memorial of a historic act that had taken place more than one thousand years ago, when God delivered the Israelites from the power of Pharaoh. It was a historic event that was celebrated annually thereafter in the Passover. It was not a prediction. So, in what sense can our Lord say that the Passover is going to be ‘fulfilled’?

There I suggest to you for your consideration the idea that the verb ‘fulfil’ in the New Testament is used, not merely of fulfilling prediction; it is used of events in the Old Testament that displayed certain basic principles, and those principles were later put into action at a much higher level. They were thus brought to their fill, thus was there meaning filled up. In other words, the redemption of Israel out of Egypt originally was brought about by the slaying of the Passover lamb that protected Israel from the destroying angel. Redemption by blood, therefore, was the principle used on that occasion. But that same principle of redemption by the blood of the Passover lamb was to be put into operation at a far higher level when our Lord Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice to God on our behalf. ‘We are redeemed,’ says Peter, ‘by the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb’ (see 1 Pet 1:18–19). By that simile, Peter is drawing our attention to the similarity of principle behind the original Exodus redemption by the blood of a lamb, and the principle at work in sacrifice in our Lord’s sacrifice in which we are redeemed by the blood of Christ as of a lamb.

I myself would use the phrase (not all use it of course) that Exodus was a prototype of the sacrifice of Christ. Here is an analogy to explain what I mean by that term. When I was a boy I used to run out of school when aeroplanes flew over. You can tell how old I am. They were funny looking machines, generally biplanes held together with brown paper and a little spit and elastic, but they managed to fly because they incorporated some basic notion of aeronautics, particularly the idea of the aileron, to split the air into the thinner and the thicker underneath that gives lift to the wings. They were, therefore, prototypes of the Boeing 747 that flies at thirty-five thousand feet, because though that is a much more sophisticated aircraft, yet it embodies, still, some of those basic principles of aeronautics. So, those early models were prototypes of the more advanced planes that would come. So were many things in the Old Testament prototypes of the coming great reality.

Concerning Abraham’s faith

Let me look at another usage of the New Testament of the verb ‘fulfil’, this time in James 2.

Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness’—and he was called a friend of God. (vv. 20–23)

A number of interesting points arise. The statement in Genesis 15:6 that Abraham believed the Lord and it was counted to him for righteousness, was surely a statement of fact. It wasn’t a statement of promise, and it certainly wasn’t a prediction. God was not saying, ‘Abraham, I predict that, having believed as you have, one of these days you will be justified.’ It wasn’t a prediction; it was a statement of fact. Abraham believed the Lord, and it was there and then counted to him for righteousness. If it was a statement of fact and not a prediction, how can James say that that statement in Genesis 15:6 was fulfilled by Abraham’s works, when he offered up his son on Mount Moriah?

To explain what he means by ‘fulfilled’ will take us a moment or two. It rests, of course, on our perception of what Abraham was being tested about when God commanded him to offer his son Isaac upon the altar and, in offering his son, he was justified by his works.

Sometimes, inadequate explanations are given of justification by works. I was brought up with such an inadequate explanation. It sounded good; however, it wasn’t true. The explanation was that we are ‘justified by faith before God; and we are justified by our works before men’. That sounded very good, but it is not quite true, as you see in Abraham’s case. When Abraham was justified by his works there weren’t any other men around about the place to see it, not even Sarah. And on the positive side, when Abraham offered his son Isaac, and reached for the knife and was going to plunge it into Isaac, the angel of the Lord restrained him and said, ‘Do not harm the lad, for now I know that you fear me’ (see 22:12). It is not a question of the Philistines knowing, or Sarah knowing, or anybody else knowing; it was a question of the angel of the Lord knowing: ‘Now I know.’

It is useless to argue, ‘But God knew in advance, surely?’

Well, surely he did. There are different kinds of knowledge, however. I know, as I sit here, that it is mightily freezing cold in the Antarctic. I know it because I’ve read it in books. And with what little arithmetic I have (I can count up to ten, at least), I could, I suppose, work it out mathematically that it must be freezing cold at the Antarctic. That is one kind of knowledge. I don’t know by having experienced it as a reality. God knew that I was going, one day, to exist. He foresaw it. I’m glad he wasn’t content with that and said, ‘I know Gooding is going to exist, so we won’t go on with the project of actually having him exist.’ No, he insisted on knowing it by experience. And God insists that we show him our faith by our works.

So, in what way did Abraham show his faith, and justify himself before God by showing that his faith was genuine? Hebrews 11 explains what was happening when Abraham offered his son Isaac upon the altar. There he was, with Isaac, of whom it was said, ‘In you, and in your seed, shall all the nations of the earth be blessed’ (see vv. 17–18; Gen 22:18). This is Abraham, who had received the promise that was vested in Isaac by God’s own terminology (namely, ‘In you, and in your seed, shall all the nations of the earth be blessed’). Here he was, says Hebrews, offering that son Isaac on the altar.

Think what that must have meant for Abraham. Years ago, he had complained to God that God richly blessed him with much wealth, but he hadn’t got a son to inherit it. And God had said, ‘I’ll give you a son.’ And Abraham believed the Lord that he was going to have a son, and it was counted to him for righteousness (see 15:1–6). God didn’t immediately give him the son, and in the interval Abraham’s faith wobbled considerably, and he tried to use Hagar, you remember, and so forth, but God wouldn’t accept Ishmael. And, at long last, Isaac was born, and now he had the son, and in him were all the promises. When God comes to Abraham and says, ‘Abraham, would you please give me your son,’ what was God saying? I think God was saying, ‘Abraham, your faith for the future, that in you and in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, where is your faith for that located exactly? Is it in me, or in Isaac?’

And Abraham said, ‘Oh, Lord, in you of course.’

‘And not in Isaac?’

‘Well, Lord, in you anyway.’

God says, ‘Perhaps we’ll make that clear, shall we, Abraham. You give Isaac to me.’

Well, if Abraham did that, then all his hope for the future was in God only, and he would be left with nothing but God. He had no hope of having another son. What Abraham was demonstrating by offering Isaac to God on the altar was that his faith was in God. That was the nature of the test. It was not, ‘Abraham, if you are really a believer, I ask you to give a bigger, heftier amount to your favourite charity this year than you did last.’

That’s a good thing to do, but this was a bigger test. When Abraham said his faith was in God, was that really true? Now when after some years of, as I say, somewhat wobbly behaviour, that original Scripture that said ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness’ was put to the test as to where his faith was for the future, Abraham rose to the occasion. He showed his faith was actually and really and genuinely in God, and God only.

In that sense, the original Scripture: ‘he believed God’ was fulfilled at the highest level of possible demonstration. That, surely, is what James means. It wasn’t that Genesis 15 was a prediction; it was that the principle involved in Genesis 15:6 of faith in God was now demonstrated at the highest possible level. His faith was in God and nothing else.

Therefore, it is a somewhat different meaning of the verb ‘to fulfil’ than maybe we who think of it simply as the fulfilling of a prediction, are accustomed to.

Rachel weeping for her children

Now, let’s take another case that has raised a lot of theological eyebrows. This is, again, from Matthew 2, and concerns the slaying of the innocents by Herod when he slew all the little children in Bethlehem under the age of two.

Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah: ‘A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.’ (vv. 17–18)

That is from Jeremiah. Let’s keep our thumb in Matthew but turn now to Jeremiah 31:15.

Thus says the Lord: ‘A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more.’ Thus says the Lord: ‘Keep your voice from weeping, and your eyes from tears, for there is a reward for your work, declares the Lord, and they shall come back from the land of the enemy. There is hope for your future, declares the Lord, and your children shall come back to their own country. (vv. 15–17)

Notice some things about the passage in Jeremiah. ‘A voice is heard in Ramah, . . . Rachel is weeping’. As you notice, it is not an individual woman called Rachel doing the weeping. Rachel stands for Israel, Jacob’s favourite wife, buried down in that part of the world (near Bethlehem), but she stands for the nation, as you might talk about ‘Mother Russia weeping for her sons’. So Mother Rachel is weeping for her children. She, the ancestress of the Israelites, who is buried in that part of the world. What was she weeping for her children for? Well, presumably at this stage in Jeremiah, it is because a lot of them had been taken away from Zion by their enemies, and gone into captivity. So, Mother Rachel is weeping for her lost citizens, and she is comforted by the thought that there is hope at the latter end, ‘your children, your citizens shall come again’. And as Jeremiah had seen, many of the children, so-called, had gone down to Egypt to escape the Babylonians. Now Rachel is being promised that ‘your children, that is, your citizens, shall come again, so don’t weep’.

If you turn therefore to Matthew, here is a situation where the Messiah himself has been born. He was born in Bethlehem, not far off from where Rachel was buried. If you like, you could say he is one of Mother Rachel’s children, but a very special one of course, for he is the Messiah. And now because of the hostility against him in the land of Israel itself, he has been obliged to be taken by his parents down to Egypt. And a voice is heard in Ramah. That is Mother Rachel mourning because of the loss, not only of the infants in Bethlehem, but of the Messiah. If they knew of it they would have grieved even more, wouldn’t they? Statistically, people estimate that not more than about twenty children would have perished, the size of Bethlehem being what it was at the time. There weren’t great massacres of hundreds of children. It was a small little place, and the number of children under two years of age might not have exceeded twenty or so in the whole village.

Audience: Are you connecting verses 17 and 18 back to verse 13, rather than back to verse 16?

DWG: Oh well, I’m taking the whole thing, the whole consequence. You had an impostor on the throne, so to speak. Herod was there in the very nation, to persecute the Messiah. And for the sake of persecuting the Messiah and trying to kill him, he was having the children in Bethlehem all massacred as well; and Mother Rachel would weep at the loss of her children. And now you consider one of the children that Herod’s hostility did not manage to kill but drove his family to take him away to escape and go down to Egypt. Yes, if that were the end of it, Mother Rachel would have great occasion to weep. But Matthew is reminding her that she needn’t weep too much, because her children shall return. That was the message to Mother Rachel in Jeremiah’s time. And you see the thing now fulfilled that the Messiah as a child, having to flee out of the country from the face of the impostor Herod, shall return under God’s good promise, and did return and was brought back from Egypt. The situation therefore was not lost.

There is a parallel, therefore, between the two events. What Jeremiah said wasn’t a prediction. I don’t think Matthew was claiming it was a prediction. It is, once more, the similarity of the principle involved in the Old Testament situation, and between that similarity and this New Testament situation.

Out of Egypt I called my son

Audience: I have a question on the earlier prophecy about ‘out of Egypt I called my son’ (Hos 11:1). You said you were taking an older prototype event as a principle and bringing it to a high, ultimate fulfilment. But the descent of a baby with its mother and father, and then being brought up a few years later, though he be the Son of God himself, seems so, if you will pardon me, out of proportion compared to the existing of the nation there for four hundred and thirty years, and the coming out in Exodus.

DWG: The situation, my dear sir, is in the calling: ‘out of Egypt I called my son.’ And you will notice the care with which Matthew relates what the angel says. ‘Take this child to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you to come out’ (see 2:13). Joseph was not left to decide by his own wisdom when it was safe to bring the child back; the angel sent by God was to tell Joseph when the time arrived that he was to come back. It is, ‘out of Egypt I called my son.’

Audience: The principle is in the calling?

DWG: Yes, that the whole thing was arranged by God.

Audience: Not so much in Egypt?

DWG: That’s right, yes, though the same country, Egypt, was a refuge from time to time to the patriarchs, and was to our Lord as well. But it is under God’s control. In spite of Herod and company, the evacuation to Egypt was under God’s control when he sent them there by an angel.

You remember when Jacob was faced with the decision: should he or should he not go and take with him his extended family to Egypt when Isaac had been told to stay in Palestine and in Canaan, and not go down to Egypt? And as Jacob, in his old age, wondered should he or should he not go down to Egypt, the Lord appeared to him, says Genesis, and said, ‘Go down to Egypt, don’t be afraid, and I will bring you back again’ (see 46:1–4). The fact is that all of it was under the control of God. In Jacob’s case, the going down to Egypt, the preservation and development of his family, and then the nation was there to the time determined by God beforehand and then called out through Moses. So, with our Lord, it wasn’t just Herod’s hostility, it was the divine intervention that sent an angel to conduct the evacuation to Egypt, and then it was at the explicit call of God that Joseph took his family out of Egypt and back to the land of Israel and eventually to the district of Galilee and the town of Nazareth, which fulfilled another thing the prophets had said. But we will not look at that just now (Matt 2:19–23). 

4: God’s Second Denunciation in Isaiah 2:5–4:1

Part 1A (1:1–6:13) Continued

Differential diagnosis

In Isaiah 1:1–31 we have God’s denunciation of his people’s rebellion. That is followed by a prophecy of millennial glory in 2:1–4. The verses from 2:5–4:1 are likewise concerned with God’s denunciation of his people’s sin, but at 4:2 and throughout the rest of chapter 4 comes another one of these prophecies, which are typical of Isaiah, of the coming day of glory and restoration. So our task in this session is to do our best to understand the leading thought behind the denunciation, and then once more to ask ourselves if the prophecy of restoration and glory that follows in chapter 4 is in any way related to the denunciation that has preceded it. And now we have the added advantage that we can compare and contrast the vision of glory that is given to us in chapter 4 with the vision of glory that was given to us in chapter 2.

It seems to me it is a useful practical principle of biblical interpretation that when you get two or more passages that have something in common, a similar theme, the more important thing than simply noticing the similarity is to do a little differential diagnosis upon them. These two passages, for instance, are both prophecies of the coming restoration and glory.

Forgive the humble analogy that I use. If three men present themselves to their doctor complaining of a sore throat, then they are all similar in the fact that they have a sore throat, but no medic would simply prescribe aspirin to all three simply because they all have a sore throat. He would bid the first one open his cavern and, looking down it, he might say, ‘Ah, were you at the football match recently, shouting your head off supporting your team?’

‘Yes, I was.’

‘Well, go home and keep quiet for the next half a day, if you can manage it. That will do you.’

Looking down the throat of the second man, he says, ‘Ah, you have laryngitis. Some antibiotics would be your cure.’

Then looking down the third man’s throat, he says, ‘Ah, I shall have to take a specimen.’ He doesn’t prescribe antibiotics, nor silence. He’s afraid the man has got an incipient cancer of the throat. The similarities are interesting but more important are the differences, and differential diagnosis is one of the basic tools of any doctor worth his salt.

So it can be in Scripture. If it ever happened that you were asked to speak two nights running, the first night on the prophecy of glory in chapter 2 and the second night on the prophecy of glory in chapter 4, what would you do? Would you expound the second prophecy as being a repetition of the first one and say, ‘We considered that last night so no more needs to be said’, and let the people go home early? How would you know how to get two sermons out of these two prophecies of glory if you didn’t do a little differential diagnosis on them? We shall consider, then, the second of the two prophecies of glory and restoration, understanding it, if we can, in its own right, but at the same time comparing it and contrasting it with the first prophecy of glory.

Two related questions

Before we settle down to what is our prime task in this session, let me just make a further observation in the answer to a question raised earlier. If, in the prophecy of glory we considered in chapter 2, God announces that he’s going to bring in this restoration, why doesn’t he do it immediately? That is question number one. Question number two is whether there is any relation between this and the denunciation and appeals God makes in chapter 1.

One observation to make is that the reason why God waits to bring in the day of glory is because in chapter 1 he had indicated what the process will have to be. He cannot set up the Lord’s house on the mountain in Jerusalem and conveniently forget the behaviour of Israel and Judah who used to inhabit it. If the mountain of the house of the Lord is going to be exalted in Zion, then the process will have to be gone through that is indicated, for instance, in 1:24–26. First of all, there will be the purging of Judah and Israel and, secondly, the restoration.

And I will restore your judges as at the first, and your counsellors as at the beginning. Afterwards you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city. (v. 26)

God cannot do it without the process. That is an important principle to be observed.

You could quote a similar process from the New Testament, if you care. When Paul talks about the setting aside of Israel in Romans 11, he first of all denies that they have been once and for all, permanently and forever, set aside. They shall be restored. But what would Paul say in that chapter if you asked him your question? If God is going to restore them, why doesn’t he do it forthwith?

We who know the history of the long centuries that have passed since Paul wrote Romans 11 may find the question enforced in our minds. In Romans 11 Paul points out that God has ‘shut up all unto disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all’ (v. 32 rv). That is the English translation that I have in front of me. The context of that is Romans 11:30 onwards. ‘For as you in time past were disobedient to God [that is, you Gentiles], but now have obtained mercy by their disobedience . . .’ This means you, as Gentiles, disobeyed, refused to believe, refused to accept God’s moral laws that were written on their hearts (and written on the tablets of stone for Israel).

Gentiles were disobedient. Paul is using that word, common throughout the New Testament, to indicate the refusal to believe. This refusal to believe is on the part of people who hear the word of God and deliberately reject it. They have no intention of believing it. They hear the gospel and likewise deliberately reject it. Now, we were once like that as Gentiles, but through Israel’s disobedience (meaning their rejection of the gospel of the Lord Jesus), this mercy has gone out to the Gentiles.

He continues, ‘Even so have these also now been disobedient’ (v. 31 rv). The revelation given to Israel and Judah, and Jerusalem in particular, has been brought to a crowning disobedience in the rejection and the murder of their Messiah. ‘. . . that by the mercy shown to you they also may now obtain mercy’ (v. 31 rv). Meaning, Gentiles in their Gentile ways were disobedient to God, but that disobedience has been broken by submission to the Messiah and belief in the gospel, and Gentiles have had mercy shown to them. One day it will provoke the Jews to jealousy, says Paul. And we come again to verse 32, ‘God has shut up all unto disobedience’. You notice the similar phrase in Galatians that says, ‘shut up all unto sin’ (3:22 own trans.), but in Romans 11, true to the argument of the context, Paul says ‘God has shut up all unto disobedience’ (rv), disobedience meaning the same thing: that people refuse the clearly revealed word of God. Here, Paul says God has ‘shut them up’ to it.

What can he mean? Well, you will never get saved until you first understand you are an unbeliever. Let me repeat that. If you are going to repent and believe the gospel, you will first have to decide that until now you have not been a believer in the only sense that matters. You may have believed in the existence of God. You may have believed, apparently, that the Bible is the word of God. But until you have seen yourself as both a sinner and to this point an unbeliever, that is, you have never really believed the Saviour, you will never take the step of believing him.

Had you gone to Saul of Tarsus, as he was driving his chariot beyond the speed limit up the road to Damascus, and asked him if he was a believer, what do you suppose he would have said?

‘I do believe in God. Of course, I’m a believer!’

He wasn’t, was he? In the only sense that mattered, Saul of Tarsus was an unbeliever; and while he prided himself on his supposed knowledge of God and his monotheism, when God appeared incarnate in our world, Paul sought to eliminate his name from the very earth. As he confesses to us in 1 Timothy how God had mercy on him, and why, he says, ‘I obtained mercy, in spite of the fact that I was a vicious persecutor. I obtained mercy, because I did it in ignorance and unbelief’ (see 1:13). That proud Jew, who thought he was a believer, was brought to his knees and shown to be disobedient, in that technical sense of the term, having refused the gospel, and knew himself to be a downright unbeliever. And he says God waits to do it for Israel as a whole. Until they will come to acknowledge that, in the only sense that matters, they are unbelievers and have been disobedient to the revelation of God in their Messiah, then there can be no restoration. You and I may marvel that it apparently takes God so many centuries to perform this for them. But there is the fact, and with it the guarantee, that one day Israel will be brought to repentance, to the acknowledgement of their deliberate unbelief, and thus be restored.

The definition of disobedience

DWG: Has anybody got any further comment on that before we move on?

Audience: Could you define your technical definition of disobedience again, please?

DWG: In Greek, the word apeitheo means to fail to be persuaded. It is frequently translated, therefore, ‘to disobey’, but it is that kind of disobedience that refuses to accept the truth when it is put before one. It is not just thinking of disobeying a particular rule or commandment. And the noun that goes with it, apeitheia, is disobedience in that sense. If you want an example of it in the New Testament, you may care to look at Acts 13 and 14. Acts 13 is the story of Paul preaching the gospel in the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch. The Gentiles, in particular, were very interested, and they came the next Sabbath to hear it. The Jews became jealous (see vv. 13–52). Chapter 14 says, ‘Now at Iconium they entered together into the Jewish synagogue and spoke in such a way that a great number of both Jews and Greeks believed’ (v. 1). That is, they believed the gospel. ‘But the Jews that were disobedient . . .’ (v. 2 rv). There is the word used, and you see immediately from its context what it means. It is the Jews, not now those who had failed to keep the Sabbath correctly one day and had failed to obey a particular commandment, but the Jews, who deliberately rejected the gospel.

As far as I am aware, this is a word in the New Testament that, along with its cognates, is never used of a believer, by definition. John 3:18 sums it up, ‘He that believes has everlasting life. He that . . .’. Your King James says, ‘believes not’, but it is this word for the one that disobeys, in the sense of rejecting the gospel.

Audience: Can that same word be used for Titus 3:3 when it talks about us being foolish and disobedient?

DWG: Well, I haven’t my Greek Testament in front of me. I suspect it is so, but I can point you to Titus 1:16, which says, ‘They profess that they know God; but by their works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient’ (rv).

Audience: Would you use the same word of Agrippa in Acts 26, where Paul says to him, ‘King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do.’ Then Agrippa said to Paul, ‘Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?’ (see vv. 27–28).

DWG: Well, yes, I think that God waits with people, as he waited with Saul in his unconverted days. God doesn’t immediately cut people off, but when the attitude becomes fixed, there comes a point where people go beyond the point of no return. That is a matter we shall have to consider frequently in Isaiah, and we may further answer your question then. Even in this session we may have to consider that particular question.

Audience: How about when Paul says he was not disobedient to the heavenly vision (Acts 26:19). Is that the same sentiment?

DWG: Raise it in the question time will you please? I will then get out my Greek Testament and we’ll look at that specifically.

Let’s now proceed, because time runs on, and come to the second denunciation.

God’s denunciation of his people’s sins (2:5–4:1)

Degradation through idolatry (2:5–9)

God’s second denunciation of his people’s sins begins from 2:5 and will go to 4:1. We haven’t the time now to consider this in all its detail. Let me, therefore, suggest that from 2:5–9 we have this particular effect of sin, that it humiliates and degrades those that take part in it.

O house of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the Lord. For you have rejected your people, the house of Jacob, because they are full of things from the east and of fortune-tellers like the Philistines, and they strike hands with the children of foreigners. Their land is filled with silver and gold, and there is no end to their treasures; their land is filled with horses, and there is no end to their chariots. Their land is filled with idols; they bow down to the work of their hands, to what their own fingers have made. So man is humbled, and each one is brought low—do not forgive them! (2:5–9)

The particular sin is that of idolatry, as you see from verse 8. One cannot escape that repetition and where it is leading. Their land is filled with customs from the East, customs from those countries that were idolatrous to their core. Then there is the prosperity that came through commerce. Their land also is full of silver; there is no end of it. The land is full of horses; there is no end of them. Yes, but the affluence that has come, all right by itself, has had the additional effect of bringing idolatry into Jacob. The people have adopted the standards of the world with whom they did commerce. Their hearts have been taken with idolatry and, typical of Isaiah, he now describes idolatry as worshipping the work of their own hands, and that which their own fingers have made.

What is the result? ‘So man is humbled, and each one is brought low—do not forgive them! (v. 9). It is the self-degrading of mankind. For a man to bow down and worship the work of his own hands, as a god, is a terrible demeaning of the glory of man.

That is a thing to be remembered, even in our own modern society. Those who strive to get rid of God think that God is a tyrant who will keep them down, and so they don’t acknowledge him. To be free, they must get rid of God so they can assert man’s true autonomy and glory. You can watch the eventual effect upon them. Having got rid of God to their satisfaction, they have the sense left to see that they didn’t create themselves, and then the sense left to see that they didn’t create the universe either. So, they are driven to the question of where they come from. What are the powers that made them and that one day will destroy them? Not willing to believe in God the creator, they have to suppose that humankind is the product of impersonal, mindless, purposeless powers and forces, and that human intellect is the product of these mindless things. Marvellous. And one day these same impersonal forces will destroy their intellects. The final irony will be that, when those powers have done it, they won’t even know they have done it.

What a conclusion for human intellect to come to: that human intellect is the product of, and will eventually be the victim of, mindless forces that will be superior to human intellect, and destroy it. The idolater eventually demeans himself, as distinct from the biblical account of creation that man was made in the image of God, and made to be God’s viceroy over earth.

‘Now, therefore,’ the prophet says, ‘forgive them not.’ This is meant in the sense that they will not be forgiven. If you will not repent of idolatry there can be no forgiveness. These are the terms of conversion. They ‘turned to God from idols’ (1 Thess 1:9). You cannot put your faith in God and idols at the same time.

Humbled by glory (2:10–22)

Now look at verse 10 and following, to the end of that chapter. Here is the true humbling of humankind.

Enter into the rock and hide in the dust from before the terror of the Lord, and from the splendour of his majesty. The haughty looks of man shall be brought low, and the lofty pride of men shall be humbled, and the Lord alone will be exalted in that day. For the Lord of hosts has a day . . . (2:10–12)

Our true values, our true idea of exaltation and glory and significance, and dignity in the sense of worth, come from the fact that we are the creatures of the almighty God. To see his glory is overpowering for a believer. To see his glory and know that we are his handiwork, made by him and for him, made in his image and redeemed by him, is to get a sense of our own significance. Or, if you feel like I do (too often to be healthy for us) that you are a bit of a worm, well, don’t keep on dwelling on it. You probably are a worm, like me, and as the Lord says later in Isaiah, ‘you worm Jacob’ (41:14). The way to cure it is not to lament it, but to get your eyes on the glory of God. How wise of our Lord to constantly ask us to come and remember him. To get our eyes on the glory of God, even though it flattens us in the dust, is to begin to get some concept of our real glory: made in his image, redeemed by the blood of Christ and, by God’s own decision and intended purpose, to be conformed to the image of his Son. We do well to say with Moses, ‘Oh, Lord show us your glory!’ (see Exod 33:18).

But to see that glory if you are unconverted; that is, and will be, another story. And the time is coming (look at the rest of Isaiah 2) which talks about the Day of the Lord, when people will go into the mountains and cry to the mountains to cover them. In their disgust at their idols, they will throw them down the nearest hole.

When you read the final words of chapter 2, what event do you suppose that is talking about? Let me read it while you think about it.

For the Lord of hosts has a day against all that is proud and lofty, against all that is lifted up—and it shall be brought low; against all the cedars of Lebanon, lofty and lifted up; and against all the oaks of Bashan; against all the lofty mountains, and against all the uplifted hills; against every high tower, and against every fortified wall; against all the ships of Tarshish, and against all the beautiful craft. And the haughtiness of man shall be humbled, and the lofty pride of men shall be brought low, and the Lord alone will be exalted in that day. And the idols shall utterly pass away. And people shall enter the caves of the rocks and the holes of the ground, from before the terror of the Lord, and from the splendour of his majesty, when he rises to terrify the earth. In that day mankind will cast away their idols of silver and their idols of gold, which they made for themselves to worship, to the moles and to the bats, to enter the caverns of the rocks and the clefts of the cliffs, from before the terror of the Lord, and from the splendour of his majesty, when he rises to terrify the earth. (vv. 12–21)

Audience: It sounds like the last lines of Revelation 6.

DWG: Well, just read them, sir.

Audience: This is from verse 15.

Then the kings of the earth, the nobles, the commanders, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and free man hid in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains. And they said to the mountains and the rocks, ‘Fall on us and hide us from the face of the One seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb. For the great day of Their wrath has come, and who is able to withstand it?’ (vv. 15–17 bsb)

DWG: Yes, indeed. And you might say, why doesn’t God do it at once? But when God is revealed then Christ comes in power and great glory, and, so to speak, the veil that hides the unseen world from the seen world is drawn aside, and men see God and the Lamb upon the throne. Then, if they are not saved, what can be done for them? It is against that background of Revelation 6, you will remember, that Revelation 7 describes for us that great multitude that no one can number. It is said of them that they stand before the throne. And when the elder enquires of John, ‘Who are they? From where do they come?’ John says politely, ‘But I don’t know. You tell me.’ Then the elder replies, ‘These are they that came out of the great tribulation. They washed their robes, and made them white, that is in the blood of the lamb, therefore they are before the throne’ (see vv. 13–15). That is in vivid contrast to these in chapter 6 who, when the throne is exposed to view, hide themselves in the rocks and call upon the rocks to cover them. This great multitude in chapter 7 stand before the throne, in full view of it, unafraid, by God’s mercy, because they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

At that thought you may shout your private hallelujah. Whether your interpretation of Revelation leads you to think you belong to that great multitude or not, your standing before the throne of God is on the same ground anyway. We can understand why God will not hurry to show his glory in that fashion while he waits, if it might be that repentance may come to those that have rejected his word so far.

Sin and societal breakdown (3:1–15)

Then, whereas from 2:5 the house of Jacob is addressed, chapter 3 talks to those from Jerusalem once more, and from Judah. The result of their sin and idolatry is the turning upside down of society.

For behold, the Lord God of hosts is taking away from Jerusalem and from Judah support and supply, all support of bread, and all support of water; the mighty man and the soldier, the judge and the prophet, the diviner and the elder, the captain of fifty and the man of rank, the counsellor and the skilful magician and the expert in charms. And I will make boys their princes, and infants shall rule over them. (vv. 1–4)

It is the fact that, according to the Bible, there is a hierarchy in human life. It is not much liked in this modern world where everybody is supposed to be equal, but in Scripture there is a hierarchy. There is the ruler upon his throne; there is the elder; there are the children. Not only do we see that their daily food would be diminished (v. 1), but look at the chaos in society. The Lord takes away the mighty man, and the man of war. Or, perhaps also, the exalted official and then the military man. He takes away the judge, in legal affairs, and the prophet, and the diviner, and the ancient (v. 2); the captain of fifty, and the honourable man, and the counsellor, and the cunning artificer, that is, he that is expert in technology and art, and the enchanter (v. 3). Then he says, ‘And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them’ (v. 4 rv). That doesn’t mean that he is going to set up eight-month-old babies over them He is talking about the experts no longer allowed to be experts, and people that have very little experience put over them instead. Society is going topsy-turvy.

And the people will oppress one another, every one his fellow and every one his neighbour; the youth will be insolent to the elder, and the despised to the honourable. (v. 5)

How near we are coming to that, I must let you tell me. The next chaotic thing is this.

For a man will take hold of his brother in the house of his father, saying: ‘You have a cloak; you shall be our leader, and this heap of ruins shall be under your rule’; (v. 6)

In other words, if you can provide our physical needs and a new suit of clothes, that is the qualification for being the Prime Minister.

in that day he will speak out, saying: ‘I will not be a healer; in my house there is neither bread nor cloak; you shall not make me leader of the people.’ (v. 7)

This is unwillingness to take responsibility.

For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongue and their doings are against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of his glory. (v. 8 rv)

If you lose the sense of the glory of God, and the status that God gives in the created world through the hierarchies that he ordains of parents and child, of employer and employee, of ruler and ruled, of teacher and pupil, then you lose your hold on the society that God himself has created, and eventually there comes chaos.

Look at verse 9.

For the look on their faces bears witness against them; they proclaim their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! For they have brought evil on themselves. Tell the righteous that it shall be well with them, for they shall eat the fruit of their deeds. Woe to the wicked! It shall be ill with him, for what his hands have dealt out shall be done to him. (vv. 9–11).

His own attitudes will bring his own judgment and loss. That is a principle of God’s judgment. So then, the prophet laments the social iniquities of the city, and the oppression, from verses 12–15.

The misuse of beauty (3:16–4:1)

Finally, God speaks via the prophet to the women. I don’t suppose God is against adornment per se. I always remember that our Lord commented upon the way God has clothed the lilies of the field. I think our Lord was rather proud of the beautiful colours: ‘Why, Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these!’ (see Matt 6:29). God has his idea about style, doesn’t he? He isn’t the God of the scruffy, but of the beautiful; but beauty can be a dangerous thing. It is said of that personage that many people believe is Satan himself, ‘You are the sum of all beauty,’ before he fell (see Ezek 28:12). And when beauty and adornment become a god or goddess and the sole pursuit of a human being, then such superficiality is sad indeed. There comes the tendency to displace true values, the true glory of the Lord and of his people.

James had to rebuke the tendency, even if he was still a member of a synagogue when he wrote, ‘Who are you to show respect of persons? There comes in a wealthy brother, well arrayed with the latest Savile Row tailoring, and you come and say, “Sit at this prominent place here.” The poor brother comes in his dilapidated clothing, and you say, “Sit here, beneath my footstool.”’ James rebukes it, in the name of what? He says ‘You cannot show such discrimination of people, and hold it alongside of the faith of the Lord of glory’ (see 2:1–4). We need a true sense of the Lord’s glory, and we must realize that that dear brother, poorly clothed, belongs to the Lord and shall shine one of these days with all the radiance of the glory of the character of Christ. How can you discriminate against him like that, and put him to shame because externally his clothes, and perhaps his personal hygiene, leave a lot to be desired?

So we have this denunciation of the women at the start of chapter 4.

And seven women shall take hold of one man in that day, saying, ‘We will eat our own bread and wear our own clothes, only let us be called by your name; take away our reproach.’ (v. 1)

It is possible that the seven women take hold of one man because, in the sundry invasions that had taken place throughout Israel and then Judah, many of the menfolk had fallen in battle to the Assyrians and others. The male population being decimated, it was difficult for women to find men to marry, and the shame of remaining single in those societies was such that now they were prepared to reverse the normal role. Instead of the husband being responsible to provide for his wife, these women are prepared to provide for him, instead of he for them, so long as they each be counted as his wife.

You see then how, throughout this section, the emphasis is on idolatry and injustice in society leading to the loss of a sense of God’s glory and the values that stream to us from God’s glory. Society becomes topsy-turvy in its values.

Now, that is a woefully inadequate treatment of the passage, but if that is somewhere near to what is happening in this denunciation of the sins of the people, we shall see at once that it is somewhat different from that first lot of denunciations in chapter 1. This is adding a different slant upon the people’s sins. We shall then have to ask the question, how does the particular promise and prophecy of the coming restoration and glory that follows in 4:2–6 chime in with this particular denunciation of the people’s sin? Perhaps it doesn’t, and if you don’t find it so, well say so. There is no need why we shall force anything into a predetermined sense. But it is worth investigating whether there are any ideas in the prophecy of restoration that bear any connection of thought or resemblance to the denunciation that has gone before.

If that is clear then the clock says we should take a break now, and there is time for you to think about it, and to come back ready to answer the questions and make contributions. You will remember the principle of these periods of questions and contributions is that I give the questions, and you are to answer them and bring your contributions.

5: Questions and Contributions

Two Millennial Prophecies (2:1–4; 4:2–6)

A follow up on the definition of disobedience

Earlier we were discussing the word disobedient and how it is used. I was making the point that this particular word for disobedience (and disobey and disobedient) means ‘to refuse to be persuaded’. It is used not of believers breaking this or that commandment of the Lord, but of rejection of the gospel. Our friend quoted the two instances of the occurrence of that word, or its cognates, in Acts 26. This is Paul standing before King Agrippa, and he described his vision at the time of his conversion, how he was struck down by the glory of Christ and heard the voice speaking to him, and so forth. It is the moment of his conversion. And having described it, Paul says in verse 19, ‘Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision,’ and he uses the adjective apeithes, cognate with those words there on the blackboard, meaning that he did not reject the gospel or the Lord that appeared to him in glory, but repented and trusted Christ. Then our friend pointed out that, at the end of Paul’s address, Paul said to the king, ‘“King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe.” And Agrippa said to Paul, “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian [to behave as a Christian]?”’ (vv. 27–28). The word again is peithes, the verb this time: persuade. As far we know, Agrippa did not allow himself to be persuaded. Paul did. He was not disobedient to the heavenly vision that occurred at his conversion.

The prophecy of Isaiah 4:2–6 and the previous denunciation

Now we come back to Isaiah, and the duty and exercise before us is to consider 4:2–6. I would like somebody who has the text in front of him to read it in loud, stentorian tones so that we can all hear it, and survey again the details of this lovely vision of the coming glory.

Audience: I’m reading from the New King James Version.

In that day the Branch of the Lord shall be beautiful and glorious; and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and appealing for those of Israel who have escaped. And it shall come to pass that he who is left in Zion and remains in Jerusalem will be called holy—everyone who is recorded among the living in Jerusalem. When the Lord has washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and purged the blood of Jerusalem from her midst, by the spirit of judgment and by the spirit of burning, then the Lord will create above every dwelling place of Mount Zion, and above her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day and the shining of a flaming fire by night. For over all the glory there will be a covering. And there will be a tabernacle for shade in the daytime from the heat, for a place of refuge, and for a shelter from storm and rain. (4:2–6 nkjv)

Understanding the language of the prophecy

DWG: Thank you very much. Our first task then, is to try to understand the language in which this prophecy is expressed. Perhaps you will follow me down the verses, and tell me what I ought to think is their meaning.

The identity of the branch (v. 2)

DWG: ‘In that day shall the branch of the Lord shall be beautiful and glorious’ (v. 2). The branch of the Lord being what?

Audience: Shoot or sprout.

DWG: Shoot or sprout.

Audience: I think it refers to the King.

DWG: Where do you place that idea, sir?

Audience: Chapter 11 verse 1.

DWG: That says what?

Audience: ‘And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a branch out of his roots shall bear fruit. And the Spirit of Jehovah shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding.’

DWG: I see. So, this refers to Messiah, the King?

Audience: I believe so.

DWG: From the root of Jesse? Are all agreed? No, somebody over here doesn’t.

Audience: Actually, I just wanted to add from Isaiah 53: ‘For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, And as a root out of dry ground’ (v. 2 nkjv).

DWG: So, here, everybody agrees that this is Messiah himself.

What the branch shall be (v. 2)

DWG: ‘In that day the branch of the Lord shall be . . .’ Now, how do you understand the next words? If I said the Lord, when he comes, will be powerful and mighty and victorious, you would have to agree. So, does it matter that this doesn’t say that? The branch of the Lord shall be what?

Audience: Beautiful.

DWG: Beautiful and what?

Audience: Glorious.

DWG: And you take that to mean that he will be full of beauty, his face like the sun? What kind of beauty is this?

Audience: Lordly?

DWG: One suggestion is lordliness.

Audience: Moral beauty.

DWG: What do you mean by moral beauty?

Audience: One shining in his own person, in his character.

DWG: So a beautiful character, you mean?

Audience: Holy.

DWG: Holy? Yes, holiness is a beautiful thing, isn’t it?

Audience: Isn’t this the same expression that is used for the high priest’s garments?

DWG: Beauty and glory? Yes. God is a god of beauty, whether it is the external insignia of office, as with the high priest, or the character, holiness is a beautiful thing.

Audience: There is an inward difference as opposed to this superficial, outward adorning of the end of chapter 3.

DWG: Ah, so now our good friend is suggesting that this prophecy of glory has something to do with what goes before.

Audience: Is there a phrase somewhere called ‘the desire of women’ that refers to the Messiah? I’m thinking here in the context of women. And the branch, or the sprout, is the idea of a son; and the fruit, the fruitfulness is what a woman wants, that’s why she wants to be married. The beauty is what they lost, but it’s found in Messiah. And I wonder if there are connections there?

DWG: Your phrase ‘the desire of women’, I think, is taken from the prophecy of Daniel in chapter 11, is it not?

Audience: That’s not the use I’ve been thinking of, but yes that’s right.

DWG: The wilful king will not have regard to the desire of women (see Dan 11:36–37).

Audience: Yes, but maybe I’ve rushed into that idea.

DWG: Right-ho. Anyway, now we are introduced at once to the beauty of the Lord Jesus. As some others remarked, in contrast to the false, superficial beauty that we read of with the women (3:16–26), and earlier with the lofty looks of man and so forth and so on, ‘In that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel’ (4:2 rv).

The fruit of the land (v. 2)

DWG: What is the fruit of the land? Is it sliced tomatoes or something?

Audience: ‘Land’ can be translated ‘earth’ as well. I think it’s the fruit that was Zion’s souls, being glorious for the remainder of Israel.

DWG: I see. One view therefore, from the front here, is that the fruit of the land is the fruit of those converted to Messiah. He shall ‘see of the fruit of his travail’ (see 53:11). Any other view?

Audience: Society.

DWG: Society in general? In other words, this is a metaphor, not simply that the land will be restored to the glory of Eden, so its fruit shall be very tasty, but fruit of the land in that deeper sense of which God planted a vineyard. We are going to read of it in chapter 5. And he looked for good fruit and there wasn’t; there was only bitter fruit. He looked for justice, tsadqah, and behold, a cry of misery and anguish, and so forth (see v. 7). Or, ‘the fruit’ of Sodom and Gomorrah, meaning the behaviour of the people. So, this is the Lord himself being glorious and beautiful, and the people likewise?

Audience: I would say that the blessing that the Lord gives his people is something like the blessing of being given a land flowing with milk and honey.

DWG: As distinct from all the devastation that has been previously described in the chapter before?

Audience: It seems to be a contrast with what is said in chapter 2 about the land being full of many things but ultimately full of idolatry. Perhaps there is a connection with these verses.

DWG: Yes, surely. Good.

For those who have escaped (v. 2)

DWG: ‘. . . and the fruit of the land shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel’ (v. 2 rv). What does that mean? Escaped from what?

Audience: The preceding wrath.

DWG: Yes, those that are escaped, meaning under the great disciplines of God that shall fall upon the nation as described in chapter 2. Those that have escaped are those that have escaped from that wrath of God. Is that your meaning? Are people agreed on that?

Audience: Is this the opposite of the fig tree that the Lord curses on the way to Jerusalem?

DWG: Well, if you like, yes. That is obviously a very symbolic action. As he was coming to Jerusalem, he cursed the fig tree because, in spite of all its leaves, it didn’t have the fruit appropriate to that time of year. And Israel, as a nation with all its glorious temple and outward show was, at its heart, bitter fruit (see Matt 21).

Shall be called holy (v. 3)

DWG: ‘And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remains in Jerusalem, shall be called holy’ (v. 3 rv). What does that mean?

Audience: The holy remnant?

DWG: The holy remnant? The leftover?

Audience: The ones that are not judged.

DWG: Yes. And only those in Zion and in Jerusalem?

Audience: I think that at this point we come to the realization that Zion and Jerusalem are not only literal Zion and Jerusalem, but the community of God’s people. I think there’s a larger meaning.

DWG: Hold that thought for a moment, and someone else had his hand up, I believe.

Audience: I was just going to reference Romans 11 where Paul is talking about the root being holy, and the branches as well, in the context of the coming of the deliverer of Zion. Would you see any connection here with that thought?

DWG: Yes, presumably because we are now talking about the remnant that will be preserved. But I would incline also to the view just expressed that we are not any longer thinking in terms of just a few thousand that got inside the walls of the Jerusalem that was, but what Jerusalem and Zion stood for. And that the remnant that are left shall be called holy because they will indeed be ‘holiness to the Lord’. They will be what the nation was chosen for: to be a holy priesthood, to be holy to the Lord, dedicated to the Lord. They were not to be merely pure, that is, free of uncleanness, but positively holy in their dedication to the Lord as they were chosen to be. So, ‘shall be called holy’, meaning, they shall be holy. Is it simply the same as saying they shall be called holy because they shall be holy?

Audience: It is similar to Zechariah where even the very common things are holiness unto the Lord.

DWG: Ah, read that aloud, sir, in good voice.

Audience: This is Zechariah 14.

In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, Holiness unto the Lord; and the pots in the Lord’s house shall be like the bowls before the altar. Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the Lord of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts. (vv. 20–21 kjv)

DWG: That is very vivid language, isn’t it? I hope it’s not only literal but also metaphorical, because to have a saucepan in which you cook the Brussels sprouts, yes, it would need to be clean, but to have it inscribed on it ‘Holiness to the Lord’? Wow. So the whole of life is to be holy, in the sense that the tabernacle was holy. All the vessels in the tabernacle, even if they were used to boil the meat that had been offered as sacrifice to the Lord, were holy. That is, they were given utterly to the Lord. They were not common. So we have this notion of holy here. Those that are in Jerusalem, in Zion, shall be holy to the Lord, meaning not only clean but utterly dedicated to him. In my mind, that recalls the words of the original proposal by God. ‘Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation’ (Exod 19:5–6). This is true glory: to be set aside for the Lord, to be acknowledged by him, to be a holy priesthood, to be called.

Now, half a minute. You see how an old man’s memory wanders. Is there any place in the New Testament where present-day believers are called holy?

Audience: It’s in 1 Peter 2.

DWG: And what does that say?

Audience: ‘But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that you should show forth the praises of him who has called you out of darkness into his marvellous light’ (v. 9 kjv).

DWG: Well, that’s very nice. I was thinking of the actual phrase, ‘called holy.’ Can you quote me a verse that says ‘called holy’?

Audience: ‘Called saints.’

DWG: ‘Called saints!’ Ah, you see, it is the advantage of some translations, isn’t it? And where is that?

Audience: It’s 1 Corinthians 1:2.

DWG: Yes, that is marvellous language, isn’t it? ‘Called’, not merely ‘said to be’, but this is the summons of God, to be called, to be appointed, holy to the Lord.

Written among the living (v. 3)

DWG: Now we come to the phrase, ‘every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem’ (rv). What does that mean?

Audience: In the first instance, would it be the survivors of the invasion that Zechariah 14:16–19 speaks of?

DWG: Yes, sir. And it means, therefore, ‘recorded as alive’, if you like.

Audience: I think that the passage you recited from Revelation 7 has the most common links with this passage, about being in the tabernacle, and being sheltered and so forth. The ones who are there are those who have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb. I think there is a link to the idea that it is the Book of Life from that point.

DWG: So, now there is another suggestion, not only ‘recorded as living’, or ‘entered into the census of the city that these are alive’, but in a higher book, God’s Book of Life.

Audience: When is the name recorded?

DWG: When is the name recorded in the Book of Life?

Audience: Revelation 4 or 5, I believe, addresses part of that, doesn’t it?

DWG: While you’re finding the place, sir, let me ask the questioner. Do you think your name is in the Book of Life?

Audience: Yes.

DWG: Oh, good.

Audience: The question is whether it is put there when you are born, or when you receive the Lord Jesus. Because, if you look in Exodus 32:33, it says, ‘And the Lord said unto Moses, “Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book”.’ And in the previous verse it says, ‘Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin—; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written’ (v. 32 kjv). So when did Moses get into the book?

DWG: Well, sir, it is, as you know, a complicated question. My simple answer to that is that God has various books, and the book Moses is talking about is the book of those physically alive. If God blots your name out of the book of those physically alive then, in other words, you die. The judgment God was going to pass on Israel at that time was a temporal judgment to destroy them there and then on the floor of the wilderness. And Moses says, ‘If you do that, you must destroy me as well.’ I think the book concerned is the register of those physically alive on earth, and when God expunges the name, so to speak, the person dies.

Audience: Everyone is entered into the book, and when they die, even if they never believed, their names are in the book.

DWG: Yes, that is so.

Audience: On the other hand, it may be that they are never recorded in the book.

DWG: Yes, sir, quite so. And the Lamb’s Book of Life seems to add another dimension to it, doesn’t it?

Audience: Wouldn’t taking Isaiah 4:3–4 together help us to think that when the Lord has washed away the filth and blood of those he mentions, then those who are living in there are then clean?

DWG: That’s right, sir, thank you very much. God has purged away the filthiness of those who are living in Jerusalem; they are now alive to be his holy people. Let’s move on, if we may, to verse 4 that you have referred to.

Washing and purging (v. 4)

DWG: We read of this process of washing away and purging, ‘by the spirit of judgement, and by the spirit of burning’ (v. 4 rv). What does that refer to?

Audience: It seems to me that this is alluding to the next two verses and the children of Israel going through the Red Sea and the wilderness when the pillar of cloud and fire were over them.

DWG: You mean the glory over the people spoken of in verses 5–6?

Audience: Yes.

DWG: We’ll come to that in a moment, but in verse 4, what is this purging away of ‘the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgement, and by the spirit of burning’?

Audience: That makes me think again of Zechariah 14.

For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. (see v. 2)

What did the Assyrians do to women?

DWG: Oh, surely. Terrible. My own feeling is that 4:4 is still talking about God’s discipline of his people. That it is not here necessarily talking about their being ‘washed’, as we say, or ‘cleansed by’ the blood of the Lamb. It is talking about God’s discipline of his people, the furnace of affliction that he will put them through.

When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you; when you walk through fire you shall not be burned, and the flame shall not consume you. (43:2)

This is the discipline that the nation will have to go through in order to be purged. It doesn’t here discuss what chapter 6 will discuss, by way of illustration, and what chapter 53 will discuss in detail, that is, the atoning work of Christ. This passage is not belittling that, but it is saying from God that there will have to come a time of the purging and cleansing of the nation. It will be affected by the rod of God’s anger, that is, the Assyrians, and God will turn it to be destruction for the godless in Israel and Judah. He will turn it for the purging of the believers. That is my personal feeling about what the verses mean.

Audience: Would that not be consistent with the first section we had, where we read of Zion being redeemed with judgment?

DWG: Surely, yes. That’s right. And God says about the people in a later passage of Isaiah, ‘Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have chosen you in the furnace of affliction’ (48:10 rv). He shall sit as a refiner over Israel. I think that is really what he is talking about. The work of Christ will be explained later.

Audience: In Malachi 3 we read, ‘He will sit as a refiner and a purifier of silver; he will purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer to the Lord an offering in righteousness’ (v. 3 nkjv).

DWG: Yes, thank you very much, that is very much apropos.

Audience: That would be applying to future tribulations, so are we seeing both the refining by Assyria, and the future tribulation in this one verse?

DWG: Well, yes, the interpretation of it. Our good friend has written up some things on the board here that we do well to consider concerning the various stages and levels of fulfilment. At the first level, in these verses he is talking about the Assyrians now coming upon the people. That is in chapter 1. Their land is already desolate because of the ravages of the Assyrian attacks, and Jerusalem is left like a booth in a cucumber field (v. 8). So now he tells the people, and later on we shall see it, ‘Don’t be afraid. Hide yourself behind your doors for a little while, don’t be afraid, the real time of trouble is coming. Don’t be afraid, I shall be with you’ (see 26:20–21). This is God talking to the faithful, to the Isaiahs of this world, and ‘his children’, as he called them, and his disciples that had to go through that time of the Assyrian attack. Isaiah wasn’t exempt from it. They all went through the Assyrian attack, and God is showing them how he uses it for their refining. But if you talk like that then you will be thinking of the end of this age, and those prophesies to be fulfilled that our brothers have read from Malachi and Zechariah. You see God sitting as a refining fire over Israel in that time.

Washing and purging (v. 5)

Now, what about these lovely verses 5 and 6? Somebody began to talk about them.

Audience: I was saying that it seems to be alluding to the children of Israel going through the Red Sea and the wilderness when the pillar of cloud and fire were over them.

DWG: Embroider that a little bit, my good sir, please.

Audience: Well, okay, I’m reading from Darby here.

And Jehovah will create over every dwelling-place of mount Zion, and over its convocations, a cloud by day and a smoke, and the brightness of a flame of fire by night: for over all the glory shall be a covering. And there shall be a tabernacle for shade by day from the heat, and for a shelter and for a covert from storm and from rain. (Isa 4:5–6 jnd)

DWG: Yes, that is what they enjoyed in the wilderness, but you say it will be fulfilled at a greater extent at a later time. Is that what you’re saying?

Audience: In the wilderness the children of Israel enjoyed, at least in the beginning, a relationship with the Lord, one that they will again enjoy.

Audience: Does this not take a step further? Because the pillar of cloud and pillar fire that the children of Israel had in the desert, was to that extent removed. Here he talks about a canopy, which I understand is an actual covering, like a wedding pavilion, and that Jehovah himself is going to be the protection of his people, covering them as a pavilion.

DWG: That is a delightful thought. And it is true, so I believe (so I’m told anyway by the experts) that this canopy is only used elsewhere of the bridal canopy. To this present day, in a Jewish wedding it is so used, and therefore summons up notions of the wedding, if you like, and the bride. And there shall be this canopy above all the glory, to protect it. The word association, therefore, is wonderful.

As to the other idea, if we talk about a cloud of smoke by day and the shining of a flaming fire by night, reminiscent of the glory of the tabernacle and God’s glory therein, and now this canopy, then what about reading Revelation 7? We have already seen the end of Revelation 6, which pictures the heaven being drawn aside and the ungodly of all different ranks, sizes and shapes, now to their terror seeing the throne of God and of the lamb, and crying to the mountains to cover that glory. We went on to talk about the great multitude that stands before the throne because ‘they washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God; and they serve him day and night in his temple’ (vv. 14–15 rv). But now it’s the next phrase that occurs to my mind: ‘he that sits on the throne shall spread his tabernacle over them. They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun strike upon them, nor any heat’ (vv. 15–16 rv). The cloud in the wilderness was a protection to Israel. Here, in this future state, God himself shall spread his tabernacle of protection over them. Nature will never hurt them again. Nature has hurt a lot of people, and still hurts people, doesn’t it? Nature hurts believers sometimes, doesn’t it? A time is coming when God shall spread his tabernacle over people. Nature shall not hurt them anymore. Yes, and ‘the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall be their shepherd, and shall guide them unto fountains of waters of life’ (v. 17 rv). Here is the same kind of language. That is all I quote it for.

Audience: Could you read Revelation 7:15 again?

DWG: ‘Therefore are they before the throne of God; and they serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sits on the throne shall spread his tabernacle over them. They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun strike upon them, nor any heat’ (vv. 15–16 rv).

Audience: This one says, ‘Dwell among them,’ so it doesn’t quite catch it that way.

DWG: Ah, well take it back to the man that sold it to you, and ask for your money back again.

Audience: The problem is he may be in glory by now!

DWG: Yes, very good. And you see Isaiah 4:6: ‘And there shall be a pavilion for a shadow in the daytime from the heat, and for a refuge and for a cover from storm and from rain.’ The poetic language is similar in both cases.

Audience: In the Psalms there are a couple of references to pavilions as well.

DWG: Yes, there are.

Audience: I think it’s significant that in verse 5 he uses the same word for glory there as he did back in verse 2, in reference to the branch. To me that shows that, whereas back in chapters 2–3 we saw their humiliation, now they are restored to a place of glory.

DWG: That is right. And if Messiah is the branch and is all glorious, then when these are restored, he will restore them to true beauty, and he himself will spread the bridal canopy over them to stop their glory being faded or destroyed! The sun can destroy your beautiful paintings, and the colours of your curtains and your carpets. The sun can fade things, but in all that glory, the branch that is glorious shall spread the bridal canopy over the beauty of his people.

Audience: Could we take the significance at another level in Revelation 21?

And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, ‘Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.’ (vv. 3–4 kjv)

DWG: Yes, well you’ll have to ask permission of our friend who has written up these levels for us if you want to add that. I believe you included it, didn’t you?

Audience: I included the word ‘eternal’, and that takes you all the way to the end.

Audience: I just wanted to make a comment regarding the different levels of meaning. As we’ve just considered the previous obliteration of society because of the loss of the glory of the Lord, and their sight and their vision. Again, we notice how this ties now to their blessedness, because the glory of the Lord is maintained by the Messiah himself. If we come to 1 Corinthians 11 in our present day in the assembly, we notice how important it is for the order of God to be maintained in the assembly under the headship of the Lord Jesus, and those symbols that speak of his headship of every man to be maintained in glory, so that there might be blessing in the assembly as well. Whenever that is removed, then we find that there is degeneration within the assembly, in the same way.

DWG: There will eternally be rank in the kingdom of Christ. He will be the chief, but being chief means to be the servant of the most. But the true values and the true glory of man depend, and come from, the glories of God. Lose the glory of God and his order, then, in the end, you will degrade yourself. We shall become merely mites in cheese.

You see it in the extreme of atheism. Man is absolutely hopeless, going to the dust, and that’s the end of him, the victim of mindless forces. You see it in society, when society loses the sense of God standing behind the moral order, because that is his character. You will see it in the church. So these are very basic principles, are they not? And it is no accident that chapter 4 talks of coming glory in terms of the beauty of the Lord, in terms of the bridal canopy, that is, the eventual glory of his redeemed people.

The difference between the two prophecies

These are delightful things, aren’t they? Just before we leave them, I got the idea you were going to tell me the difference between these two prophecies of glory—the one in chapter 2, and now this one in chapter 4. It was because someone said you had two sermons to preach, or something, on successive nights and you were embarrassed if you couldn’t think of different things to say each time. So, who is going to point out the differences and how they complement each other? That’s just a little test to see whether we have seen the difference between them.

Audience: I have an observation at least, and that is that the first vision, in chapter 2, has one mountain, and that’s Zion; and the second vision in chapter 4 has allusions to Mount Sinai, not in the sense of the law, but in the sense of the glory of the Lord and its manifestation. And chapter 2 talks about the mountain being high and lifted up, and then it is contrasted by all the people’s pride which will be put down: ‘The Lord alone will be exalted in that day’ (v. 11). Then chapter 3 has this social upheaval, and then the problem of the vanity of the superficial beauty of the women, and the women lacking men. Then, in contrast to that, the beautiful shoot, the beautiful heir, the beautiful king and his fruitfulness, and this wedding imagery as well.

DWG: Yes, surely. We have one more thing from another person here.

Audience: This is going back to the thought of the glories in each being connected with the preceding denunciation. In the first one, you have the social and legal ills that are condemned, and then in the glory you see it rectified. Now you see peace. Now you see all men drawn to Jerusalem and seeking the word of the Lord. In the second denunciation, you have glory misplaced, the seeking after adornments without giving God his proper due. You don’t see God’s holiness reverenced; rather you see vulgarity. And in the corresponding glory in chapter 4, you see now that God is the glory. Now holiness is exalted. So, the first glory deals with that: the social, legal, horizontal aspect in a sense. The second glory deals with the same thing, but coming at it from a different angle, dealing with beauty and glory and how these things can be put under God’s control.

DWG: That is lovely, sir. Yes, that is true.

Audience: In the first one, I get more of the flavour of the nation and the nations; and in the second the Messiah.

DWG: Yes, and to embroider that a little bit, in the first one the nations are coming to do what? The Lord’s people are scarce mentioned, are they? In chapter 2, the prophecy of the restoration scarcely mentions the Lord’s people. It says the mountain of the Lord’s host shall be exalted, and the nations shall come flowing to it, and wanting to learn his ways, and his laws, and be taught them. And the result shall be the pacification of the world, the end of wars. That’s a rather different picture from this, isn’t it, where the nations, I think, are not mentioned anyway? This concentrates on the Lord’s people themselves. Having been refined under his disciplines, they are now brought to their holy calling, to be a holy priesthood, and to reflect the beauty.

Audience: There’s also his personal involvement.

DWG: That’s right, yes.

6: God’s Response to His People’s Sin in Isaiah 5:1–6:13

Part 1A (1:1–6:13) Continued

We come now to chapter 5 and its denunciation of the people’s sin and what God shall do about it towards the end of that chapter, when he brings the hostile Gentile armies against them. The question of where Isaiah 6 is meant to stand in the structure of the book is, of course, disputed. Alec Motyer’s book that I pointed you to holds very strongly that the preface of the book is the first five chapters, and that chapter 6 now begins a different section of the book, which he heads: ‘Concerned With the King’. And you see the evidence of that because it is in this chapter that the Lord is represented as the King, the Lord of Hosts (6:5). So our question is to decide whether the content of chapter 6 follows immediately on after the content of chapter 5, like those other visions have done, or whether chapter 6 really is the beginning of a new section of the book, and that if you were preaching it, you would be happy to end at 5:30, give out the last hymn and the announcements and go home, and say, ‘We shall begin the new section of the book next time from chapter 6 onwards.’

Does it matter? In a sense, no, because it is true anyway, and whether you see it as the end of the first introductory chapters or the beginning of the next part of the book, or you see it as a hinge between the two, I suppose in the end it won’t make any difference. If you listen to me, then you must guard yourself against being too readily persuaded, but I don’t need to tell you that because you will do that anyway. I shall argue that chapter 6 is very closely related to chapter 5, and for the reasons that I hope to enunciate.

The song of the vineyard

First of all, we have the famous parable of the vineyard, where God sings for his beloved, ‘a song of my beloved touching his vineyard’ (5:1 rv). Or, perhaps it is Isaiah saying, ‘Let me sing for my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard.’ That is, he is singing it for his beloved, who is God. Whichever way you take it, it is the parable in song about the vineyard.

God’s verdict (5:1–7)

He dug it and cleared it of stones, and planted it with choice vines; he built a watchtower in the midst of it, and hewed out a wine vat in it; and he looked for it to yield grapes, but it yielded wild grapes. (v. 2)

Now comes God’s appeal.

And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge between me and my vineyard. What more was there to do for my vineyard, that I have not done in it? When I looked for it to yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes? (vv. 3–4)

In other words, ‘Show me something that I could have done, more than I did, that would have produced good fruit. If I have done everything I possibly could, why when I looked for it to yield grapes did it yield wild grapes?’

I suppose it is wicked of me to say it, but some would suggest that God could have done something more. He could have elected them. But, having failed to do that, well what other result would you expect?

Anyway, he is saying, ‘What more could I possibly do? Since I could have done nothing more, this is what I will do.’

And now I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard. I will remove its hedge, and it shall be devoured; I will break down its wall, and it shall be trampled down. I will make it a waste; it shall not be pruned or hoed, and briers and thorns shall grow up; I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it. (vv. 5–6)

That is God’s verdict on the vineyard, he did all he could that it should bring forth fruit, and in spite of it, it brought forth wild grapes. This is God’s response to Israel’s utterly deliberate and persistent impenitence. He will lay the whole thing waste.

The woes (5:8–23)

The reasons why they will be laid waste are now given us in a succession of woes.

Woe to those who join house to house. (v. 8)

Woe to those who rise early in the morning, that they may run after strong drink. (v. 11)

Woe to those who draw iniquity with cords of falsehood. (v. 18)

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil. (v. 20)

Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight! (v. 21)

Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine, and valiant men in mixing strong drink. (v. 22)

These six woes are pronounced upon impenitent Israel, for you notice what it says about his vineyard. The vineyard of the Lord is the House of Israel, not just Judah.

For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are his pleasant planting; and he looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, an outcry! (v. 7)

So the woes are pronounced. As you read them through, you maybe think of the similar terms of the three great woes in Revelation 9.

Woe to those who join house to house (vv. 8–10)

Woe to those who join house to house, who add field to field, until there is no more room, and you are made to dwell alone in the midst of the land. (v. 8)

One has to consider this denunciation in the light of the economy of Israel where each man was originally given his inheritance. The woes are not simply on building big houses and having appropriate room around them, but on those who exclude the poor, so that you may be alone in the land and the poor be relegated to the margins. It is thus an offence against society and the Lord’s people. The result of that is God’s visitation. ‘You want to be alone in the land? Well, you will be one of these days.’

The Lord of hosts has sworn in my hearing: ‘Surely many houses shall be desolate, large and beautiful houses, without inhabitant. For ten acres of vineyard shall yield but one bath, and a homer of seed shall yield but an ephah.’ (vv. 9–10)

Here is a desperate lack of productivity in the countryside. Notice the first woe, therefore. The land with its houses and farms shall be laid waste.

Woe to those who drink and feast and so forget the Lord (vv. 11–17)

Woe to those who rise early in the morning, that they may run after strong drink, who tarry late into the evening as wine inflames them! They have lyre and harp, tambourine and flute and wine at their feasts, but they do not regard the deeds of the Lord, or see the work of his hands. (vv. 11–12)

It is not that God is against music (heaven is going to be full of it), but this is self-indulgence, with drunkards living it up. It is merrymaking in the worst sense of that term and thus neglecting entirely the work of the Lord, nor considering the operation of his hands. The result, he says, is that, ‘My people have gone into captivity’.

Therefore my people go into exile for lack of knowledge; their honoured men go hungry, and their multitude is parched with thirst. Therefore Sheol has enlarged its appetite and opened its mouth beyond measure, and the nobility of Jerusalem and her multitude will go down, her revellers and he who exults in her. Man is humbled, and each one is brought low, and the eyes of the haughty are brought low. (vv. 13–15)

We had that before. Notice we have it again: men being bowed down; but the Lord of Hosts is exalted now in his judgments. He is exulted now, not in his grace, but in his judgment. God will stand on his dignity. God will be regarded as God, as a result of his judgment.

But the Lord of hosts is exalted in justice, and the Holy God shows himself holy in righteousness. Then shall the lambs graze as in their pasture, and nomads shall eat among the ruins of the rich. (vv. 16–17).

Woe to those who multiply sin (vv. 18–19)

‘Woe unto them that draw iniquity with cords of vanity’ (v. 18 rv). In other words, they multiply sin to themselves. And then they mock God, as though he would not judge them.

who say: ‘Let him be quick, let him speed his work that we may see it; let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw near, and let it come, that we may know it!’ (v. 19)

They are mocking God. It is the kind of attitude that says, ‘If there is a God, let him strike me dead,’ and all of that kind of nonsense. You notice the impertinence of it.

Woe unto them that obliterate moral distinctions (v. 20)

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! (v. 20)

They absolutely contradict and overturn moral judgments and values.

Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes (v. 21)

Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight! (v. 21)

The implication is that they despise the wisdom of God and the wisdom of his word. They know better than God’s word and God himself.

Woe to those drink and feast and so forget justice (v. 22–23)

Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine, and valiant men in mixing strong drink. (v. 22)

This appears to be similar to verse 11, but it is different in its outworking, for here it is not just self-indulgent, riotous, irresponsible living; this is the moral judgment perverted. As the next verse continues,

who acquit the guilty for a bribe, and deprive the innocent of his right! (v. 23)

This is judicial injustice deliberately done, like Ahab and Jezebel did to Naboth in his vineyard house (1 Kgs 21). Such contempt of God’s law, such mocking of God that says, ‘Let him be quick, let him speed his work’ (v. 19), when God has done his uttermost for the vineyard. It cannot be said that he could have done anything more for them.

The result (5:24–30)

What shall be the result of it? What do you expect to be the result of it?

Therefore the anger of the Lord was kindled against his people, and he stretched out his hand against them and struck them, and the mountains quaked; and their corpses were as refuse in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger has not turned away, and his hand is stretched out still. (v. 25)

Already there have been invasions, already people have fallen, smitten by their enemies. Yet worse is to come. And verses 26–30, as I read them, are an account in advance of the mighty flood of the great armies of Assyria that shall come upon them.

Thus ends chapter 5. Now, how shall I say it without irreverence? It is so when God has got to his limit. What more could he do when men persist deliberately in their rejection of God, in the flouting and the neglect of his law? They overturned moral value. The very legal system is perverted by bribery and the poor are oppressed. What will God do?

I warn you again not to let yourself be deceived or misled by me, but allow me honestly to give my opinion. It is in that connection that I say that chapter 6 is telling us what God will do.

The flow of thought from chapter 5 to chapter 6

Why do I say that chapter 6 is telling us what God will do? Look at what it says in chapter 5.

Man is humbled, and each one is brought low, and the eyes of the haughty are brought low. But the Lord of hosts is exalted in justice, and the Holy God shows himself holy in righteousness. (vv. 15–16)

There man is brought low, and the Lord of Hosts is exalted in judgment. God the Holy One is sanctified, that is, shown to be holy, in righteousness. In chapter 6, Isaiah says,

In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lordsitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. (v. 1)

Here is the exaltation of the Lord. Verse 16 of chapter 5 says, ‘He is sanctified’ in his judgment. Now, look at the thrice repetition of the cry in verse 3: ‘Holy, holy, holy . . .’, or, ‘Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus . . .**’. The Lord, sanctified.

The seventh woe

The result of that vision that Isaiah saw brings us to the seventh woe. There are six woes pronounced upon Israel in general. Now comes the seventh.

And I said: ‘Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!’ (v. 5)

In answer to his confession: ‘Woe is me’, in pronouncing upon himself the judgment that he felt he deserved along with the people, there is purging for him.

Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: ‘Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for.’ (vv. 6–7)

That is wonderful. It is the glory of God bringing the prophet to see the uncleanness of his lips and the fact that he, like the people among who he dwells, is unclean. And in that confession, he finds what we would call salvation. He finds cleansing, through the live coal from off the altar. He is purged with fire. Then we think of the significance of the altar and its atoning sacrifice. Here is God’s mercy upon the prophet as representative of the people. He is one among them who is unclean as they are, as he says, but upon confession he receives mercy and cleansing.

The Lord exalted in judgment

Now Isaiah is commissioned, for he heard the voice of the Lord.

And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?’ Then I said, ‘Here am I! Send me.’ (v. 8)

It is the response of the redeemed and cleansed, who realize that they were no better than the others, but, being cleansed by God’s mercy, they are happy to go back to the others and tell them of the great mercies of God. He volunteers to go. And now listen to the words that follow.

And he said, ‘Go, and say to this people: “Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.” Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.’ (vv. 9–10)

That’s scarcely gospel, is it? That is God’s judgment. The Lord will be exalted in judgment (5:16). Do notice where it comes. It comes after all those chapters where God has denounced their sins and pleaded with them to come and reason with him that they might be forgiven. It comes after denunciation upon denunciation of their sin has been followed by visions of glory for those that will repent and believe. It comes after God has done everything possible with his vineyard. He calls upon the men of Judah to acknowledge that he could not have done better for them. In spite of it all, they have persisted in this impenitent attitude. They are unrepentant. What is God’s decision? Judicial hardening and blinding. The Lord will be exalted in judgment.

What has it got to do with chapter 5? Look at what he says.

Then I said, ‘How long, O Lord?’ And he said: ‘Until cities lie waste without inhabitant, and houses without people, and the land is a desolate waste.’ (6:11)

Where did you last read that? It is in chapter 5.

The Lord of hosts has sworn in my hearing: ‘Surely many houses shall be desolate, large and beautiful houses, without inhabitant.’ (v. 9)

In 6:12 we read:

and the Lord removes people far away, and the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land.

Israel will be scattered, removed, taken out of the land. This is a sentence of God’s judgment, and it is for those who have rejected his gospel, of course.

‘And though a tenth remain in it, it will be burned again, like a terebinth or an oak, whose stump remains when it is felled.’ The holy seed is its stump. (v. 13)

The section is thus brought to its conclusion by the echo of the term found in chapter 1. ‘Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil-doers’ (v. 4 rv). They shall be cut down. They shall be removed; the land and the cities will be left desolate, and the people scattered from the land, like a tree cut down. But when they are felled, ‘the holy seed is its stump’ (6:13), which one day will sprout again.

God’s judicial hardening

Now, leave aside for a moment the question of whether chapter 6 is meant to conclude chapter 5, or whether it has very little to do with it and is the opening of another section altogether. We now must deal with the exceedingly serious topic of God pronouncing his judgment upon these people.

Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed. (v. 10)

My contention would be that this comes only after all those preceding chapters of God’s pleading with them and offering them that, though their sins be red like scarlet, yet they could be as wool if only they would repent, and after the promise of coming glory. But when they persist in their unbelief and rejection and their mockery of God, then God hardens their hearts.

Let me comfort you in advance. Isaiah 53 has led hundreds of thousands (and perhaps millions) to Christ. Sometimes I allow myself to take comfort from the fact that when he was himself a preacher, the man who wrote Isaiah 53 preached to diminishing congregations, until there wasn’t anybody left. I have found that a comfort!

Isaiah 6 quoted in John 12

Let’s turn to one of the places in the New Testament that quotes Isaiah 6; and that is John 12.

So Jesus said to them, ‘The light is among you for a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you. The one who walks in the darkness does not know where he is going.’ (v. 35)

Do notice now where in John this paragraph comes. It is not at the beginning of our Lord’s ministry, but at its end.

While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light. When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them. (v. 36)

Those are solemn words when God incarnate eventually not only departs, but hides himself.

Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him. (v. 37)

They had had the evidence, and they had rejected it.

so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: ‘Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?’ (v. 38)

Paul quotes that again in Roman’s 10, does he not? Now John continues.

Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, ‘He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.’ Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him. (vv. 39–41)

That is, Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory, and he spoke of him in Isaiah 6.

I take it that the order of these things is as I have indicated. Our Lord did signs. He was not mocking the people. He was giving them evidence. Even in spite of the fact that he had given them so much evidence, they would not believe. The judgment therefore fell, as God had told Isaiah it would, and he hardened their hearts and blinded their eyes.

You will know from the ends of the other Gospels what happened next. God scattered the nation. Luke 21 says, ‘Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled’ (v. 24). It was not that at the beginning of Christ’s ministry God hardened the hearts of the Jews, never intending that they should believe, and all Christ’s ministry was done in vain. It was that, having seen the ministry of Christ and deliberately rejecting it, they came under God’s sentence of the hardening of hearts and judicial blindness.

Isaiah 6 quoted in Matthew 12

Matthew takes up the same point. Let me remind you of his record in chapter 12. He says that the Jews had decided that they were going to kill him. They were just waiting for him to do another miracle and do it on the Sabbath. That would be it. They’d decided to kill him (see vv. 9–14). He did a miracle right in front of their noses on purpose, and they couldn’t deny it was a miracle. They couldn’t deny that it was done by supernatural power. The only thing they could think of to do to resist the clear implication of that miracle was to say, ‘Okay, that’s supernatural power, but it’s the power of the very devil. By Beelzebub, the prince of demons, he casts out demons’ (see v. 24). In reply, our Lord didn’t turn round and say, ‘That’s such nonsense that I won’t be bothered to speak to them.’ No, he stood and spoke to them at length, and argued the case with them. Do read the whole account in Matthew 12!

The men that now ascribed his miracle to Beelzebub didn’t know any other way of getting out of the implication. If the miracle was by the power of God, Jesus was the Messiah. They weren’t prepared to admit that, so they had to say that the supernatural power was of the devil. Our Lord said, ‘Is that so, gentlemen? Do you really believe that? Tell me, is it your opinion that the devil is going around now having decided to destroy himself? Is the devil divided against himself? Is that what you believe?’

Well, of course they didn’t believe it!

‘Tell me,’ he said, ‘if there is a strong man in a castle somewhere who has got prisoners, and you propose to deliver the prisoners, how will you do it without first dealing with the strong man and putting him out of action? And here I am delivering people that have been oppressed by the devil, and you say I’m on the devil’s side and he is using me to let prisoners escape from him? You really believe that?’

Of course, they didn’t believe it.

He continued, ‘I hear your sons cast out demons, now and again, do they not? When they cast out demons, do you say that is the power of the devil?’

Well now, of course, they didn’t.

‘But why do you say it with me then?’

Well for the obvious reason that their sons didn’t claim to be the Messiah. Jesus did. And then our Lord rounded on them, saying,

Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (vv. 31–32)

Every sin that shall be done against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but to call the Holy Spirit the devil, to describe an action that in every other situation you would say was of the Spirit of God on this occasion is the very devil and thus to insult the Spirit of God is a sin that can never be forgiven, not in this age nor in the age to come.

Why did our Lord stop to argue with them? Ah, but here is the final judge, and the final judge will condemn nobody before he has first exposed to them the terrible illogicality of their arguments, the utter perversity of the way in which they tried to justify their rejection of the Saviour. There is a God of justice.

In the passage we have just read, John says,

Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God. (12:42–43)

This is exceedingly solemn, isn’t it? And this was our Lord talking and John commenting at the end of our Lord’s ministry, not at the beginning. It was said when they had officially rejected our Lord, his message and the signs of the evidence he offered, and knowingly ascribed to the devil what they knew in their hearts to be the power of God.

Isaiah 6 quoted in Acts 28

If we turn to the last chapter of Acts, we find Paul coming to the end of his ministry and now in prison in Rome. The nation of Israel has had these thirty years or so to repent of the murder of the Messiah. Now Paul is in prison precisely because the high priest of Jerusalem was determined to get him killed, by fair means or foul, and he has been obliged to appeal over their heads to Caesar. And the local Jewish elders come to visit him, and he talks to them.

When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets. And some were convinced by what he said, but others disbelieved. And disagreeing among themselves, they departed after Paul had made one statement: ‘The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet: “Go to this people, and say, ‘You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive. For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed; lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’” Therefore let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen.’ (28:23–28)

Notice where Paul quotes that. That is towards the end of his ministry, and to the elders of his nation who, knowing the gospel and hearing it from Paul’s own lips, and knowing of all that has been going on down through those decades of the preaching of the gospel, now reject it. If Paul was speaking around ad 64, and he was subsequently executed after his second imprisonment, we are coming very near ad 70 when the Romans were allowed, not merely to besiege the city of Jerusalem, like the Assyrians had done, but to destroy the temple. Eventually, and particularly after the second revolt in ad 135, the city became a Gentile city called Aelia Capitolina, never again to be in the charge of Israel until the Six Day War some decades ago in 1967. What did God say to Isaiah? ‘Until cities lie waste without inhabitant, and houses without people’ (6:11).

I take it myself that chapter 6 forms a climax of the denunciation of Israel’s sin that stands at the beginning of Isaiah. I shall not argue, and I shall not fall out with you if you hold a different opinion. I somewhat expect you will hold a different opinion, but I submit this to you for your consideration. The climax is mercy for the one who confesses he deserves the woe and who takes his place among his fellow Judahites as being as guilty as they are, and confesses it and is purged. But there is the message of God’s judgment on a nation that, when God has done his everything and can do no more, persists in their deliberate impenitence and disobedience.

Questions and contributions on Isaiah 6

Audience: That talk you just gave us brings out an interesting contrast in Isaiah 6. We notice verse 1 starts out, ‘In the year that King Uzziah died’. Of course, 2 Chronicles 26 records that Uzziah died unclean because his heart was lifted up, and he went into the temple of God in pride and intruded in on the priesthood, and he died in an unclean state.

DWG: That’s right.

Audience: Isaiah sees a vision here in the temple of the Lord, and takes his place as an unclean sinner, in humility, and he ends up clean.

DWG: That’s right, yes. It’s lovely, isn’t it? Uzziah the king was smitten with leprosy because of his pride and folly, and he hastened to go out of the temple, while Isaiah confesses and is cleansed. And we have another question here.

Audience: Yes, you made a statement concerning salvation for an individual who identifies himself with the condition of the whole nation. After the cross of the Lord Jesus, the whole world is exposed, not just the nation of Israel. Now we live in an age where judgment is pronounced on the world, and salvation is offered to individuals who identify themselves as having the same condition as the world and can come to find pardon from God.

DWG: That’s right, yes.

Audience: So we find that these principles are at work in the Old Testament in a lovely way, and yet they are true in our day today. Many of us here have been taught about dispensations, and yet we find these principles very true back then in that different dispensation. You made a statement earlier that now, in the present time, the Gentiles have been brought into David in our present day. Are you somehow presenting, rather than a dispensation, an overall progression in the whole work of God that will climax into the eternal state, without necessarily or deliberately bringing in that word dispensation?

DWG: Oh, well, to answer that precisely, I believe in dispensations. I mightn’t believe in them quite with that minute precision that some do, but I do believe in dispensations. I believe that God will yet restore the kingdom to Israel. In Acts 1, the apostles asked, not, ‘Are you going to restore the kingdom to Israel?’ They weren’t unbelievers, but believers. They believed the prophecy of Micah 4, which says that the kingdom shall return to Israel. Because they believed it, what they asked the Lord was, not, ‘Are you going to restore the kingdom to Israel,’ but, ‘Is it at this time that you are going to restore the kingdom to Israel?’ (see Acts 1:6). That was a very different question. He answered the precise question they asked: ‘It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has set within his own control’, or ‘set by his own authority’ (see v. 7). He did not deny that he was going to restore the kingdom to Israel; he simply observed that they could not be told the exact timing of it, since the Father had reserved all such matters of times and dates to himself.

That naturally raised the question: when would these other things be fulfilled? In the Jewish understanding of the Old Testament there was to be but one coming of the Messiah. If Christians were now going to be asked to believe in two comings of one and the same Messiah, it was obviously important for the apostles to know precisely when each part of the promised programme was going to be fulfilled. After all, they were the men that had to go out and preach the programme. And the same thing is still true of us, of course. If we are to believe and preach two comings of the Lord, his first and his second, we need to know clearly what parts of the promised great restoration were fulfilled at his first coming, what can be fulfilled only at his second, and what we may expect to be fulfilled in between the two. Mistaken ideas on these matters would lead to confusion in our expectations and in our preaching. Indeed, such confusion did occur sometimes in the minds of the early Christians, some of whom came to think that the great and resplendent Day of the Lord promised by Joel had already set in before the second coming of Christ (2 Thess 2:1–12). Suffice it to say for the present, that the question of restoring the kingdom to Israel would have to wait until that second coming. ⁴ Paul shows he understood it in that way when he quotes Isaiah 59, ‘The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob’ (Rom 11:26).

That said, of course, we shall find in the course of studying Isaiah, that it is not a question of either/or. It is a question of both/and. That is because there are certain prophecies of Isaiah that were fulfilled by our Lord’s birth. I think nobody argues against that. We have the virgin birth prophesied in chapter 7. There are prophecies in Isaiah that were fulfilled in Nazareth, when he took the scroll and read from Isaiah 61 and said ‘Now, part of this, the bit that I’ve just read, is fulfilled this day in your ears’ (see Luke 4:16–30). Isaiah 53, of course, was fulfilled at our Lord’s cross. Isaiah 55 was fulfilled by his resurrection, according to Paul’s sermon in the synagogue of Antioch (Acts 13:34). The raising up of a standard in the house of Jesse, to which the Gentiles come, is quoted by Paul in the Acts of the Apostles, again at Antioch. He says to the leaders, ‘But look, gentlemen, you see it happening in front of your noses. This standard raised up in the house of Jesse, that is, the house of David, the Gentiles are coming to it. You see it gentlemen!’ (see vv. 44–47). They got angry and were full of envy, but there is Paul expounding the prophet Isaiah. That is not to deny that there is a future for Israel, as Paul says, ‘all Israel will be saved’ (Rom 11:26).

So, as distinct from some who want to make it an either/or, I am a both/and man, if you see what I mean. What I mean by that, I am happy to propose to you as we go along this week so that we can be clearer as to what it is that I believe. You can determine how much is true and how much is incipient heresy.

That said, I must do my duty. It is five minutes overtime, and I mustn’t overtax your strength. We will formally stop now and ask God’s blessing on our studies and that, as we sleep, God graciously will move in our minds, fastening there what is true, giving us deeper understanding of the connections of thought in this wonderful book, and showing us the error of things that I have said, and which you have suggested might not be one hundred percent true.

⁴ A break in the audio left a gap in the answer, which has been remedied through the use of two paragraphs from Dr Gooding’s book True to the Faith—The Acts of the Apostles: Defining and Defending the Gospel. See pp. 42–50 of that book for a longer treatment of the matter.

7: Crisis, Calamity and Unbelief in Isaiah 7

Part 1B (7:1–12:6)

Given their content, I hold that chapters 1–12 form one major section of the book of Isaiah. It is easy to distinguish them from what follows in chapters 13 onward, because at 13:1 there begins a series of ten oracles, called ‘burdens’ in some translations, and obviously they form a set and fill the chapters from 13–23. So chapters 1–12 are easily marked off as being another set, that is, the first major section of the book. ⁵

Salvation of Jerusalem from the Assyrian(s)			Salvation of Jerusalem and of Hezekiah			Future Salvation from Babylonian Captivity
First Movement—Chs. 1–35—Prophetic			Second Movement—Chs. 36–39—Historical Narrative			Third Movement—Chs. 40–66—Prophetic
Part 1: 1–12	Part 2: 13–23	Part 3: 24–35	Part 4: 36–37	Part 5: 38	Part 6: 39	Part 7: 40–48	Part 8: 49–57	Part 9: 58–66
The sins of God’s people in general and of the house of David.	Ten oracles against the nations.	Judgments on the earth, on the host of the high ones on high, on the kings of the earth.	Jerusalem saved from the Assyrian siege through divine intervention.	Hezekiah’s illness and recovery.	Hezekiah’s fatal mistake: shows treasures to Babylon.	The rediscovery of the only true God-Creator.	The discovery and recognition of God’s suffering servant.	Repentance in readiness for, and at, Christ’s second coming.
The rod of God’s anger, the Assyrian.	Downfall of Babylon’s king (Sennacherib) ‘the Assyrian’.	The punishment of the swift serpent, the crooked serpent; he shall slay the dragon.	Envoy and letter of Assyrian king.	The writing	Envoy and letter of Babylonian king.	Jehovah’s servants:	Kings shall shut their mouths at him.	The final restoration.
				of King Hezekiah.		Messiah
						Jacob
						Cyrus
Immanuel on the throne of David.	He comes to Sheol—the grave.	The way of holiness.	Hezekiah of David’s house stands against Assyria.	I go to the gates of the grave.	Hezekiah	To liberate Israel and make them a true witness to God.	His grave	The new heavens and the new earth.
					of David’s house compromises with Babylon.		with the wicked and with the rich.
the highway from Assyria.	The kings of the nations rise from their thrones.	the song of the ransomed.	Assyrian king.	Jehovah was ready to save me.		No peace to the wicked.		Their worm shall not die . . . their fire shall not be quenched.
			Nineveh.		King’s treasure and sons.		He shall prolong his days.
Jehovah is my song.	The seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.
			Murdered by his sons.		Babylon.		He shall see his seed.
							No peace to the wicked.

In our previous session we spent our time thinking about chapters 1–6. Now we come to chapters 7–12. I have suggested that chapters 1–6 form one part, one half, of this first section of the book, and chapters 7–12 the other. One might well ask why we should divide these twelve chapters into two parts. That is simply an attempt to express the different theme that fills chapters 7–12. And we try to distinguish themes so that we might more readily comprehend them and understand in these chapters what the central theme is around which the details are built.

God’s response to the unbelief of the house of David (7:1–12:6)

Now, whether you regard chapter 6 as belonging to the first part or to the second, or whether you take a third position and regard chapter 6 as a kind of hinge chapter, you will notice that at 7:1 we have much reference to the kings of the time. That is deliberately phrased that way. Chapter 1 opened with a string of names of the kings during whose reigns Isaiah ministered. Now we have this same emphasis on certain kings.

In the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, son of Uzziah, king of Judah, Rezin the king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remaliah the king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to wage war against it, but could not yet mount an attack against it. (7:1)

So now we meet a topic that was not mentioned in chapters 1–5. In those chapters we heard God denouncing the sins of his people, whether in their false religious attitudes or their corrupt practices in social, commercial and legal areas. Nothing, however, was said in chapters 1–5 about the kings on the throne and their behaviour, be it good or bad. Now, central to the theme of chapters 7–12 will be the matter of the kings: the king of Judah, of course, the king of Israel, the king of Aram (that is, Syria) and then eventually the king of Assyria. It is good to pick up that theme at once in our minds.

We shall notice a similar pattern in this Part 1B (7:1–12:6), as I have called it, to that in Part 1A (1:1–6:13). Along with the denunciation of people’s sins, Part 1B has two notable passages telling of the glories yet to come. That is to say, they were yet to come in Isaiah’s day. There is the passage in 9:1–7 relating to the kingdom of Messiah. And there is the passage in 11:1–9 similarly speaking of the reign of the coming Messiah.

We shall, therefore, have a task similar to that which confronted us in our previous session. With the two passages in 1A relating to the coming glory and the restoration of the nation, we tried to see what each of those two glorious passages had to do with their particular context. Were they just like cherries in a cake that come wherever they happen to fall during the cooking process, sweetening the general cake but otherwise not related to the texture that goes around them? Or, were they picking up the themes that had occurred in the denunciation passages and therefore are related to them?

Then of course we did a second thing. Noticing in Part 1A that there were these two passages about the coming glory and restoration, we compared the two, one with another, and noted that they were very similar in that they were all about the restoration. But then we asked the more important question. Where did they differ? Were they simply ditto repeat, both saying, ‘times are going to be good one day’, or were they more specific and therefore different from each other? We did a spot of differential diagnosis, if the medics will allow us to borrow their term.

So too we shall have to ask in this section, Part 1B. The two passages that relate to the coming glorious reign of the Messiah have that much in common: they are both about the coming glorious reign of the Messiah. We shall therefore ask in what ways they differ, even though they are about the same general topic.

The house of David

So now we come to chapter 7. The theme that is going to occupy us is enunciated in the first two verses. The king of Judah hears the news that Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah, the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to war against it but could not prevail against it.

When the house of David was told, ‘Syria is in league with Ephraim,’ the heart of Ahaz and the heart of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake before the wind. (v. 2)

Do notice the very careful use of the words. It does not say, ‘it was told to Ahaz’, who happened to be king on the throne of David at the time, but ‘the house of David was told’. We pause at the phrase because that ought to conjure up into our minds all kinds of important historical things, namely the conquest of Jebus and David’s founding of the city of Jerusalem (2 Sam 5). The results of that act of vast historic significance, the founding of Jerusalem City, are with us to this very present day. Jerusalem threatens to be what Zechariah said it would be: ‘a burdensome stone among the nations’ (see 12:3). Jerusalem could yet set the world alight with a third world war. But what David did was of supreme importance, because Jerusalem came to be called the city of David, as distinct from his birthplace city, which was Bethlehem. So Jerusalem is inextricably entwined with David, and the kings there afterwards are sons of David, of course, and the house is the royal house of David. That is in contrast to the royal house of Israel, which went through many uprisings and eventual change of dynasty: from Solomon’s dynasty to Jeroboam the first’s dynasty, to Baasha’s dynasty, to Omri’s dynasty, and all of the remaining dynasties. The dynasty in Jerusalem remained the same all down its years until it was suspended by Nebuchadnezzar.

We are thinking of the house of David therefore. It gains its supreme importance because, according to the covenant that God made with David that there should never lack a man to sit upon his throne, eventually Messiah himself was born—the root and the offspring of David. Jerusalem was his capital city. It is to be remembered that, just before he died, he entered Jerusalem City, deliberately fulfilling what Zechariah 9 had said would happen: ‘Behold, your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey’ (v. 9). He deliberately fulfilled it, for he sent his disciples very carefully to get a donkey and to bring it. And they put their clothes in the way, and palm trees and so forth, and he sat upon it riding into Jerusalem (Matt 21). What a spectacle that must have been for anybody standing that bright day on the east side of Jerusalem and looking over towards the Mount of Olives, eventually to see that cavalcade coming down the mountainside. Hundreds, if not thousands, had followed him from Galilee. The crowds had been augmented as he travelled down the country. Now he was on his last stage, going up to Jerusalem, and according to Matthew there were many who thought that the kingdom of God was about to appear! Messiah had come! What a thing it must have been to stand in the golden gate of the city and see that spectacle. After the many centuries, the Messiah is coming! What a sight as he came to his capital city.

It was evident by the week’s end that he would be thrown out of his capital city and crucified. However, that would not happen before he had established his kingdom. For in an upper room, by arrangement carefully orchestrated, as Luke shows us, he met with his apostles and gave them the cup of the covenant by which he guaranteed to put his laws in their hearts. It was the act of a king to his subjects, as well as of a saviour and a master for those that trusted him. And ever since that day, believers have gathered, Lord’s Day by Lord’s Day, to take that cup from the hand of their Lord and invite him yet again to write his laws on their hearts. This is the king of David’s line.

If there should come a creeping suspicion into anybody’s mind that, of course, that aspect of our Lord is for the Jews and not for us, remember the description of the gospel given in Romans 1. There Paul says our blessed Lord, on whom the gospel completely depends, is ‘of the seed of David according to the flesh’ (v. 3 rv). It is an integral part of our gospel that Jesus Christ is of the seed of David. Writing out of Caesar’s prison to Timothy, Paul says, ‘Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel’ (2 Tim 2:8). And virtually the last message of our blessed Lord to the church is as follows: ‘I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star’ (Rev 22:16).

These things are for the churches, therefore. And while we shall rightly be occupied with Israel’s special place in God’s ancient and future dispensations, we should not miss in this section the relevance of these passages to us as members of the church, that speak to us of our king, as well as Israel’s king.

We are concerned with the house of David, therefore, and we recall, according to Samuel 7 and the other appropriate passage in 2 Chronicles 17, the covenant that God made with the house of David to maintain it. David was unique among the kings of the world, as God’s anointed messiah. Yes, it is true that the kings of the other nations and empires would have regarded themselves to be the king appointed by their pagan gods; at least that’s what they said for public propaganda. David’s claim was, number one, that those gods were nothing; there was but one true God. The claim was that David and his house were the regal representatives of the transcendent Lord God, creator of the universe.

At first sight it is a lot to believe all in one go that the king of that tiny little state in the Middle East, even if you granted its largest dimensions that it ever obtained, was unique amongst the kings of the earth. If you had tried to tell that to Stalin, you would have been in trouble. I don’t know what would happen if you told it to the president of the United States. I hope he would agree. But that is the claim and nothing less than that. The claim of David and his descendants on the throne of the Lord in Jerusalem was the claim that all subsequent kings of the house of David were meant to believe, and therefore to behave accordingly, amidst the stresses of international politics in those far off days.

The house of David up against crisis and calamity

Chapter 7 is going to introduce us to a crisis and then a calamity when the occupant of the throne of David at this particular time in history denied everything that the throne of David stood for. It was therefore not merely that Jerusalem and Judah and their people misbehaved generally, in terms of their religion, their commerce, their social duties and their legal system. That was the emphasis of chapters 1–5. Now we are to read the other side of the story. We read of the royal house of David, in the person of Ahaz, the present occupant of the throne, denying everything that the throne of David stood for. That was a catastrophe indeed. It is against that background that we take up the story here in chapter 7.

The word to King Ahaz and the house of David

When the house of David was told, ‘Syria is in league with Ephraim,’ the heart of Ahaz and the heart of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake before the wind. (v. 2)

The emphasis is the effect on the house of David. For a few brief years, Israel had once been subject to David willingly, and then to his son Solomon. Then after Solomon’s death came Rehoboam. At that juncture the ten tribes, under Jeroboam, split from the two tribes, renounced loyalty to the house of David and went off and made a king of their own, and also made idolatrous shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:25–33). That event is recorded again in chapter 7.

The Lord will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father’s house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah. (Isa 7:17)

The prophet is reminding them of that sorry event. It was difficult enough to believe that the king of tiny Israel, when its borders extended from Dan to Beersheba, was unique among the kings of the earth and was the anointed one of the transcendent Lord Creator. But when ten tribes split off and rejected David and his house, so that Jerusalem was left with just two tribes, now it was just a little pocket handkerchief-sized state. It was difficult now to believe that the occupant of the throne was the personal appointee of the Lord God of heaven.

Things began to get more difficult still. The ten tribes had, from time to time, fought with the two tribes and the two tribes with the ten. It had come to an uneasy truce for most of the years. Both Israel and Judah had a common enemy in Aram, which is the part of the world we now call Syria. Syria was the inveterate enemy to both Israel and Judah. Now the house of David heard the shocking news that the king of the ten tribes had formed an alliance and conspiracy with Aram. They had already determined what they would do, as we have it explained in the later verses.

Syria, with Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, has devised evil against you, saying, ‘Let us go up against Judah and terrify it, and let us conquer it for ourselves, and set up the son of Tabeel as king in the midst of it.’ (7:5–6)

The house of David, and Ahaz in particular, learned of this conspiracy between the ten tribes and the inveterate enemy, to come against Jerusalem, depose the reigning monarch, and set up a monarch of their own.

The book of Chronicles tells us of an earlier conspiracy that had been made, when Pekah the son of Remaliah came against the Israelites, and also how God delivered the king of Jerusalem into the hand of the Arameans, that is Syria (2 Chr 28:5­–6). So, Ahaz has already had experience of this kind of thing. Now he has heard a second rumour, and now they want to come against Jerusalem, depose Ahaz and put another king in his place. Why they should want to do such a thing is not explicitly stated. It is exceedingly probable, however, that the aim was to replace Ahaz of Judah with another chappie who would agree to join them in a tripartite attempt to resist the king of Assyria. So, it would have been the king of Aram and the king of Israel joined together and coming down to Jerusalem to take it, depose Ahaz and put their own lackey in his place; and the three of them would form a united coalition to resist the Assyrians. When Ahaz heard of that, he felt weak at the knees. What should he do? Would he stand for the faith that the house of David was God’s appointed monarchy, to bring in eventually the Messiah? Would he dare to believe God and stand, or would he succumb? This is the story.

And the Lord said to Isaiah, ‘Go out to meet Ahaz, you and Shear-jashub your son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the Washer’s Field. And say to him, “Be careful, be quiet, do not fear, and do not let your heart be faint because of these two smouldering stumps of firebrands, at the fierce anger of Rezin and Syria and the son of Remaliah”.’ (vv. 3–4)

The word to him was, ‘Stand, Ahaz! Stand!’ Isaiah was told to go and meet him at this particular point at the end of the conduit of the upper pool. It is not to be wondered at that he met him there, because with the rumour of invasion the king was now inspecting the water supply of Jerusalem. In those days the water supply of Jerusalem ran above ground. Of course, Jerusalem was up high. Cities down in the plain, or places like Gibeon, had a most marvellous water supply system so that you could hide the spring from the enemy. They had built a great cavity in the side of the hill, and it went down by steps around the inside of the cavity right down to the bottom, and then stairs went underneath the city wall and out to the spring. Then the spring could be covered so the invading army couldn’t see where it was, but even under siege the women in the city could go down the stairs inside the great cavity every day and go down the other stairs, out from under the wall and down to the spring and get the water and bring it back again. That was a device for defeating any possible siege. The water supply of Jerusalem, however, ran above the ground. We shall read of that again in a later chapter when Hezekiah was faced with a possibility of siege and went to all sorts of engineering performances to try and hide the water supply.

Ahaz was expecting a siege and was going out to inspect the water supply, and here is Isaiah standing there to tell him, in the name of God, that he needs to stand firm. He needn’t be afraid of these two smoking firebrands, for their scheme will not succeed.

Because Syria, with Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, has devised evil against you, saying, ‘Let us go up against Judah and terrify it, and let us conquer it for ourselves, and set up the son of Tabeel as king in the midst of it,’ thus says the Lord God: ‘It shall not stand, and it shall not come to pass. For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin. And within sixty-five years Ephraim will be shattered from being a people. And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah. If you are not firm in faith, you will not be firm at all.’ (vv. 5–9)

The appeal to the king is to dare to believe in God who had set up the house of David and would maintain it. Instead of that, Ahaz would not believe. What he did, according to our records, was that he appealed against the ten tribes and Aram and their coalition. He appealed, if you please, to the king of Assyria to come and save him from this attack threatened by Aram and the ten tribes. Of all the insane things that ever a man did, this was one of them. Fancy calling in the king of Assyria to come and save him from another two little pipsqueak kingdoms in the north! It reminds me of the two mice that had a row, and the bigger mouse was threatening the little mouse, so the little mouse called in the cat to deal with the big mouse. The cat did come in and deal with the big mouse, first, and then turned its attention on the little mouse. Of all the daft things to do! This is what Ahaz did, calling in the great and mighty emperor of Assyria to fortify the throne of David against Israel and the Arameans.

Let’s look at the history in 2 Chronicles 28. You will notice what precedes it. It is the attack on Jerusalem by the Israelites. And then we read, ‘At that time King Ahaz sent to the king of Assyria for help’ (v. 16). Other enemies had come up against Ahaz, and that is told us in the subsequent verses (vv. 17–21). The sorriest thing is this. Even if the Assyrians had come up and protected Ahaz and the king of Judah, what would have been the effect of that? Well, a house of Judah that had to be maintained by the king of Assyria would have forfeited all claim to be God’s representative on earth, for if God couldn’t maintain the throne of David, and you had to call in the Assyrians to maintain it, well exit God, of course.

It is a sorry thing to see the present Israeli governments trawling around for the mighty nations of the world to support them. For if they are to depend on the godless nations of the world to support Jerusalem, then exit all claim that they were put up and established by God. The Hassidic Jews of New York will not touch Zionism. They say, like Isaiah said, that to appeal to the great powers of the earth to maintain Jerusalem is to go down to Egypt for help, and thus denies the basic claim upon which the house of Judah is built. But, of course, the present Israeli government does not really believe in a coming Messiah, and perhaps a majority of Israelis are atheists anyway. All they know is power politics among the nations.

If you see the parallel between the two situations, and you put yourself in Ahaz’s shoes, what would you have done? Here comes Isaiah, pleading with Ahaz to believe. To believe what? Well, to believe in God, to believe in the covenant that God made with David, to believe that God would maintain them!

Ahaz can’t bring himself to believe, and then Isaiah starts talking about a virgin birth. Oh dear, dear. That stuff is all right on the Sabbath day in the synagogue, but when you are facing the United Nations or Russia or anybody else, I mean, really, to talk of a virgin birth in the context of international power politics? Could you expect Ahaz to believe it? But here is the prophecy to Ahaz.

Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, ‘Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.’ But Ahaz said, ‘I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test.’ (vv. 10–12)

At first sight he seems to be a very humble brother. He won’t be guilty of tempting the Lord and asking for signs; he’s not important enough for that. But it couldn’t have been tempting the Lord because here is the Lord, through Isaiah, telling him to ask for a sign. ‘Ahaz, my boy, if your knees are knocking together, ask a sign of me,’ says God, ‘and don’t make it a little sign! Ask for a colossal sign in the heavens or in the depths, a sign big enough to cope with this situation.’ But he refuses to ask for a sign. That, in the circumstances, is terrible. That is virtually saying to God, ‘God, you and your signs are not capable for this. No, I will not ask a sign.’ That is sheer apostasy.

The sign to the house of David

Isaiah says, ‘Hear now, O house of David.’ Now notice that description repeated. Not now, ‘Hear Ahaz,’ but, ‘Hear, O house of David.’

And he said, ‘Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. The Lord will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father’s house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.’ (vv. 13–17)

So let’s come to this famous prophecy and prepare ourselves to think about it. As you know, it has its problem, but it is a vital and important part of the prophecy of Isaiah and of God’s purpose.

Notice the end verse, therefore. Because of Ahaz’s refusal of the sign, God will bring upon him a disaster, incomparably greater than the one that befell the house of David when the ten tribes rebelled against it. Now he will bring upon the house of David the king of Assyria, as a result, of course, of Ahaz’s own stupid policy in calling in the king of Assyria to help.

It was an extraordinary thing for Israel to do, for Aram was the inveterate enemy of both of them, all down the centuries. Read the books of Kings and Chronicles. For the ten tribes to have become politically confederate with Aram, you might as well say Britain had gone confederate with Adolf Hitler or something. When Ahaz heard that they were coming against Judah to unseat him and put somebody else on the throne, that was a terrible thing and worse than when the ten tribes revolted from the house of David, because Jeroboam didn’t try to unseat David’s grandson, Rehoboam. The house of Judah had gone on without any change of dynasty all these centuries, but now, because of Ahaz’s move, refusing the sign and going to ask the king of Assyria to come and keep him on his throne, God will bring upon him a worse situation than happened when the ten tribes departed from the house of David. He will bring the gigantic empire of Assyria against him. Then what will they do? That is surely the significance of verse 17.

The Lord will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father’s house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.

The sign of the virgin birth

Now we come to the sign itself and the question of the virgin birth. ‘The virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel’ (v. 14). We know the New Testament interpretation, so let us look at that, so we can clear our heads as we come back to Isaiah. I suggest we look first at the interpretation that Matthew puts upon it, and that will prepare our minds for our next session when we come to the detail of this particular prophecy. This is Matthew 1.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.’ All this . . . (vv. 18–22)

Now, you must be very careful how you translate the verb just here. ‘Now all this has come to pass’, not ‘all this came to pass’. If you say ‘all this came to pass’ you have altered the sense of the passage completely.

All this [has come to pass] that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet saying, ‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel’ (which is, being interpreted, ‘God with us’). And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him. (vv. 22–24 own trans.)

What is the point? The point is that verse 22 is not Matthew’s comment, saying that in this incident Scripture was fulfilled, for if that had been Matthew’s comment, he would say what he says in other passages: ‘all this came to pass’. Because, when Matthew was writing decades later and looking back upon things, he said, ‘Now, that incident there came to pass.’ That is his normal phase. You will notice the difference of tense, however, in verse 22. This is not Matthew, decades later, saying, ‘This came to pass’. This is the angel still talking to Joseph, who is asleep and having a dream or a vision in his sleep. Joseph doesn’t wake up until verse 24. This is the angel saying, ‘Joseph, don’t be afraid to take your wife.’

So, what is the situation? Joseph was betrothed to Mary, and Mary was betrothed to him, and in the ancient world that was almost as good as marriage. For a girl to be unfaithful to her betrothed was regarded as adultery. When Joseph heard that Mary was expecting a child, well, he didn’t want ‘to make a show of her publicly’ (see v. 19), but he wasn’t going to carry on with the marriage. She could say what she liked, perhaps, about visitations of angels. Nobody was there to see them. Joseph wasn’t. And he was minded to put her away when, being asleep, an angel of the Lord appeared to him, apropos of the problem that confronted him. And he said, ‘Joseph, don’t be afraid to take your wife. It is the fact that what is in her has been conceived by the Holy Spirit. And, Joseph, as confirmation of what I’m telling you, do you not remember there is a Scripture in the Old Testament?’

‘Oh,’ said Joseph, ‘I hadn’t thought of that.’

‘No, I’m just reminding you,’ said the angel. ‘All these things have come to pass so that that Scripture might be fulfilled.’

It’s nice that the angels know the Old Testament, because it was very fortunate at this juncture to be able to refer Joseph to the Scripture. And, I dare say when he woke up, he went and looked at it, or got a rabbi to read it for him or something.

A matter of historicity

Why is that important? Well, not merely because it comforted Joseph, but also because of the theories of liberal theologians. For these many decades, they have often said about this and other things in Matthew that Matthew, being convinced that Jesus was the son of God, argued to himself that Jesus must have, by definition, fulfilled all the prophecies in the Old Testament about the Messiah. So, Matthew was one day reading and came across a thing in Isaiah about the virgin, so he thought, ‘Well, Jesus must have been born of a virgin then.’ He hadn’t heard of it before, they say, so he made up the story (in good faith of course, being a good religious man). He made up a story of a virgin birth, because he was certain that Jesus would have fulfilled all the prophecies in the Old Testament, so he made the story up that he had. ‘Of course,’ say the liberal theologians, ‘we can’t believe it today, but wasn’t it a nice expression of Matthew’s faith? He wanted to say that Jesus was special.’

That is all nonsense and humbug. Matthew didn’t make up the story, and Matthew was not the first one to appeal to Isaiah 7 about the virgin birth. If Matthew is telling us this, he is telling us because Joseph told him, or told somebody else who told him. The first to notice Isaiah 7 and the prophecy of the virgin birth, according to Matthew, was the angel who pointed it out to Joseph in the course of the vision. And that is why Joseph eventually took Mary and married her. Without the angel pointing that out to him, he would have not married the girl. So, at least let’s get that straight. Matthew is not inventing stories to make it look as if Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 7.

Questions on the verb used in Matthew 1:22

Audience: Can you help us with the significance of your pointing out the difference of the verb for us. When the angel is speaking, my translation has, ‘this is come to pass’.

DWG: You are to be congratulated on the English of your version. It is old English. So, there were centuries when we English, for our past perfect tense, used the verb ‘to be’. ‘The Master is come, and calleth for thee’ (John 11:28 kjv) is good old English. We don’t use it nowadays. We now say, ‘The master has come.’ The dear French keep up the thing: ‘Il est venu’, meaning, ‘he is come’. With certain verbs of becoming and being and movement, old English used as its auxiliary, not the verb ‘to have’, but the verb ‘to be’. So, here, the King James Version has ‘is come’ for ‘has come’.

In Matthew 1:22, ‘all this is come to pass’ is a correct translation of the verb in old English. It is a perfect in Greek: ‘it is come to pass’, which means ‘it has come to pass’, as distinct from when Matthew uses the aorist to say this thing ‘came to pass’.

Audience: In the latter kind of case Matthew is narrating his story, whereas here he’s quoting the angel in the immediate context.

DWG: Yes, and you notice that in the flow of the narrative Joseph is having his vision. It would be most unlikely for Matthew to interrupt what an angel is saying to Joseph to make a comment of his own.

Audience: And the angel at that time and place would not have used the words ‘this came to pass’ because it was present, right then.

DWG: Yes, it was right in front of his nose. ‘This has come to pass, Joseph.’

Audience: Would it be accurate, in modern parlance, to say that the angel is saying, ‘Now all of this is happening . . .’.

DWG: Well, ‘is happening’, if you like, but of course he is referring to Mary’s recent conception.

Audience: So, ‘All of this has happened.’

DWG: Yes, all of this has happened. What Joseph was concerned with was the story that Mary would have told him: ‘Joseph, I’m pregnant.’

Audience: The King James Version says, ‘All this was done’.

DWG: Yes, pity. It should be a perfect tense. ‘All this was done’ is a past definite tense. When Matthew, decades later, is writing about something that happened, say, forty years earlier, he says, ‘All this was done all those decades ago’, but the angel talking to Joseph is there present in this situation. Mary has conceived; she is now pregnant. ‘All this has happened,’ says the angel, ‘and this is the explanation of it’.

That is exceedingly important for the historicity of the matter. The story was not invented by Matthew. It was the angel talking to Joseph in his vision, and pointing Joseph to the Old Testament Scripture. But Joseph, considering that Scripture, would now come to believe Mary’s story. He would say, ‘I see. Yes, there was a prophecy to this, wasn’t there? And this has come to pass in fulfilment of that prophecy.’ It was mighty kind of God to settle Joseph’s mind, wasn’t it?

So, then that is Matthew’s interpretation, but we must leave it there and we will come back and pursue the topic further.

⁵ The full size version of this chart can be found in the Appendices.

8: The Fulfilment of the Virgin Birth Prophesied in Isaiah 7

Part 1B (7:1–12:6) Continued

A question of how the New Testament interprets

We shall run a little bit behind schedule today, but the passage that we are looking at is of tremendous importance, so it will be worthwhile spending the extra time. What I was trying to do in our previous session was to sketch in the historical background and the political circumstances of Ahaz on this particular occasion. He was challenged by God through Isaiah the prophet to dare to believe God, to dare to believe what God had said about the house and throne of David, to dare to believe the covenant that God had made with David for the maintenance of David’s seed after him, and particularly that glorious promise made to David in connection with the maintenance of his dynasty. God said that when he had a son, ‘If need be, I will chastise him after the manner of men, but my mercy I will not take fully from him. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son’ (see 2 Sam 7:14–15). In the first instance, of course, that promise to David concerned Solomon. Says God, ‘David, when you fall asleep, I shall not destroy your dynasty like I did to Saul.’ When Saul was killed, his son Ishbosheth took his place, but he was but a shadow of a king, and was eventually assassinated by two of his captains. God is telling David, ‘Now, I shall not take away my mercy from your house as I took it from Saul’s house. I will establish your house, that is, your dynasty.’ The critical time would be at the birth of David’s first son, namely, Solomon. God did not say that this son would be perfect. If need be, he would be chastised, but, God says, ‘I will not take my mercy from you. I will continue with him. I will maintain him,’ and then he added, ‘I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son’ (see v. 14). Doubtless, that promise of God was fulfilled to a certain extent in Solomon, but the way the New Testament looks at that particular promise is shown to us in Hebrews 1 where the promise, ‘I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son’ (v. 5) is now expounded by the writer to the Hebrews as an indicator of the deity of the Lord Jesus.

I want to pause there, because this raises a big hermeneutical problem, as they say. It is the question of how you should or should not interpret the Old Testament. It is sometimes said that you mustn’t make the Old Testament Scripture mean or imply more than the human writer of the Old Testament understood. That kind of advice is designed to stop people reading into the Old Testament all sorts of unusual, absurd and unauthorized things, like supposing that the wheels and wings of Ezekiel’s vision of the throne of God have something to do with jumbo jets of the modern age, which is nonsense. If you come back to the proposition that you shouldn’t read the New Testament back into the Old, that is, you shouldn’t suppose that an Old Testament prophecy means more than the original prophet who uttered it will have understood, I think that is to be questioned, and may be positively challenged, from our basic understanding of the inspiration of Scripture. ‘The Old Testament,’ says Paul, ‘was given by inspiration of God’ (see 2 Tim 3:16).

Peter, enlarging upon that, describes the mechanics: ‘Not by the will of man did any prophecy ever come’ (see 2 Pet 1:21). Well, then how did it come? The order of the Greek sentence is interesting. It is very difficult to reproduce it in English, but it follows the order of the actual fact. It came this way: ‘being carried along by the Holy Spirit, there spoke, from God, human beings.’ Do you see the process? With the Holy Spirit carrying them along, here comes speaking and it is from God, human beings do the speaking. If that is so (and we believe it, don’t we?) then it wasn’t just Nathan the prophet speaking when he spoke to David and conveyed God’s promise. It wasn’t just Nathan speaking, but he was speaking, being carried along by the Holy Spirit, and therefore the speaking was coming from God through Nathan the prophet.

Now, that is a very important thing to see. And with that in mind, just let me remind you what the context was in 2 Samuel 7. We first read that David said one bright morning to Nathan, ‘I’ve got an idea, Nathan.’

He said, ‘Have you, Your Majesty?’

And he said, ‘Yes, yes. I’ve been thinking. I dwell in this beautiful palace here, cedar-panelled and all that, and the ark of God is dwelling under curtains. I don’t think that’s right, Nathan. I think God should have a proper house for his ark, and I propose to build one.’

And Nathan said, ‘Well said, old boy. You get on with it!’ (see vv. 1–3).

It becomes evident that Nathan was not, at that point, speaking from God—being borne along by the Holy Spirit, that is, prophet though he was. For that night God said to Nathan, ‘Nathan, what were you saying to David? If you please, go and contradict it now, because it didn’t come from me.’

When Nathan spoke the second time, this time he was being carried along by the Holy Spirit and speaking from God. It was therefore God speaking to David (vv. 4–17).

Now you have a question to ask. God thus spoke through Nathan the prophet to David and said that he was going to maintain his dynasty, and that to maintain it would mean that he would be a father to Solomon, and Solomon would be to him a son. That is how the dynasty would be secured in its continuation. Tell me something. When God spoke through Nathan the prophet to David, did God already know, as he looked down the centuries, what he was going to do to maintain the dynasty of David, by bringing into the world God’s own Son, the Son of God? Did he know that in advance, do you think?

It seems we all agree that he did. If it was God speaking, to say that what God meant was limited to what Nathan understood would be a curious thing, wouldn’t it? This notion that inspiration doesn’t go over and beyond a human personality is half true but only half true. God doesn’t have to reduce Nathan the prophet, or any man, to a machine in order to convey his message to David.

Let me take an example. You’re in your study one morning, and your rosy-cheeked little four-year-old comes along and says, ‘Daddy, mummy says Aunt Matilda is coming on Thursday to stay with us for a month.’ The four-year-old has understood it. Mummy has not used her as a machine. The four-year-old understands what mum said: that Aunt Matilda is coming to stay for a month. When you get the message from your wife, through this four-year-old, are you limited to what the four-year-old understands? You happen to know Aunt Matilda from many years’ experience! There arises in your mind all sorts of ideas that your four-year-old has never contemplated.

When the living God spoke through Nathan to David, and used the phrase, ‘I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son,’ assuring David that, by that mechanism, his dynasty would be continued, you must not limit that to what Nathan understood. God was not using him as a machine. God already foresaw that one day, to maintain the throne of David as he promised, the only solution would be to bring in as David’s seed one who was God of very God.

There is one other element in that question of hermeneutics and interpretation, and that is: us. We read 2 Samuel 7 and listen to God speaking through Nathan to David, and of course we are at this far end of things. Did God know we would be reading it when he spoke it? And, incidentally, who is speaking to us when we read 2 Samuel 7? Is it just Nathan? No, it is the same living God who speaks through his inspired word, now to us, because we are living after the birth of Christ, and we can look back with hindsight. Shall I say to God, ‘You know, God, that phrase you used, of course, you didn’t realize at the time, but now we see it has a bigger meaning than even you thought of!’

What? Well, of course not! Do be aware of simplistic ideas on hermeneutics. We are dealing with the inspired word of the living God.

Discussion on the matter of how the New Testament interprets

Audience: Just to clarify what you’re saying, it’s not only that we don’t need to limit the interpretation of a word from God to what was understood by the speaker or the hearer at the time, but also there is a sense in which God’s own word can transcend its own original context.

DWG: Yes, because God, who used the words, could see the end from the beginning. It’s not like, as happens with us, you devise a sermon that meets the need in one assembly, and six months later, you say, ‘Oh, I could use that message again for something else,’ which you hadn’t thought of before. God never is in that difficulty but saw it all from the beginning, of course.

Audience: Surely this presents us with another dilemma. This doesn’t give us licence to let our imaginations run wild in trying to interpret all sorts of fanciful things. I mean, lest we be guilty of what we accuse covenant theologians of doing in spiritualizing the Scriptures. How do we restrain ourselves, and what guidelines do we use while allowing for what you’ve said?

DWG: Oh surely. Yes, amen. And, please, nothing that I say is meant to give licence to any of us, and certainly not to me, for arbitrary interpretations of the Old Testament. So, one of the checks is that it must be consistent with what was said originally. We must understand what the prophecy meant in its original situation, and let the context of that prophecy control our interpretation. One of the exercises that I’m trying to emphasize this week in Isaiah is that we don’t just take a prophecy and say, ‘Oh, that applies to Christ!’ and lift it out of its context. Instead, we try to understand what it meant in its context originally.

Audience: One of the things we discussed yesterday was from Isaiah 4:2, which talked about the fruit of the land. We talked about it meaning something more, or different than, a literal prosperous land. What is there, contextually, in that passage that would give us justification for doing that?

DWG: On the question of how that is interpreted, I point you to Alec Motyer. He is a Reformed theologian, so he doesn’t believe in things like the millennium, but he gives a summary of all the different views that have been held on that particular verse and its interpretation. It is interesting and useful to see the different permutations that serious interpreters have put forward. That is to be welcomed, surely.

Secondly, when it comes to a phrase like ‘the fruit of the land’, you can take it literally. People say, ‘Yes, take it literally if it can be taken literally; don’t spiritualize it.’ But perhaps ‘spiritualization’ is a difficult concept, and not too helpful, when it comes to interpretation of Scripture. That is because you can take ‘fruit of the land’ literally (cabbages and things), but then, even in ordinary language, this can be, not a type or a spiritualization, but simply a metaphor.

We use thousands of metaphors. If I hear it said that the British prime minister, Tony Blair by name, has got the leader of the opposition tied hand and foot, what do I take it to mean by the phrase ‘tied, hand and foot’? Do I take it literally? Well, not with ropes around his legs, or chains around his hands. Is this ‘spiritualizing’ then? No, our news reporters are not given to spiritualizing. What do they mean, then? Well, they mean it as a metaphor. If you say, ‘They don’t mean it literally,’ you are saying they don’t mean he’s got them tied around hand and foot with chains or ropes. But beware, if you say, ‘Then this isn’t real; this is spiritualizing.’ No, it’s real enough; it’s simply a metaphorical way of saying that he’s got the man so tied up, sometimes with his own arguments, that the man has got no room for manoeuvre. Therefore, there is not just a choice between taking it literally or taking it, so-called, ‘spiritually’. There is many a place where it is to be understood, say, metaphorically.

So, John the Baptist says, ‘Get ready for the coming of the Lord’ (see John 1:23). He’s quoting Isaiah 40. ‘Every hill shall be laid low and every valley shall be filled’ (see vv. 3–4). Does he mean it literally? Does he mean that to prepare for the coming of the Lord, Israel has got to get the Himalayas down, and Mount Carmel has got to be rolled flat, and the Jordan valley filled in? Well, surely John the Baptist doesn’t mean that, does he? They didn’t do it anyway, and the Lord came. To say, therefore, that if it can’t be taken literally means it is not real would be a mistake. It can be a big metaphor. Understood by the oriental mind, to make way for the coming of a king means you have to build a road, and you have to build it nice and straight and take all the rocks out of the way, and you have to make it easy for him to approach you. If the Emperor Augustus was coming to a city, they would make the road very plain for him. If her majesty Queen Elizabeth II were coming, the local authorities would see that the road was tarmacked properly. Did John the Baptist meant it literally, or did he mean it as a metaphor, that you have to prepare the way for the coming of Christ for he’s now about to appear in your midst? His literal word was ‘repentance’, but he spoke of taking all the obstacles out of the way.

So, I think when we are interpreting Isaiah, we must work, not just with two categories: either literal or spiritual. Something can be literal; it can also be metaphorical. And metaphors, though they are not to be taken literally, are describing real situations. They are not prophecies or spiritualizations. Yes, it is a complicated question. We must be diligent, and I would urge, therefore, that we must first understand what the prophet said, and what it meant in its own location.

Then I would urge the control of the structure of a book, and how the message is to be understood in its context in relation to the other things around it, and fitting with the structure of the book. These are control mechanisms that control what association we think is likely.

Audience: Can we not rely on following the Spirit of God that dwells within us to show us what he has written? In other words, if we just separate ourselves from all that’s ever been said, and totally rely upon the Spirit of God to guide us to the truth of what he has written, can we not reliably expect that to happen?

DWG: Well, I have raised a big question, sorry. Yes, we can rely upon the Holy Spirit as it is said in 1 Corinthians 2, that we might understand the things that are freely given us of God (see v. 12). Amen. But the Lord has put teachers in the church. So, relying on the Holy Spirit does not mean that we just forget everything that God has taught through his teachers; certainly not. And, secondly, it is the Holy Spirit who has inspired Scripture. He helps us to understand it, but he will expect us to give very diligent attention to what he has caused to be written. The Holy Spirit will never lead us to adopt some meaning that he never himself intended. Therefore it does mean a diligent searching of Scripture, surely.

Audience: But that’s why the teacher and the commentator have to understand the correct interpretation. They have to understand it from God, to be able to give it to us.

DWG: Yes, and then any commentator who is a spiritual man would tell you, ‘I’ve done my best, but you examine what I say and hold fast that which is good.’

I’m sorry if I’ve taken up too much time on that topic, but it is an important one and bears upon what we now face, another prophecy about the coming of the Lord Jesus.

The prophecy of the virgin birth

I quoted the New Testament deliberately to show that the New Testament understands the prophecy of the virgin birth from Isaiah 7 as nothing less than a prophecy of the birth of one who is both man and God. In quoting the name ‘Immanuel’, in chapter one of his Gospel, Matthew is emphasizing the fact that the one born of the virgin was also ‘Son of God’, ‘God with us’ in the fullest possible sense. Now we come back to the actual text, and have to decide how we read this prophecy in its context.

A sign given to unbelief

From verse 10, we see that this is the Lord speaking to Ahaz: ‘Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz’, and he tells Ahaz to ask for a sign. Ahaz refuses and will not ask for the sign so, through Isaiah, God says,

Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (vv. 13–14)

One should notice the context. God told Ahaz to ask for a sign. Ahaz refused. So, when God himself gives a sign, he is giving it to a man who has point blank refused God and whatever message God has to give. That is number one: it is a sign given to unbelief.

The timing of the fulfilment

The next thing is the question of when that sign was to be fulfilled. One might argue from the context. ‘Butter and honey shall he eat, when he knows to refuse the evil, and choose the good’ (v. 15 rv). Is butter and honey descriptive of absolute plenty and self-indulgence with all this beautiful, rich food? No, in Isaiah it is the very opposite. As distinct from what the farmer would produce when he could plough the fields and scatter the good seed on the land, butter and honey is what is left when the armies have so invaded the country that arable farming is no longer possible, as it is said later in the chapter.

In that day every place where there used to be a thousand vines, worth a thousand shekels of silver, will become briers and thorns. With bow and arrows a man will come there, for all the land will be briers and thorns. And as for all the hills that used to be hoed with a hoe, you will not come there for fear of briers and thorns, but they will become a place where cattle are let loose and where sheep tread. (vv. 23–25)

They will be reduced, therefore, to the honey that the bees produce in the wild, and to the milk that the cows produce as they go, getting what grass they can amongst the thorns and the thistles. It is the food of a people whose land has been devastated.

Then he adds, ‘when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good’ (v. 15). A little child can soon tell the difference between a nice taste and a nasty taste. It doesn’t take very many months for a child to get to that stage. Now then, before the beginning of moral understanding, ‘the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. The Lord will bring upon you . . . the king of Assyria’ (vv. 16–17).

The problem we have to face is this. Is the promise of the virgin birth meant in this sense: ‘Ahaz, very soon, in this next day or two, a virgin will produce a child; and before that child has grown up very much, the two kings that you are dead scared of now (the king of Israel and the king of Aram) will be gone’? In other words, is God predicting to Ahaz the virgin birth of a child in the next few days or months, and that will be a sign to him that the two opposing kings of the ten tribes and of Aram will soon be gone? If that is its interpretation, then are we to think that this birth that happened in a few days’ time was a virgin birth, an absolute miracle? What are we to think about it? I will tell you my own opinion, for what it is worth, and then I shall be interested to hear yours.

A matter of timing

The sign is given now to Ahaz, when Ahaz has refused to ask a sign, and therefore it is a sign given to unbelief. Of course, before this child to be born of a virgin grows up enough to discern the difference between evil and good, the land will be forsaken. But that would be true, even if this is a prophecy of a birth of our Lord centuries later. Before our blessed Lord was a child and grew up, Damascus and Samaria had long since been forsaken.

At the time this prophecy was given, there was panic because of the Syro-Ephraimite confederacy against Jerusalem to set up another king. God pleads with Ahaz to believe him, but Ahaz refuses to ask for a sign. In spite of that, the sign he is given of the virgin and Immanuel meant the imminent demise of the two kings, which was brought about by God bringing on them the king of Assyria.

Audience: The sign was addressed to the house of David.

DWG: It was to the house of David. ‘Hear then, O house of David!’ (v. 13). So, strictly speaking, you are correct. It is not just to Ahaz; it is a sign to the house of David. Hence the tremendous emphasis in the gospels: ‘the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David’ (Luke 1:32); he ‘has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David’ (v. 69). It is a sign to the house of David.

I myself take it that this was what we call a post-dated sign. To see what I mean by ‘post-dated signs’, consider God talking to Moses at the burning bush. He commanded Moses to go and take his message to Pharaoh, and Moses dithered and tried not to go, and God gave him a sign to reassure him. It was this: ‘When you’ve brought them out, you’ll worship at this mountain’ (see Exod 3:12). Well, how is that a sign to Moses? It would only happen after he’d brought the children of Israel out of Egypt. How could that be a sign to him as he stood there with his knees quaking in front of the burning bush, trying to get out of the job altogether? But that is what God said. ‘This shall be a sign to you, that when you’ve brought them out, you will worship God on this mountain here.’ For the sign to be fulfilled, Moses has now got to go down to Egypt and go through all that paraphernalia and lead the children of Israel out, before the sign was ever fulfilled. It was, in that sense, one of these post-dated signs. And if we are right in taking up that notion that, given Ahaz’s refusal to listen, and what Ahaz is now about to do to ask the Assyrians to come in, it would make sense to me if God now gives to the house of David a sign of what shall one day happen, in the undated future. And that sign is not only a virgin birth, but the birth of a child who is both God and man.

Why is that important? Well, because of this. God had made a covenant with the house of David that he would maintain his throne. When the throne of David was brought to its end by the king of Babylon, the writer of Psalm 89 expresses his puzzlement. ‘Lord, you made this marvellous covenant with David. You said his throne should endure forever. Please God, what’s now happened to your covenant? Jerusalem is destroyed and the throne of David overthrown. What’s happened to your covenant?’ (see vv. 38–51). This post-dated sign would therefore be a tremendous rock for believers to hold onto, that God would maintain that throne, but this is the way he would do it. When all other kings failed, then God would send a virgin-born king, both God and man, who would sit on the throne of David.

That at least is how I would understand it. Let me now say one more thing in this context, to give you my humble opinion about it, and then I will hear what you have to say on this matter.

On an alternative interpretation

Some people point to chapter 8 where it talks about a child being born.

Then the Lord said to me, ‘Take a large tablet and write on it in common characters, “Belonging to Maher-shalal-hash-baz.” And I will get reliable witnesses, Uriah the priest and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah, to attest for me.’ And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the Lord said to me, ‘Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz; for before the boy knows how to cry “My father” or “My mother”, the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria.’ (8:1–4)

Some people, wrestling with this matter of the timing of the fulfilment of the virgin birth in chapter 7, have suggested that chapter 8 is talking about the same thing. Isaiah’s child by his wife at this juncture was a sign that before the child has knowledge to cry, ‘My father,’ and, ‘My mother’, Damascus and Samaria shall be finished, overrun by the Assyrians. And these two passages are talking about the same event, really, from two different points of view.

I find that explanation difficult to accept for some simple reasons. First, the child that was to be born of the virgin was to be called Immanuel: ‘God with us’. The child born to Isaiah by the prophetess is also given a name. It would be a little bit odd if, within the context, it is the same child called by a different name. They call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz. The New Testament never acknowledges that as a name of the Lord Jesus, does it? No, surely not.

Second, I take it that the two signs were different on this score too. The sign of the virgin birth is given to the house of David. This sign in chapter 8 is given to Isaiah and his disciples.

But with that I finish. And now, please, you help me. You see to what difficulties I have come, so do now come in and help me. Who is going to start?

Discussion concerning interpreting the prophecy of the virgin birth

Audience: I’d suggest that perhaps the sign here of the virgin birth is, as you’ve mentioned in an earlier session, a sign to the house David and did not occur in the days of Ahaz. The second sign, concerning the butter and honey, which we recognize as the ravaging of the land, is something that Ahaz would have recognized as a sign. I suggest that did happen in his days.

DWG: Yes, thank you very much.

Audience: How can you split them up without having the first sign at least having some kind of partial fulfilment in Ahaz’s day?

DWG: A partial fulfilment has appealed to many, hasn’t it? The Lord uses the word for a virgin that could be either an ordinary girl of marriageable age, or it could be a virgin. This is the great controversy over the translation of almah in Hebrew. So, you could have a partial fulfilment, that is, a girl of marriageable age who married and had a child, and that was a sign to Ahaz, but like the prophecy in 2 Samuel 7 that I began with, it had a bigger meaning in the coming of Messiah; and when he was born it would be, literally, of a virgin, and also his name, Immanuel, would be not merely that God in a general sense is with his people, but that God is with us in the incarnation of the Son of God. Do you feel it is a double sign, in that sense?

Audience: That’s my question. Is it possible that, if there was an initial Ahaz era fulfilment, the girl he is referring to in verse 14 was a virgin when the prophecy was given, but then she was married and gave birth later?

DWG: One could think of that as being the normal way it would have to happen, yes. It wouldn’t be strictly a virgin birth.

Audience: To whom does verse 15 refer, if it doesn’t refer to Christ in the future? It has to refer to somebody’s son.

DWG: The view is that the prophecy possibly had a lower fulfilment and then a higher one. The lower fulfilment was that a girl who, at that moment, was a virgin but then got married and had a child; and within a few months, or a year or two of that child’s growth, Damascus and Israel would be finished. This was a sign to Ahaz that he will have understood. And then it had a bigger fulfilment, by God’s intention, with the birth of our Lord of a literal virgin, and now Immanuel meant the incarnation of the Son of God.

My difficulty would be this. What kind of a sign would it have been to Ahaz that an ordinary girl, of whom there were hundreds, if not thousands, in his kingdom, should get married and have a child? What kind of a sign would it be?

Audience: Well, I’m not suggesting it really needed to be a sign to Ahaz. What I’m wrestling with is the difficulty of how to interpret verses 15–16 if it isn’t a child in Ahaz’s day. Did Christ live on butter and honey? And did he come to a point, as some would say, where he began to be able to discern between good and evil? To apply that to Christ presents dilemmas for me. So, if that applied to someone other than Christ in Ahaz’s day, who was it?

DWG: Who was it? Yes, I take your point. And we have another contribution.

Audience: Could it be that the sign is the total of the three verses, not just the birth but also the overthrow of the two kings. And that is the immediate sign to Ahaz?

DWG: In other words, it is part of a timing, is that what you’re saying? What we’re saying here now is that the sign has got to be part of a timing that would make sense to Ahaz.

Audience: No, the immediate, the literal fulfilment to Ahaz, not just the birth, but before that child was of age, the two kings were overthrown.

DWG: Yes, that’s right. I’m still stuck, but I take the point. If you say this refers to Christ, well, when does the rest make sense when referring to Christ, for instance about him eating honey?

Audience: The quote in Matthew only alludes to that one verse, verse 14, as being fulfilled. It doesn’t say anything about verses 15–16.

DWG: No, it doesn’t say anything in Matthew about Christ eating butter and honey, not even like John the Baptist, who had locusts and wild honey.

Audience: Given what we’ve just been saying, I would also suggest that the fact that if this child is a sign of the timing of the destruction of Israel and Aram, and the coming of Assyria into that northern area, then for his other name to be Maher-shalal-hash-baz makes a lot of sense. Then, at the end of the paragraph we read, ‘and it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass on, reaching even to the neck, and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel’ (8:8). To me, it sounds like Isaiah is addressing his little boy, his little baby. In other words, Maher-shalal-hash-baz has two names, and whatever it’s worth, the old tradition that Isaiah was perhaps of the house of David, being kind of a palace prophet, he could have been very much within those circles, so that fits with the idea of the sign to the house of David.

Audience: The problem I have with that is that Isaiah’s wife was not a virgin at that point.

DWG: No, she wasn’t.

Audience: No, but in fact ‘the virgin’ is the word. And if what we have in 8:1–2 is actually contracting a marriage, if he had a previous wife who perhaps had died, then this is a young girl. Isaiah is contracting a marriage. Immediately she conceives and, within this timing referred to in the prophecy, the historical events happen that relieve Ahaz on the one hand, but then become a flood on the other. It’s a sign of judgment to an unbeliever. And it fits in with a number of other little signs and prophecies in Isaiah where there are one, two or three-year gaps. This is the first of those.

DWG: Yes. So now, if you’re following, what we’ve had is the suggestion that the prophecy of the virgin birth in 7:14–17, being linked to the timing, constitutes a difficulty if you refer the whole thing to the birth of our Lord, because there is nothing in the New Testament that talks about Christ eating butter and honey and things like that, and before the child gets to that age to distinguish good and evil, and so forth. And so, how can the whole thing refer to our Lord and his virgin birth? The next suggestion would be that, actually, chapter 8 is talking about the same birth, the birth to Isaiah through the prophetess, of this child. Therefore, when the prophecy is made, ‘the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel’, this is Isaiah, so to speak, addressing his infant son, Immanuel.

The difficulty that has been raised against that idea is that this time it wouldn’t be a virgin birth, so there would be no sign in the birth itself, of the type of birth, but only in the timing of the thing. That, to me, constitutes a very big difficulty, because if there is going to be a sign at all, it must not be merely about timing. It has got to be: ‘the virgin shall conceive and bear a son’.

Audience: I think that, as with all of these Old Testament prophecies, it applies to both. I see it that the whole idea is that God would promise that there would be a partial fulfilment of the prophecy, but then the ultimate fulfilment was true. So I don’t have any problem with that. I mean, we talk about butter and honey as an indication that the land was desolate, and that that is all it could produce, which, at that particular time was true, but we remember that when God talked about the promised land, he talked about a land flowing with milk and honey. And the milk applies in the New Testament to the word of God, ‘the sincere milk of the word’ (1 Pet 2:2 kjv), and then honey which was sweet, and the thing that was good for the strengthening of the lives of the people. I don’t have any problem whatsoever applying it to the Lord. He was offered both the evil and the good. Satan came to him and offered him the kingdoms if he would simply bow down to him, and Christ chose the good, which took him to the point of the cross. The good was going to the cross and suffering and dying for us. Then he got the same thing that Satan had offered him, but he got it in the right way. I think sometimes if we go to portions of Scripture like Isaiah 53, or even Psalm 22, which are obviously thinking about the Lord and his suffering and death, you’ve got to be careful, as you said before, of taking it to the extreme of applying every jot and tittle, literally, to the Lord. We need to realize that some things are speaking metaphorically, concerning him. So, I don’t think you have any problem at all applying this both to Isaiah’s son as well as, ultimately, the final fulfilment with the Lord himself, who ate butter and honey, or milk and honey, that is, doing the will of God. Because as he says, when he told the apostles there at the well in Samaria in John 4, his will, his food, his desire, was to do the will of God, and that was choosing the good all throughout his life. So, I don’t have any problem calling it after both.

DWG: Yes, that’s good. If I’ve got the drift of your suggestion therefore, it would be to say that the prophecy of chapter 7, about the virgin, had a lower fulfilment and a higher one. That would mean, would it not, that the lower fulfilment was not, strictly speaking, a virgin birth?

Audience: Right.

DWG: You would therefore have to say that the word translated ‘virgin’ here, is a word that could be applied to an ordinary girl that then got married and had a child. There would be no sign in the actual birth; the whole sign would reside in the timing. And God is saying to the house of David, ‘Now look, a girl is going to get married and have a child. There is nothing remarkable in that, but before that little child grows up far enough to know the difference between good and evil, the lands of Aram and the ten tribes will be deserted by their kings and be overcome by Syria.’ Then the bigger point of the sign would be that when it was fulfilled in our Lord, then the term almah in Hebrew, ‘a virgin’, must be stressed now as being literally a virgin, giving birth before she is married. So it has this higher level. But you would have to say then that the word was chosen by God so that it could have the two meanings. It could refer to an ordinary girl getting married, or it could refer, literally, to a virgin. At the lower level, it referred to an ordinary girl getting married, and simply the timing of the growing up of her baby was the emphasis; and with our Lord it referred to the full meaning of almah, a virgin giving birth before she was married.

Audience: Jennings, in his commentary ⁶ said that the girl wasn’t even married. He said that the prophetess wasn’t married to Isaiah, and that she was an unmarried girl when she gave birth. Now, I don’t know where he got that from.

DWG: I don’t know where he got it from either.

Audience: Isaiah goes on to say that his children were given as ‘signs and portents in Israel’ (8:18), and the significance of his son is not just his birth, but his name. That’s where the significance comes in for Ahaz.

DWG: Well, yes. That’s very good. And now lots of hands are going up.

Audience: I want to suggest that what you have in chapter 7, if we stick to what we’ve already said, is that it wasn’t a sign to Ahaz or that generation at all. It was a sign to ‘the house of David’. Matthew tells us that was fulfilled, so that’s not in question. What takes place in chapter 8, with the naming of Isaiah’s son there, and with the parallel between the time of when this would happen and ‘before the boy knows how to cry, “My father” . . .’ (v. 4) parallels 7:15 (‘butter and honey shall he eat’ kjv) and verse 16 (‘before the boy knows to refuse the evil and choose the good’). That sign was to the house of David. Because Ahaz already refused to believe the sign, or asked for a sign, God then says, ‘I’ll give a sign to the house of David.’ Now, in chapter 8, when those events occur like that, I’m sure that they would have interpreted verse 15 and following to parallel what was said in chapter 7, and recognize that that is that same thing, even though it could have extended beyond that immediate situation.

DWG: Yes, good. Someone else had their hand up.

Audience: Can I just read this?

And this shall be the sign for you: this year you shall eat what grows of itself, and in the second year what springs from that. Then in the third year sow and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat their fruit. (37:30)

That’s a sign that almost purely has to do with the timing of deliverance. It’s the mirror of this sign, having to do with the timing of a conquest. I think that they are related.

DWG: Yes, the second one you quote is the Lord’s word through Hezekiah, the sign that they are to trust God, and that God will dismiss the Assyrians. And there the sign is, once more, a post-dated one that says, ‘Trust God now, and stand against the Assyrians, even if you are enduring some famine in the siege, because when the Assyrians are gone and the land is devastated, there will be enough self-growing crops for you to live on for the first and the second years. Then you’ll have enough to sow seed, and normal agriculture and wine production will resume in the third year.’ This is God, in advance, encouraging the Judahites in Jerusalem, during the siege: ‘Trust me now, and I will dismiss the Assyrians presently. Don’t be worried because the Assyrian has made you an offer of, “Come out and I’ll feed you.”’ That is what the Rabshakeh said. ‘Come out, I’ll feed you and see that you’re well-fed and looked after until I come and transport you all to Assyria’ (see 36:16–17). God is saying to them, ‘Don’t worry. Don’t give in to him because you are hungry now. I will dismiss him; and when he’s gone you’ll find the country is devastated, but I promise you that you will find enough self-grown corn to be able to survive for the next two years.’ The prophecy is once more a post-dated sign, actually.

Audience: But with the prophecy spoken to Ahaz, within the few years that it takes a child to develop, you’ll get what you asked for. You’ll get Assyria. The Immanuel sign is a post-dated sign of judgment.

DWG: Yes, surely it is, yes.

Well, good, perhaps we’ve spent long enough. As the Lord said to the Israelites, ‘You’ve gone around this mountain long enough, so move on’ (see Deut 2:3). But here is a serious matter. Let none of us say we shouldn’t think about these things and that we should just believe. That won’t do, and our name isn’t Ahaz. We must give heed to God’s prophecy. And when it comes to the New Testament quotation of prophecies, the New Testament writers are not pulling fast ones, and interpreting things out of their context and making them mean something that they were never intended to mean.

I began with a longish exposition of the promise given by God to David in 2 Samuel 7. I did it (though you may not have realized it) to show that, with David, the promise that ‘I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son’ had two levels of fulfilment. One was to Solomon and the other to Christ. God was a father to Solomon in that he cared for him and disciplined him; but the full extent of the promise: ‘I will be to him a father, and he will be to me a son,’ was only discovered through our Lord when he was born. He was, in that respect, son with the father in a sense that Solomon never could have been. So, there were two levels of interpretation, and if you feel that that is the best way to deal with the prophecy of the virgin birth in Isaiah 7, that it had two levels of application—one in the immediate context and one later on in the birth of Christ—then you have a precedent to quote. You could quote the promise to David in 2 Samuel 7 as a precedent for saying that.

If you take that view, you will still have my difficulties, which may not be any difficulty to you, that when God invited Ahaz to ask for a sign, he said, ‘Now, make it big, Ahaz. Ask it in the heaven above or in the earth beneath. Do make it big enough, Ahaz.’ Then, if you say the sign that God gave them was an ordinary girl getting married and having a child, and then things happened after the child had grown up a few months, then, well, okay. It doesn’t sound very big to me in that context, if you see what I mean. That would worry me a little bit if the sign was merely a sign of the timing, and therefore you’ve got to say, in the first instance, it was merely an ordinary girl marrying and having a child, and then after a few months the two hostile kingdoms would be devastated by Assyria. Okay, so it’s just coming as a sign of timing, then I say, ‘But where is the bigness of it, and what is the house of David to make of it?’

Audience: Has Hezekiah been born yet at this time?

DWG: Is Hezekiah born yet? You think it could refer to Hezekiah?

Audience: He knows the difference between good and evil.

DWG: Yes, if you say it’s Hezekiah, not yet come to the throne, but he is in the future.

Audience: Yes, I just wondered if the timing is certain. Has he been born yet, at this stage? He becomes the next king.

DWG: Hezekiah becomes the next king after Ahaz, doesn’t he? But Ahaz had a little time to go yet.

Audience: I wonder if we perhaps don’t come to the real magnitude of the sign until we get to chapter 9.

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (v. 6)

DWG: That’s right, and as I say, we must push on. But, for our own personal faith, these things are important that we understand the prophecies in their original setting, and what they fully meant, as shown by their final fulfilment in Christ. It is also important for our witness, is it not? If we are going to use Scriptures like this in talking to our Jewish friends, we must surely have tried to think through what they mean, just as we must if we are talking to our atheist friends and saying it is a part of our faith that Jesus was born of a virgin, and it fulfils the Old Testament. We must be ready to give an answer for the faith that is within us, surely. We mustn’t just say, ‘Oh, well, I’m simple, and I just believe it stands and bother what the context was’.

Thank you for your patience in bearing with the study, and all the questioning that has arisen. I am glad to observe your faith in the inspiration of God’s word is so strong that you do not fear to ask questions as to what this prophecy means. We are not trying to settle this matter so that we can start believing that the word is inspired. It is because we believe that the word is inspired that we give our minds to thinking seriously as to what exactly it means.

Also, let me just say that my address can easily be found out, and I assume you will have the website. Not the website. What is that other funny thing? The email address, and all that about floppy disks and slipped discs and things. If you come across an interpretation of this problem that you feel is good, please send me a note. I shall be grateful for your help and contributions; and I mean that seriously.

⁶ F. C. Jennings, Studies in Isaiah, New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1935. 

9: Prophecies of the Coming King and the Remnant

Prophecies of the Coming King and the Remnant

We must now begin to try to look at the whole context of this particular prophecy. On the sheet that I provided, you will see the pattern that arises in Part 1B, as it arose in Part 1A.

1. Perturbations in the House of David 7:1–8:22

1. Chapter 7: Panic because of the Syro-Ephraimite confederacy against Jerusalem to set up another king; God pleads with Ahaz to believe him: Ahaz refuses to ask for a sign—is given the sign of the VIRGIN BIRTH, and IMMANUEL: the imminent demise of the two kings brought about by God’s bringing on them the king of Assyria; the consequent devastation.
2. The sign of Maher-shalal-hash-baz, and prediction of the Assyrian despoiling of Damascus and Samaria: Judah’s rejection of Shiloah will bring the Assyrian flood up to the neck of Immanuel’s land. God’s exhortation to the faithful REMNANT to fear the Lord, not the Assyrians (cf. 1 Pet 3:14–15). THE STONE OF STUMBLING (cf. 1 Pet 2:8). Isaiah and his disciples are the remnant waiting for the Lord (cf. Heb 2:13).
3. The folly of turning to necromancy.

2. Prophecy of the Coming King to Fill the Throne of David 9:1–7

1. His tactics: to start in Galilee
2. The result: end of all oppression
3. WHO THE KING WILL BE
4. The increase of his government

3. The Lord’s Anger 9:8–10:34

1. His anger against Jacob/Israel (9:8–10:4)
2. The rod of his anger, Assyria. Assyria’s false attitude and eventual punishment
3. Israel’s repentance: the RETURN of the REMNANT (cf. Rom 9:27–28); the Lord’s people not to be afraid of the Assyrian. A dramatic account of the Assyrian’s approach.

4. Prophecy of the Coming Messiah 11:1–12:6

1. The nature of his government: its results. The second return of the remnant: HIGHWAY from Assyria. THE SONG OF SALVATION: GOD’S ANGER TURNED AWAY.

In Part 1A, there were two great paragraphs dealing with the coming glory (2:1–4; 4:2–6). There are two here of the coming King. We shall come to the heart of the matter if we consider together the two prophecies of the coming King. I’ve labelled them there as number 2 and number 4. Before we come to them, let me observe that there are two other things.

Two prophecies concerning the remnant

There are two references to what you might call ‘the remnant’. So, first look with me in chapter 8, where God speaks again to Isaiah, and he says,

Because this people has refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently, and rejoice over Rezin and the son of Remaliah, therefore, behold, the Lord is bringing up against them the waters of the River, mighty and many, the king of Assyria and all his glory. And it will rise over all its channels and go over all its banks, and it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass on, reaching even to the neck, and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel. (vv. 6–8)

Let’s pause there and notice what is being said, because these people have refused ‘the waters of Shiloah’. Here, God is talking to the ten tribes. They have refused Jerusalem, and they put their trust in Rezin and Remaliah’s son. The Judahites never did put any trust in them. Rezin and Remaliah’s son were the two kings that the people of Judah were dead scared of at this moment. It was the Israelites that put their faith in their king and in the king of Aram. It was the Israelites who not only had departed from the house of David in the time of Jeroboam, but they now were trusting in this alliance between Israel and Aram. They were even going to attack the king on the throne of David in Jerusalem and were proposing to depose him. The Israelites had this great confidence, therefore, that in order to beat the Assyrians, they must form this alliance with the Aramaeans; and they must, if possible, depose Ahaz and put a king of their own choosing in Jerusalem, so that they might have a united front against Assyria.

This was the seriousness of Israel’s position. I repeat, they were not content simply to have lived for centuries apart from the house of David, and occasionally to have fought them, and so forth. Now, to meet the threat of the worldwide empire of Assyria, they are joining up with Aram and are going to enforce their own king on the throne of David. Presumably, this was in order to get a joint alliance with Judah against the Assyrians.

That is fearful. It is one thing for Ahaz to lose faith in God’s promise to the house of David. It is an extremely serious matter for the ten tribes to join Aram and attack the house of David. That is a veritable attack on God and God’s covenant. It was not an exaggeration when God used the word ‘rebellion’ at the beginning of the prophecy of Isaiah.

So, first comes God’s word to the ten tribes, because they rejoice in Rezin and in Remaliah’s son. See what he says: ‘therefore, behold, the Lord is bringing up against them the waters of the River’ (v. 7). Notice that kind of talk, ‘the waters of the river’. This is the king of Assyria, where the two great rivers are the Euphrates and the Tigris. The king is now named after the rivers of his country, just as we might talk of the London government as the government of the Thames. I’m sorry, I don’t know the river upon which your Washington DC is founded. Never mind.

Audience: The Potomac.

DWG: Ah, the Potomac. I must advertise that in England. Yes, and now he is speaking of the waters of the river as the king of Assyria and all his glory. Look at that abundant river: ‘it will rise over all its channels and go over all its banks’. Notice the metaphorical language of a literal happening. And ‘it will sweep on into Judah’, that is, from Israel, having devastated Israel, and Aram in the process of course, he shall sweep onward into Judah. This is God talking to the ten tribes. ‘It will overflow and pass on, reaching even to the neck’. That is a vivid metaphor. He shall surround the whole country, with Jerusalem left like the head, and the waters coming up to the neck. Jerusalem on its mountain up aloft there would be left absolutely isolated. He shall ‘fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel’ (v. 8). That is the promise given to the house of David: Immanuel, God with them. That promise was not given to the house of Israel. And as far as Isaiah’s prophecies are concerned, Israel was swept away eventually. It occurred through three efforts by the Assyrians: first in Galilee to the east, and then in the bigger lot to the west, and finally Samaria. Then a whole lot of foreigners were imported so that Israel as a nation, so to speak, ceased to exist. Judah was never overcome. The flood would come up to the neck, but Jerusalem itself would never be overcome by the Assyrians. And that is a message to the ten tribes. For all their attempts to destroy the house of David and set up their own puppet king, in their attempt to get an alliance against Assyria, they themselves would be overthrown and devastated and taken into captivity and cease to exist as one single nation. Judah would be saved. That would perhaps have taken a lot of believing on the part of the Israelites, but this is God talking to the ten tribes.

They have ‘refused the waters of Shiloah’ (v. 6). What is that about? I take that to be the pool of Siloam in Jerusalem. Do you remember that Isaiah was sent to meet Ahaz as he was considering the water supply of Jerusalem? So, when we are thinking of Siloam and the water supply, this is a way of talking. They have refused Jerusalem with its water supply. It seemed so little compared with the flood of Assyria, and they did not believe that God would protect Jerusalem.

It is the imaginative in me, but one can’t help thinking of what happened in the Gospel of John. The blind man was sent to wash in the pool of Shiloah, that is, Siloam (John 9). In that time, the nation rejected the waters of Siloam, didn’t they? They rejected our blessed Lord, and the result was the flood of the Romans. It overtook them, and washed them away. But that is another story.

Now we come to verse 9 onwards.

Be broken, you peoples, and be shattered; give ear, all you far countries; strap on your armour and be shattered; strap on your armour and be shattered. Take counsel together, but it will come to nothing; speak a word, but it will not stand, for God is with us. (Isa 8:9–10)

The peoples who are getting uproarious are the northern kingdoms presumably, and they can rouse themselves to try and resist Assyria and to come against Jerusalem and the house of David, but they shall not succeed, ‘for God is with us’.

For the Lord spoke thus to me with his strong hand upon me, and warned me not to walk in the way of this people, saying: ‘Do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy, and do not fear what they fear, nor be in dread. But the Lord of hosts, him you shall honour as holy. Let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.’ (vv. 11–13)

Now again, the very word ‘conspiracy’ used here is much disputed as to its possible meaning. I myself prefer to give the word here the meaning that you will find in Nehemiah 4, and I will read you the verse, reminding you of its connection. Here is Nehemiah, with the people, trying to rebuild Jerusalem after the return.

But it came to pass that, when Sanballat, and Tobiah, and the Arabians, and the Ammonites, and the Ashdodites, heard that the repairing of the walls of Jerusalem went forward, and that the breaches began to be stopped, then they were very wroth; and they conspired all of them together to come and fight against Jerusalem, and to cause confusion therein. (vv. 7–8 rv)

It was a conspiracy among the little nations all around to come and attack those who were trying to rebuild Jerusalem. And I take it myself that here in Isaiah 8 it was that sort of a conspiracy. But now look at the next verses.

And he will become a sanctuary and a stone of offence and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many shall stumble on it. They shall fall and be broken; they shall be snared and taken. (vv. 14–15)

God’s word to Isaiah is that, not merely for the northern tribes but for Judah and Jerusalem, the Lord himself would become a stone of stumbling. They would fall over it and be broken and be snared and taken away. What happened with the ten tribes eventually happened with the two, when Babylon removed them.

Our Lord quoted such words when he was here on earth, and particularly in the final days before his crucifixion. He was the stone that the builders rejected. ‘Whoever stumbles and falls on that stone,’ he says, ‘shall be broken. On whomsoever that stone shall fall, it shall grind him to powder’ (see Luke 20:17–18). It is the sad, sorry tragedy of Israel that they stumbled over the chief cornerstone that God placed in Israel, in the person of our blessed Lord, and were broken.

But how unlikely was his message? Perhaps you see an analogy between Isaiah’s situation and our Lord’s situation. The right-wing in Israel were looking for a messiah to come and lead the armies of Israel against the Roman occupation. That notion was of a messiah who would be like the Maccabees, only ten times better, who would raise the armies of Israel and fight against the ungodly Romans as the Maccabees had fought against the Seleucid kings, perhaps with a touch of angelic intervention now and again, and so deliver Israel from the Romans. Some of Christ’s close disciples were of that view. The two on the road to Emmaus said to the stranger, ‘You see, this Jesus. Oh, you haven’t heard of him? Well, he was remarkable, and we had hoped that it was he that was going to liberate Israel’ (see Luke 24:19–21). It was not that they hoped he would redeem them by his blood; but liberate them. But he let himself get crucified, so what good is a crucified deliverer? Israelites of that sort were looking for a political deliverer from Rome.

The Sadducees had a different mindset, which was to cooperate with Rome. Therefore they wanted to get this man executed, lest he upset the Romans, ‘and they will come and take away our place [that is, the temple] and our nation’ (see John 11:48). You can see the strain of decision that fell upon the nation at that moment, faced with Jesus Christ, of the house of David. And as they were deliberating their final decisions the week before Calvary, he finally challenged them in the temple court: ‘What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?’

And they said, ‘He’s the son of David.’

‘Then how does David, speaking by the Spirit, call him Lord, as in Psalm 110:1, “The Lord said to my Lord . . .”’ (see Matt 22:41–46).

Here was the stone laid as a foundation for Zion, the chief cornerstone. But there was the situation of the Roman domination, and the two broad parties in Israel—the one on the extreme right, wanting to lead a military campaign against the Romans and get their freedom, and the one on the Sadducean side who wanted to cooperate with Rome and be vassals and subject to Rome, and thus keep their priesthood and their temple, and everything that went with it. Given the two sides, the nation as a whole took their fateful decision and rejected the stone that God had laid. They were broken over that stone. And now, considering that situation, look what Isaiah has to say.

Bind up the testimony; seal the teaching among my disciples. I will wait for the Lord, who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob, and I will hope in him. Behold, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are signs and [wonders] in Israel from the Lord of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion. (8:16–18)

At the literal level, you can say that Isaiah and his children now have the promises. I doubt whether that really means his literal children, but you may take it that way if you like. I would have thought it more likely that it refers to his disciples: ‘Bind up the . . . law among my disciples’ (v. 16 kjv). Israel and Judah are going to reject the promises. The promises of the prophecies will now be bound up, that is, they won’t be immediately fulfilled, but they are to be bound up amongst his disciples, for the Lord is about to hide his face from the house of Jacob while Isaiah and his disciples are going to wait for God, in the good of God’s promises. Meanwhile, they are to be signs and wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts, who dwells in Mount Zion. Here is a godly remnant, clustered around Isaiah, who believed the promises, even though the nation as a whole (on both sides: Israel and Judah) have rejected them. Therefore, the promise is bound up, meaning ‘not immediately to be fulfilled’, for the Lord is going to hide his face, and the nation is going to be broken. But here are Isaiah and his disciples for a sign and wonder among the nation at that time.

You will remember how this word is quoted in Hebrews 2. Let us read that in closing this session.

For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist [that is, God], in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying, ‘I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise.’ And again, ‘I will put my trust in him.’ And again, ‘Behold, I and the children God has given me.’ (vv. 10–13)

In the last two quotations, the writer is quoting from Isaiah. The children would be for signs and wonders in Israel. This is a Hebrew writing to fellow Hebrews. They are Jews who have come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, but the nation at large has rejected the Messiah. And these Jews that have professed to trust him are now being persecuted by their fellow Jews, yet they are still Jews, thus the letter is to ‘the Hebrews’. The question is how to comfort them in the time when the nation has rejected the stone that has been laid as a foundation stone, when the nation has persecuted those that have put their faith in Jesus. And the writer is reminding them of Christ’s solidarity with them in their sufferings. It was God’s purpose to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings, even the sufferings of the cross (see v. 10).

But now what is the function of these Jewish believers at this time? They are in the church of course, in the year ad 64. These Jewish believers have the hope of Israel in their hearts, and the Scriptures are plain to them, though incomprehensible to the nation that has refused Jesus, for he is the key to the understanding of the Old Testament prophets. And God is about to hide his face. That is a terrible thought and enough to chill the heart as you read the mere facts of what occurred in ad 70, and in ad 132-135 in the final rebellion, and what has happened ever since, all down the terrible centuries.

As the letter to these Jewish believers was written, God was about to hide his face. They are comforted by being asked to look back to Isaiah in a similar situation when the nation had refused the waters of Shiloah. When faced with the difficult situation of Assyria, and finally Babylon, and knowing God’s face would be hidden, Isaiah and his disciples are clinging to the promises given by God and are standing apart from the unbelief of both Israel and Judah, and waiting for God. They are a sign to their fellow Israelites, because they themselves are Jews. These Hebrews in the New Testament have discovered the stone; they’ve discovered the Messiah. The nation has rejected him and is about to fall and be broken, and God hides his face, and the Scripture to them will be bound up and not make sense to them. They can’t understand (and won’t understand) Isaiah 53 to this day, will they? But not so with the believing Jewish remnant. Small and despised indeed, but all down the continuing ages there have been Jews, believers, who stand in their witness to the Messiah their nation has rejected, and believe him to be the ultimate solution of the problem for Israel.

This is vivid stuff, isn’t it? It is the practical situation, both of Isaiah’s time, and of the Jews that have believed on him since our Lord’s time. Such believers have known suffering with their nation because of their nation’s rejection of Messiah. They have done so in many a holocaust, and recently under Hitler. Though suffering with the nation because they were Jews they have dared to believe and found in God their sanctuary. They have been clinging to the hope, and waiting for the coming of the Lord from heaven.

It is heart thrilling, isn’t it? I will just remind you that these Jews, all down these centuries, have believed in the virgin birth.

Review of Part 1B (7:1–12:6)

Let’s sum up our discussion from earlier so that our minds might be clear, if possible, as to what we are talking about, and then move on to the rest of this Part 1B of the Prophet Isaiah.

The foolishness of unbelief

We notice to start with how different is Part 1B (chapters 7–12) from Part 1A (chapters 1–5, or even 1­–6). In chapters 1–5, the prophet is talking as God’s mouthpiece about the sins of the people of Jerusalem in general. The actual reigning monarch is not mentioned in those chapters, or at least is not criticized for his particular sins; but when we come to Part 1B then it is not the people in general so much as the reigning monarch in the house of David that comes in for attention. Being the then representative of the house of David, his particular sin was in refusing to put his trust in God to fulfil the promises that God had made to David, and covenanted with him. When faced with the rumour of a conspiracy between the ten tribes of Israel and Israel’s inveterate enemy, Aram, that they were going to come and attack Jerusalem and depose Ahaz from the royal throne and set up a puppet in his place, the house of David (and Ahaz in particular) was shaken in the wind and panic stricken. Through Isaiah, God sought to strengthen the man and plead with him to believe in God and put his faith in God that he would maintain the throne of David, and Ahaz in particular. Ahaz, in spite of it, refused to believe. Instead of trusting God to maintain the house of David, he sought the help of the Assyrian emperor himself.

It was a direly foolish political move. It was foolish because within a stated period of sixty-five years (7:8) the two kings from the north, the king of Israel and the king of Aram, would be removed anyway, and no longer be a threat to the house of Judah. Ahaz’s fear was, in the end, baseless. Secondly, his calling in of the Assyrian was foolish because what he so much feared, the ten tribes and Aram, would be swept away by Assyria. Israel indeed would eventually be populated and foreigners put in their place, and that would be the end of the ten tribes as an identifiable nation from then on; whereas Judaea would be maintained, and the Assyrians would not be allowed to destroy Jerusalem. And so the history turned out, as the middle chapters of Isaiah tell us (36–39).

So Ahaz, in refusing to believe God, in refusing to accept the sign that God offered him and appealing to Syria to maintain him was doubly foolish, because Assyria would eventually lay waste to Judaea, though not capture Jerusalem. More importantly, in refusing to believe God to honour his promise to the house of David and in calling in the Assyrians, even if they had preserved him and maintained him on the throne, in that very action, Ahaz was denying all that the throne of David stood for. If God couldn’t maintain that throne, and you had to ask the evil king of Assyria to maintain it, well exit all that the throne of David was meant to stand for in the nation. That was our major discussion in our previous session.

The virgin shall conceive

We also talked about the sign that God gave Ahaz when he refused to ask for one, and showed his unbelief in the Almighty. It was the sign of the virgin conceiving and bearing a child, and his name would be called Immanuel (7:10–14). You will not have forgotten that there was a certain difference of opinion among the gathered scholars here present. There were two major views.

One possible interpretation: two fulfilments

The one view was that this prophecy of the virgin birth was a prophecy, such as you will meet elsewhere in the Old Testament, that was due to have two fulfilments. One fulfilment was at a lower level and one at a higher level. As an example of that type of interpretation, I cited 2 Samuel 7 and the words of God through Nathan the prophet to David about the succession and the maintenance of his royal dynasty. In effect, God says that, ‘When you are passed away I shall not allow your dynasty to fall into decay. You will have a son. I shall maintain him, and I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.’ It was a prophecy that referred in the first place to Solomon, who was the very necessary link. If Solomon had perished without progeny, there would have been no continuing dynasty of David.

The promise, therefore, referred in the first place to Solomon, and God was a father to him, and he a son to God, in that practical sense that God in his mercy looked after him; and where he needed correction and discipline, God disciplined him. But that prophecy had, as we know, another fulfilment at an infinitely higher level, as indicated by the first chapter of the letter to the Hebrews, where that promise, ‘I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son,’ is now seen, in its fullest interpretation, to apply to our blessed Lord. He is the Son of God, and God is his Father, in the highest conceivable, possible sense, for our Lord is the second person of the Trinity, as well as being human.

There is an example, then, of a prophecy relating to our Lord that was intended to be fulfilled at two different levels: the lowlier level, with a limited meaning of the terms ‘father and son’, and then at the highest possible level, referring to Christ. And some here present felt that the prophecy of the virgin birth was a prophecy like that, which would have had an immediate fulfilment at a lowly level. Some girl, hitherto unmarried, would marry and have a child, and before that child was very far grown up, the land whose two kings Ahaz was so afraid of, the ten tribes of Israel and Aram, would be forsaken of their kings. Then, of course, it had a fulfilment at the very highest level, such as Matthew records in chapter 1. Our blessed Lord was born of one who was literally a virgin at the time of his birth, and he was not merely human but was God incarnate. So that the term Immanuel, which in Hebrew simply means ‘God with us’ could be used in a lowly sense, such as when we would say to each other as we parted: ‘God be with you.’ Or, we might say, ‘The Lord is with us, you know’, meaning he is on our side. It can be used in that sense. It is also used, as you see from Matthew 1, in the very highest sense, with the birth of our blessed Lord of the virgin, Mary. God was with us in a sense as never before; God had become incarnate in the person of his Son.

Difficulties with the idea of an original lowlier interpretation

Now, all of us agreed on one point. Let me underline it, and say it ten times over if necessary and get you all to say, ‘Amen’. That was that the prophecy is to be fully understood in its reference to the birth of our Lord Jesus of the Virgin. Everybody agreed that it finds its fulfilment in that. We do believe that. The question was whether originally it was intended to have a lowlier interpretation.

What leads people to think that? It is because of the timing. The prophecy states that the child shall eat honey and butter, but ‘before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted’ (7:16). That is presumably spoken to Ahaz, though intended for the house of David. How could that time element have been made intelligible to Ahaz and the house of David at that moment, if the sign didn’t refer to anything except the birth of Christ hundreds of years later? So, people are driven to take it that there was perhaps a first, lowlier interpretation.

All right. In principle that is unobjectionable, but it leaves me with difficulties.

Difficulty one: the issue of timing

One difficulty is about the timeframe. ‘Before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good’ should probably be taken to mean a child of about four or five years old. So, before that happens, ‘the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted’. But the earlier verse had said, ‘And within sixty-five years Ephraim will be shattered from being a people’ (v. 8). So the child would have to grow up a long way before that happened, if you see what I mean.

That is my first difficulty. To get around it, you would have to suggest that perhaps there were two stages. Those two countries being deserted by their kings is one stage, and a much later stage, sixty-five years later, came when Ephraim would be deported, and foreigners put in its place. That is a possible interpretation.

Difficulty two: the nature of the sign

My other difficulty with that view is the nature of the sign. When God first asked Ahaz to choose a sign, God indicated that the sign he wanted to give would be colossal. ‘Ask it in the heaven above or on the earth beneath; anywhere you like; in the deep, if you like. Ask big, Ahaz old chap!’

Well, okay. For an ordinary woman in Israel, who was a virgin, to get married and then to produce a child, could serve as a time reference. It is hardly the biggest sign that anyone had ever heard of. And how Ahaz was supposed to have taken notice of that kind of a sign, I would find it a little bit difficult to know.

I personally think, therefore, that whereas Isaiah was given a son (according to chapter 8) who very definitely was a sign, and meant to be a time sign, I tend to think that the prophecy given of the virgin birth was meant as a sign to unbelieving Ahaz. He wasn’t going to believe, but history would expose his folly because, one day, at a time undetermined, God would send his own son into this world through the Virgin to maintain the house of David.

My view has difficulties with it, as were mentioned eloquently by one of you. Is there any reference to Christ eating butter and honey, or anything like it? You might say the way to explain that bit in the prophecy is that, according to 7:21–22, butter and honey is the food of a nation whose agriculture has been devastated, and therefore the nation is in trouble. Therefore, eating butter and honey is, in this context, a sign of impoverishment and lowly circumstance. Then some people will say, ‘And Christ was born in his nation in such lowly circumstance after it had come under the heel of a whole succession of Gentile imperialists, from the Ptolemy’s of Greece to the Seleucids of Asia, to the Romans. They had been in slavery, and the majority were then in poverty.

There I leave it, for now. We are to take God’s word seriously, and to try to think it through. Let not the difficulties in the actual historical questions that we have raised take away from the agreed fact that at the higher level anyway it is a prophecy of Jesus Christ our Lord: Son of God, born of the virgin, Immanuel in the highest possible sense of that term.

That was God’s solution, incidentally, for the maintenance of the throne of the house of David. The throne of the house of David was brought to an end, not by the Assyrians, but by the Babylonians. What is God’s answer to that? He already foreshadowed it in the prophecy given to David himself, through Nathan: ‘I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.’ In raising up David and his royal dynasty, God’s purpose always was to maintain it, eventually, by the only way it could possibly be maintained eternally, and that is through the birth, through the virgin, of God’s own Son to be David’s greater son. Thus shall the throne be established for ever. David, after all, was but a prototype, and in many respects a failing prototype, of the great reality that was to come.

Very good, but let us push on now, and push on fairly rapidly.

A brief summary of Isaiah 8

When Ahaz rejected the sign and called in Assyria, God warned him of the folly of his deed, because that would bring the king of Assyria into Judah, and he would lay it waste (7:17). Verses 18–25 are a vivid depiction of the devastation of the country, not only by Assyrians, but by Egyptians as well. The kings of Judah, as well as Israel, would pay a high price for their lapse of faith in God to protect them. They would find the superpowers were really no friend to Israel.

Then we came to chapter 8 and the sign given to Isaiah of his second son. The names of Isaiah’s sons were meaningful, of course. His first son, Shear-jashub (7:3), means: ‘a remnant shall return’. Soon the victory over the threat of Samaria and Damascus would be seen (vv. 4–9). But now look at the folly of Israel in chapter 8. The ten tribes had long since refused the waters of Shiloah. They wouldn’t support Jerusalem. They went out from the house of David. Now they are proposing to attack the throne of David, and therefore God will bring upon them the great waters of Assyria. Those waters shall wipe out Israel whose threatened attack on Jerusalem will never succeed. But as the waters come through, they will go even into Judah and come up to the neck of Jerusalem city, Immanuel’s city (8:8). Then in the next verses we considered Isaiah’s position in that area and in that time. With the nation, both north and south, refusing to put their trust in the only true foundation, Isaiah, his sons and his disciples will cling on to the promises and prophecies of God but ‘bind up the testimony’ (v. 16). It shall now not be understood by the nation at large, but Isaiah and his disciples, his children (his two sons and his disciples), ‘will be for signs and wonders in the land’ (see v. 18). A tiny minority, yet they are men and women who have faith in the living God, that he will support Judah and maintain the house of David. And it will be maintained by ‘the Lord of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion’ (v. 18). So, they will wait for the Lord to fulfil his promise.

There is a warning then, in verses 19–22, of the absolute despondency and despair of the people who have refused to believe in God and trusted the big nations like Assyria and Egypt, and found them to be worse than useless. Both had ravished their country. Now, as they are carried into exile, cursing their God and their king, they have turned to spiritism and necromancy (v. 19).

That happens when people lose faith in the living God. You should perhaps remember that even in the time of Christ, and particularly thereafter, Judaism went strongly in the direction of demonology, and belief in demons. Witness the Kabbalah, later production though it may be. Witness the way the Midrashim by the Jews freely talks of Solomon having command of the evil spirits, and they helped him, and he had magic and could call them; and they helped him to build the temple, and all this kind of stuff. Read, if you want to read about it, in Emil Schürer’s A History of the Jewish People in the time of Jesus Christ, and also the chapter on the topic by Professor Alexander. On this score, it is a fact that in rejecting Christ, Israel went more and more in the direction of demonism and spiritism, black magic, and goodness knows what else, in certain parts of the nation.

Audience: Is that why there was so much demon possession in the time of Christ?

DWG: Well, it might be of course. They were a vast, mixed multitude anyway, but their sojourn among the Gentiles hadn’t done them all that much good. But let’s not, for the moment, spend time on that detail. I just mention it as something worth investigating in connection with these words about appealing to the dead and all that kind of thing, and the protest of God through Isaiah.

Now, it’s surely a rumour, but it used to be said in our country that President Reagan consulted an astrologer.

Audience: It was his wife, Nancy Reagan. She consulted astrological tables to help determine his travel schedule.

DWG: Oh, his wife. We English folk can’t believe that of Americans! But many people who are under stress, and have lost faith in the living God, find it easier to go that way. They find it to be an irresistible temptation to find information in astrology, in spiritism, and suchlike things.

Now, to the joy and rejoicing of our hearts, comes the first of the two great prophecies of the coming Messiah. The one prophecy is in 9:1–7. The second prophecy is in 11:1 and following.

Prophecy of the Coming King to Fill the Throne of David (9:1–7)

1. His tactics: to start in Galilee
2. The result: end of all oppression
3. WHO THE KING WILL BE
4. The increase of his government

Previously, we looked at the two prophecies of coming restoration and glory. We asked two things about them. The first thing we asked was whether either of the prophecies has anything to do with the context that has immediately preceded it. Having got our answers to that question, we then compared and contrasted the two prophecies and asked, ‘Are they just saying exactly the same thing, or have they a different emphasis? And, if so, what is it?’ I’m going to answer the first question because that’s the easy bit: Has this prophecy in 9:1–7 about the Messiah got anything to do with the chapters that have preceded it? Well, even I can answer that, because the context has been all of the talk with Ahaz, king of the house of David. And the question has been, ‘How shall the house of David, the royal dynasty, be maintained? How shall the throne of David be secured, particularly in the light of the fact that the present representative, Ahaz, has denied everything the house of David stood for?’ Oh, thank God for this glorious prophecy! It is a prophecy of our Lord Jesus Christ. That is how I take it, pure and simple. It is not a prophecy of Hezekiah or somebody else, but of our Lord. Therefore, let us note the certain features about it.

The King’s strategy (vv. 1–2)

But there will be no gloom for her who was in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, . . . (9:1)

That is the bit of Galilee to the far north, some of it on the eastern bank of Jordan, and some of it in the western side. It was ‘brought into contempt’. I take that to mean the early invasions of the Assyrians. At their first attempt, they took that part of the country. They did not at that time take the whole of Israel, but just that part. They set up the land of those tribes as independent Assyrian provinces. They were the first tribes of Israel therefore to feel the weight of the aggressor.

but in the latter time he has made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations. The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined. (vv. 1–2)

For my part, I take it as a prophecy now arising out of this situation, but pointing forward to God’s answer to Ahaz’s profound unbelief and problem. How will God maintain the throne of David? It will be by the coming of our Lord. And of course, as you know, Matthew quotes these words at the beginning of his Gospel, as being fulfilled by our Lord Jesus.

Now when [Jesus] heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee. And leaving Nazareth he went and lived in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, so that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: ‘The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles—the people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light, and for those dwelling in the region and shadow of death, on them a light has dawned.’ (4:12–16)

Matthew intends that quotation from Isaiah very seriously. It is not just a similarity of phrase because, as he points out, it marks the beginning of Messiah’s tactics to restore the house and throne of David. When the Messiah, the rightful heir to the throne of David, came, why didn’t he go straight to Jerusalem and claim his capital and dismiss his foes, whether Assyrians, Romans, Egyptians or anything else? He could have done it, couldn’t he? Why these tactics? Why do as he did, and start in Galilee?

At any rate, this quotation pins the ultimate fulfilment of the passage from Isaiah to our Lord’s life and to the beginning of his ministry, and the tactics he pursued. He came to where the darkness was greatest.

Do notice what Matthew tells us was the context of the fulfilment (vv. 1–11). Our Lord had just been tempted by the devil, and among the propositions put to Christ by the devil was this: ‘You know, all of the kingdoms of the world and their glory are mine to give to whom I will. If only you would bow down and worship me . . .’. The devil didn’t mean bow down and sing a lot of hymns to him. He meant to bow down and acknowledge him as a force to be dealt with. ‘You will never overcome me. You can have all the idealism you like, young man, but you will never overcome me. The only hope you have is doing a deal with me, and if you’re prepared to do that, and not try this stupid business of eliminating me, I can give you the kingdoms of the world, the whole lot of them. But you will have to bow down and recognize me as one of the ultimate authorities.’

And Christ said no.

‘Oh, so you’re not going to cooperate then? I see. All right, don’t. You’ll find out’ (see 4:1–10). And the very next words are,

Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and were ministering to him. Now when [Jesus] heard that John had been arrested, . . . (vv. 11–12)

The message carried its clear implication. John was the forerunner, and in the manner of the ancient world, what happened to the forerunner would happen to the one who came behind him. Satan is saying, ‘If you don’t accept me, well, be warned. This is what I’ve now done to your forerunner, and this is what will happen to you.’

What would our Lord do now?

It’s interesting. He had been living in Nazareth for these past thirty years. Why Nazareth? Because it was an obscure little place, hidden from everybody else. His parents, bringing him back from Egypt, were warned by an angel, ‘Now, be careful because Archelaus is reigning. He’s worse than Herod, his father’ (see 2:22–23). And because of the potential danger to our Lord, his parents had taken him to this obscure, one-eyed town called Nazareth to be obscure and safe from the attentions of people like Herod’s son.

Now, when the devil threw down the gauntlet and had his forerunner arrested, what did Christ do? He left Nazareth. Do you see the point of it? He came and dwelt in Capernaum, of all places on earth. It was described as one of the wickedest and most evil places on earth that you could ever meet. ‘Capernaum, you will be cast down to hell’ (see 11:23). He came and dwelt in Galilee where the darkness was thickest to begin his march that would see him at last upon the throne of David. Matthew will sketch that march for us, in the course of his Gospel. Here in chapter 4 we have the quotation concerning ‘Galilee of the Gentiles’ (or, ‘nations’), and the last words of the book will be, ‘All power is given to me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, of all the Gentiles’ (see 28:18–19).

The results (v. 3)

This is the King’s strategy, starting with the beginning of his ministry in Galilee. Its results will be,

You have multiplied the nation; you have increased its joy; they rejoice before you as with joy at the harvest, as they are glad when they divide the spoil. (Isa 9:3)

This will be the result of knowing and receiving and observing the King. It is the increase of the nation, literally so. But when we think about the extent of his kingdom, oh God be praised for the multi-millions that come and will come under his rule.

Reasons for joy (v. 4)

Three things are now said to explain the joy.

For the yoke of his burden, and the staff for his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, you have broken as on the day of Midian. (v. 4)

Why Midian? Well, Midian was the enemy whom Gideon opposed in the days of the judges, and if you read Gideon’s history, he came from that part of the country. Therefore, the victories over the Midianites at the Rock of Oreb and all the rest, were victories in the far north, in those days. What is more, the mention of ‘the staff for his shoulder’, and ‘the rod of his oppressor’ will remind Israel in poetic terms of their captivity in Egypt, and now of the rod of Assyria. All these oppressors would be broken by the true King of David’s line.

Terror abolished (v. 5)

Then we read,

For every boot of the tramping warrior in battle tumult and every garment rolled in blood will be burned as fuel for the fire. (v. 5)

The first word is interesting. Sometimes it is translated the ‘armour’. It is probably the word for the shoes, the footwear, of the soldier. If you wanted to put it in modern idiom you’d talk about the jackboot. It puts us in mind of the heavy footwear of the soldiers, and the sound of their marching in their thousands that would have brought terror to the people of Palestine, and to the people of Judaea in particular. The jackboot would be eliminated forever, and the threat of the oppressor gone.

The explanation (v. 6)

Now comes the explanation of all this. Notice, if you will, the form of the explanation. There is no great description of the battle. There is a description of who the king is. When we come to the second of the two prophecies about the coming Messiah, we shall find it is somewhat different. It is not so much concerned with who the king is but with the nature of his rule. This first prophecy of the Messiah is concerned about his identity. Who is this king going to be? And the description is glorious.

For to us a child is born, to us a son given; . . . (v. 6)

As thousands of commentators have noticed, the words are accurately said. A child born of the virgin, a son given from everlasting—the Son of the Father.

and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (v. 6)

I myself take ‘wonderful’ as an adjective going with ‘counsellor’. Though when I say that, in Scripture the word ‘wonderful’ is associated with something that is supernatural. The Lord’s name is ‘wonderful’ (see Judg 13:18). It describes his counsel, therefore, and stands in vivid contrast to the counsel that the Israelites and the people of Aram were concocting, of which the prophet has just said their counsel shall not stand (8:10). His counsel is more than human in its wisdom.

He is the Mighty God, the Father of Eternity, and the Prince of Peace. These are wonderful titles about the identity of the King. That is the first thing, surely. The nature of his government follows from it and is the subject of the second prophecy, but the establishment of the throne depends in the first place on exactly who the king is going to be. He will be human yet divine, divine and human. This is God’s answer.

Questions and discussion

Wonderful Counsellor as a single title

Audience: In my translation, I have a comma between ‘Wonderful’ and ‘Counsellor’.

DWG: Yes, sir. You have.

Audience: Is that wrong?

DWG: Well, you couldn’t call it a sin.

Audience: But it makes a difference?

DWG: Yes, it does make a difference. The comma doesn’t gain any authority from the Hebrew; that is all I meant. It is open to translators to decide whether they put a comma in and separate the two words, and make it a fivefold description, or whether they take the word ‘Wonderful’ as going with ‘Counsellor’, and therefore being like all the others. It is not just ‘God’; it is ‘Mighty God’. It’s not just ‘Father’, but ‘Everlasting Father’. It’s not just ‘Prince’, but ‘Prince of Peace’. And the rhythm of it would suggest that the first one is the same, so not just two separate things, but that the ‘Wonderful’ goes with ‘Counsellor’. The point of it is that if you take ‘Wonderful Counsellor’ together, he is not just ‘Counsellor’, but the term ‘Wonderful’, as used in various contexts in the Old Testament, indicates more than human wisdom. That is, his counsel is not just another human being’s counsel; it is the counsel of someone who is more than human.

Audience: It reminds me of the quote about him in the Gospels: ‘No one ever spoke like this man!’ (John 7:46).

DWG: That’s right. You’ve got it, sir. But you might like to read it separately, that he is Wonderful, and not meaning simply ‘marvellous’ but ‘wonderful’ in the Old Testament sense: ‘Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?’ (Judg 13:18).

Audience: Secret.

DWG: Or, ‘because it is secret’, yes. That is the collocation of ideas: wonderful and secret, because it is more than human.

The tactics of the Messiah

Audience: When Jesus withdrew from Nazareth and he went to Capernaum, we are saying there that this is now the initiative of the Lord in response to the satanic assault.

DWG: That’s what he did, yes.

Audience: Whereas, up to that time, he had been kept in obscurity. He now left the place of obscurity to begin the manifestation of his fame and glory.

DWG: Yes, and he began where the darkness was worst. The tactics of our Lord, the way of his going about things, is an important question of Christian belief. If you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and you’ve thought about the matter, you ought to be able to demonstrate that the tactics he adopted are the best tactics to be adopted. Why does the incarnate Son of God start in Galilee, of all places on earth? Why didn’t he start in Jerusalem at least?

Matthew will then raise with you these tactics. Why didn’t he use the sword, and subdue his foes? Modern people will raise the question that Matthew discusses with you in chapter 13. ‘If Jesus is the Son of God, well then, why doesn’t he put evil down?’

When I was trying to learn some Hebrew once, a young Jewish man was a fellow student in the class. He is now the rabbi of the big synagogue opposite Lord’s Cricket Ground in London. He is a liberal Jew. He lost both parents under Hitler. I remember him saying to me at one stage, standing on a street in Cambridge, ‘Your Jesus cannot possibly be Messiah.’

I said, ‘How’s that?’

‘Well,’ he said, ‘the Old Testament indicated that when the Messiah came, he would put down all the enemies, all evil. Your Jesus hasn’t done it. And don’t you start talking about his having set up “a spiritual kingdom”. The Old Testament didn’t say anything about that. So how can your Jesus be the Messiah if he hasn’t put down evil?’

The question of the tactics of the Messiah, therefore, is something that those who believe Jesus is Messiah ought to be able to stand up (by the help of the Scriptures and their explanation) and justify before the world and say, ‘This is the wisdom of God to do it this way, and to take this kind of time doing it.’

Audience: Just to clarify concerning the wisdom of this tactic. As the north, Galilee, was the first to fall under Satan’s onslaught, via Assyria, they are the first to receive the message of deliverance. Is that part of it?

DWG: Yes, and of course, it is significant eventually. Isaiah might not have foreseen that bit, but it was significant for the Christian apostle Matthew to point out the fact that Christ began with the Gentiles and then end up in his Gospel by saying Christ has all power in heaven and earth, and then having his disciples go to the Gentiles. We think of the witness of the Christians to the Jews in the book of Acts that, in recovering the throne of David, God has in Christ gone to the Gentiles first. Isn’t that true? They do preach first to the Jews, as Paul says, ‘We had to preach it first to you, but as you rejected it, we are turning to the Gentiles’ (see Acts 13:46).

As a matter of history, if you ask if the Messiah has had more success, humanly speaking, with Jews or with Gentiles, it is with Gentiles, of course. Paul, being called upon to explain it, so to speak, in Romans 9–11, points out that it is no accident that God and the Messiah had gone to the Gentiles. And if you ask him what authority he has for thinking it, he’ll start quoting you Isaiah! So I mustn’t let him start, because Paul would take a long while quoting Isaiah. This is all part of the tactics of the Messiah.

The increase of his government (v. 7)

Now notice verse 7 as we bring this session to a close.

Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, . . .

That is, it is going to increase. It won’t start at its fullest range, of course. It will be a question of increase, though the increase will go on and have no end.

on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this. (v. 7)

Some of my good friends . . . that is an ominous way to start a sentence; some of my good friends say that the Lord Jesus will one day sit on the throne of David, but he isn’t doing it now. Who is your king? And what did the angel promise to Mary? ‘The tabernacle of David has fallen’, said James, quoting the Old Testament prophets. Not the temple, not the city, but David’s own tabernacle. That is, his house has fallen down, and now God has decided to raise it up again, James says, and has raised it up in the house of David (see Acts 15:13–18). The King is already the king. One day, he shall reign from shore to shore. He is still rejected by his nation; the world at large doesn’t accept him; but he was born in the house of David. And if I ask you, ‘Is he king?’, we can, I think, agree on that.

Audience: Amen.

DWG: Amen! The King has already come. One day he will come again.

Jesus as ‘king’ in the Epistles

Audience: I agree, but in light of that, what would your answer be as to why the New Testament Epistles will always speak of him as ‘head’ or ‘Lord’ of the church, and never directly address him as ‘king’ of the church?

DWG: My impression would be that if you talk of ‘king’, you are thinking in semi-political terms; whereas when you are talking of the church, it does not belong to any one nation. So, there is that to start with. And the apostles, as they go preaching to Gentiles, don’t normally talk of him as king. That would have had all sorts of political connotations to Gentiles, and perhaps would have been very unwise terminology to use when the Roman governors of the provinces and Rome itself were very nervous about political messianism. Indeed, it was the charge of the men in Thessalonica that Paul and company were preaching rebellion against Caesar of Rome, in saying that there was another king, Jesus (Acts 17:7).

Now, that is interesting. They must have said something about Christ being king, because the businessmen accused them, quite wrongly, of saying that Jesus was a king in opposition to the Emperor in Rome. Paul, therefore, has to explain what he means if he talks of Jesus as king. He doesn’t refer to political messianism. If the Christians had preached political messianism, the Romans would have destroyed them. But he talks about Christ, as he pointed out in that context, that ‘he must first suffer’. So he expounded from the Scriptures two propositions. Proposition one was that the Messiah, according to the Old Testament, must first suffer and then be raised. Then he added proposition number two, ‘This Jesus I preach to you is that Messiah’ (see v. 3). His kingship is established then, by his resurrection.

But I take your point. The normal term used of Christ is ‘head’ of the church.

Audience: Is there a parallel with David, having been anointed long before he ever got to the throne, and before he was recognized by the nation?

DWG: That is so, yes.

Audience: I would like to ask why you don’t include 7:14 as the first prophecy of this section 1B.

DWG: Oh, I see. That is me being very arbitrary. I’m talking about a whole paragraph such as you find at 2:1–4, and then at 4:2­–6, and now here.

Audience: If you took it as three in 1A, then that would make three in 1B.

DWG: Well, yes, by all means. If you like to have it so, please do!

Audience: There’s a nice similarity that’s worth noticing at the end of chapter 5.

And it will roar against it on that day like the roaring of the sea. If one looks across to the land, behold, there is darkness and distress; even the light is darkened by its clouds. (v. 30 nasb)

Then there is this spectacular vision in chapter 6 of the Lord who is the king in the place above. But then here at the end of chapter 8 we read,

And they will look to the earth, but behold, distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish. And they will be thrust into thick darkness. (v. 22)

And then again, in this prophecy we’ve considered in chapter 9, we see a bright vision of the king, but this time the king as ‘sun’, as the light, in Galilee. It’s a lovely parallel.

DWG: It’s a lovely parallel, indeed.

Well, thank you, and I must stop you there, and we’ll just conclude with a prayer to thank God.

Our Father, we thank thee for thy zeal, the zeal to carry out thy long given promises. And we bless thee for their fulfilment already, to this extent, in the birth of thy Son among us. We praise thee for this spectacular light, and more still that thou hast opened our eyes to see him, and to recognize him, and willingly to bow at his feet. And so as we worship thee for him, and again present the members of our bodies to him for him to use and direct, we bless thee for the implications for the future that his birth into our world carries. We look for his coming again; and we anticipate with great joy to see him eventually recognized the world through, and crowned King of kings, and Lord of lords. Accept our praise for his name’s sake. Amen.

10: The Lord’s Anger in Isaiah 9:8–10:34

Part 1B (7:1–12:6) Continued

So now we come to the next verses in Part 1B, that is, from 9:8 onward. Once more there is a denunciation of Israel’s sin.

The Lord has sent a word against Jacob, and it will fall on Israel; and all the people will know, Ephraim and the inhabitants of Samaria, who say in pride and in arrogance of heart: ‘The bricks have fallen, but we will build with dressed stones; the sycamores have been cut down, but we will put cedars in their place.’ But the Lord raises the adversaries of Rezin against him, and stirs up his enemies. The Syrians on the east and the Philistines on the west devour Israel with open mouth. For all this his anger has not turned away, and his hand is stretched out still. (vv. 8–12)

An unrelieved pronouncement of judgment

With that comes a phrase that is repeated four times: ‘For all this his anger has not turned away, and his hand is stretched out still’. It comes here in 9:12, and in 9:17, 9:21, and again in 10:4, as God unrelievedly pronounces his anger against Israel. We are coming to a section in these chapters, as we did in chapter 5, where God had done all he could, and protested he could do nothing more. The result of which is an unrelieved pronouncement of judgment. So it is here also in chapter 9. We can notice the four major things that God complains of.

Israel’s defiance against God’s chastisement (9:8–12)

The Lord has sent a word against Jacob, and it will fall on Israel; and all the people will know, Ephraim and the inhabitants of Samaria, who say in pride and in arrogance of heart: ‘The bricks have fallen, but we will build with dressed stones; the sycamores have been cut down, but we will put cedars in their place.’ (vv. 8–10)

Some people say that in saying this they are referring to the time of Jeroboam the second. He built Israel through a great period of prosperity, and then after that it declined. Therefore, they now are determining to rebuild their fortunes. I think it is more likely that they are responding to the initial ravages of their country by the Assyrians under God’s chastisement. And instead of that leading to repentance, they are now turning around in defiance. Like a child being disciplined by his father who tries to make out he doesn’t care tuppence, so Israel, instead of bending under the discipline of God, and searching their hearts, and coming to repentance, are saying, ‘Okay, we have suffered some, but we will rebuild with even better material!’

[Therefore] the Lord raises the adversaries of Rezin against him, and stirs up his enemies. (v. 11)

The Rezin and company that they thought would be their salvation shall turn out to be their foes. They shall be caught in a pincer movement between the Aramaeans in front and the Philistines behind.

The Syrians on the east and the Philistines on the west devour Israel with open mouth. For all this his anger has not turned away, and his hand is stretched out still. (v. 12)

In other words, if people will reject God’s discipline when it begins, the result is but more grave discipline to follow. In spite of it, God’s anger is not turned away; ‘his hand is stretched out still’.

Results of refusing to repent (9:13–17)

In spite of the fact that God’s anger is not turned away, we read in the next verse:

The people did not turn to him who struck them, nor enquire of the Lord of hosts. So the Lord cut off from Israel head and tail, palm branch and reed . . . (vv. 13–14)

Because of their refusal to repent and to seek him, the Lord will cut off from Israel head and tail, palm branch and reed. These are figurative terms, and the metaphorical language is then explained in the following verses. The ancient and honourable is the head; and the prophet that teaches lies is the tail (v. 15). God will now proceed against those in the government, and the religious teachers who mislead them. They shall be destroyed (v. 16).

Now comes a chilling verse.

Therefore the Lord does not rejoice over their young men, and has no compassion on their fatherless and widows; for everyone is godless and an evildoer, and every mouth speaks folly. For all this his anger has not turned away, and his hand is stretched out still. (v. 17)

The Lord shall not rejoice over their young men, as naturally he would, to see them grow valiant for God. Neither shall he have compassion on their fatherless and widows. When the almighty God withdraws his compassions, that is serious indeed. And again we have the refrain, ‘For all this his anger has not turned away, and his hand is stretched out still.’

The discipline of self-destruction (9:18–21)

Then we read of another form of God’s judgment, and his anger. This time, it is, so to speak, written into the normal processes of nature and social life.

For wickedness burns like a fire; it consumes briers and thorns; it kindles the thickets of the forest, and they roll upwards in a column of smoke. Through the wrath of the Lord of hosts the land is scorched, and the people are like fuel for the fire; no one spares another. (vv. 18–19)

Wickedness itself burns as a fire. Wickedness itself devours. Wickedness itself is destructive. You cannot live in God’s universe and be wicked, and find it leads to prosperity. Wickedness will in the end go up in smoke and destroy you.

Then we read of the wrath of God, not just nature or social society reacting now, but the Lord himself. The wrath of the Lord of hosts is burning up the land: ‘the people are like fuel for the fire.’ And see what happens now. In their predicament, society breaks down like a people under siege, and they turn to social cannibalism: ‘no one spares his brother’.

They slice meat on the right, but are still hungry, and they devour on the left, but are not satisfied; each devours the flesh of his own arm, Manasseh devours Ephraim, and Ephraim devours Manasseh; together they are against Judah. For all this his anger has not turned away, and his hand is stretched out still. (vv. 20–21)

They shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm. Whether eating ‘the flesh of his own arm’ is meant literally or, more likely, metaphorically, the extreme passions are getting beyond control, and driving them to consume one another. The two tribes that came of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, devour each other; and they together are against Judah. So the national tribes of Israel are breaking up and attacking each other, and then together they shall be against Judah. It is the desperation of a people under God’s chastisement, and now in the extreme, and reacting like rats caught in a cage. That isn’t the end of it either.

The corruption of justice (10:1–4)

Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey! (10:1–2)

This is the corruption of the legal system and the law, the solicitors and the barristers, in order to steal the goods of the poor and defenceless. If the law itself breaks down, what hope is there for society?

What will you do on the day of punishment, in the ruin that will come from afar? To whom will you flee for help, and where will you leave your wealth? (v. 3)

So now God brings to them the big question, ‘What will you do in the day of visitation?’ That is, ‘What will you do when I start visiting you? You barristers, solicitors, judges, and others that frame the laws and put into action the legal rules of the country, and are given to corruption, when my chastisement comes upon you in the form of Assyrians, to whom will you go to for help, when you have not defended the defenceless, but have abused them? And where will you leave your loot that you have robbed? You’ve made a pile of riches by corruption, but when the Assyrians come, where will you store your loot?’

The ridiculous absurdity of laying up treasure on earth is seen at last when the judgments of God fall. It reminds us of our Lord’s parable of the Rich Fool. He was a fool. He had got so much in the way of goods laid up for many years that he had storage problems. ‘I can’t think where to store my goods,’ he said. ‘I’ll pull down my barns and build greater ones.’ That night a voice said, ‘You fool. Fancy storing your goods there, because tonight your life will be required of you, and then whose shall they be, you silly fool? If you had any sense you’d have sent them on in advance, wouldn’t you? You would have laid up treasure against the age to come. But in your greed, seeking to store them up for yourself, you’ve gone and stored them in a place where very presently you’ll have no access to them, and they shall belong to somebody else’ (see Luke 12:13–21).

Judgment against proud Assyria (10:5–23)

That then is the judgment of God upon the tribes of Jacob, that is Israel. Now God, through the prophet, turns aside to discuss God’s use of the Assyrian as the rod he uses to chastise his people.

Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger; the staff in their hands is my fury! Against a godless nation I send him, and against the people of my wrath I command him, to take spoil and seize plunder, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets. But he does not so intend, and his heart does not so think; but it is in his heart to destroy, and to cut off nations not a few. (vv. 5–7)

God is going to use Assyria for that purpose. ‘But now,’ says God, ‘the Assyrian, though I’m using him, has altogether different motives. He is doing it because I’ve appointed him to do it, but he isn’t doing it reluctantly.’

Assyria is not a cog in a machine so that when God, as another cog, moves this way, the Assyrian automatically moves the other way. God is not a cog in our universe. The way he controls things is not just a one-to-one situation where he is the big cog among all the little cogs. He works by an altogether different way, a mysterious way, indeed. The Assyrian does just what he likes, and he does it for his own motives. He will be chastised for doing it, but, in his divine providence, God who foresees all things uses that Assyrian. Although the Assyrian’s motives are selfish and bad, God uses it to accomplish his own purpose. So God says, ‘But he does not so intend’. God then describes what the Assyrian’s attitude is.

But he does not so intend, and his heart does not so think; but it is in his heart to destroy, and to cut off nations not a few; for he says: ‘Are not my commanders all kings? Is not Calno like Carchemish? Is not Hamath like Arpad? Is not Samaria like Damascus? As my hand has reached to the kingdoms of the idols, whose carved images were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria, shall I not do to Jerusalem and her idols as I have done to Samaria and her images?’ (vv. 7–11)

There speaks a pagan who hasn’t got a clue about anything. He has no notion that Jerusalem stands for the one true God. He looks upon it as simply one more nation with its idols. He has noticed the fact that they don’t have as many idols as the other nations, and he thinks that means they’re impoverished. And if he has taken nations that had idols galore, how much more would he take Jerusalem that only had a few idols? Well, they shouldn’t have had those either, but anyway that is the argumentation of a pagan who doesn’t know nor understand God, nor understand what Jerusalem stands for. To them, Jerusalem is just one more nation of idol worshippers.

And because Assyria is doing it for its own reasons and for its false motivations, the principle is enunciated in verse 12 onwards.

When the Lord has finished all his work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, he will punish the speech of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the boastful look in his eyes. (v. 12)

He will punish the Assyrians. That is what it amounts to in verses 12–15. The Assyrian boasts of his wisdom and his prudence. He has changed the borders of peoples; he has robbed them of their treasures; he has brought down their armies; his hand has found the riches of people as a boy finds eggs in a bird’s nest (and no bird dared chirp against him). So that is what he is going to do to Jerusalem. And almighty God rebukes him in the words of verse 15,

Shall the axe boast over him who hews with it, or the saw magnify itself against him who wields it? As if a rod should wield him who lifts it, or as if a staff should lift him who is not wood!

Ultimately, it is God using the Assyrian, not the Assyrian in his own might simply doing what he pleases. His boastings then are folly, for the God that pleases to use him against first Israel and then Judaea, will one day dispatch him. Now we have the judgment of God upon Assyria.

Therefore the Lord God of hosts will send wasting sickness among his stout warriors, and under his glory a burning will be kindled, like the burning of fire. The light of Israel will become a fire, and his Holy One a flame, and it will burn and devour his thorns and briers in one day. The glory of his forest and of his fruitful land the Lord will destroy, both soul and body, and it will be as when a sick man wastes away. The remnant of the trees of his forest will be so few that a child can write them down. (vv. 16–19)

This is God’s coming judgment on the Assyrian. And presumably that judgment was fulfilled when the Assyrian armies surrounded Jerusalem and thought they were about to take it, and the angel of the Lord came forth and consumed them overnight, and they retired (37:36–38).

The comfort of God (10:20–34)

That being the certain promise that the Assyrians are going to be defeated, now look at God’s comfort of his people.

In that day the remnant of Israel and the survivors of the house of Jacob will no more lean on him who struck them, but will lean on the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God. For though your people Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will return. (vv. 20–22)

There is no word for ‘only’ in the Hebrew. It should be simply ‘a remnant of them shall return.’ The emphasis is positive. It goes on to say,

Destruction is decreed, overflowing with righteousness. For the Lord God of hosts will make a full end, as decreed, in the midst of all the earth. (vv. 22–23).

That is to say, the discipline, the chastisement, will not go on forever, not even of Jacob and Israel. God is determined one day to bring it to an end. And when he brings it to an end, with startling suddenness, a remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God.

Discussion on the question of the remnant

So once more we come to this notion of a remnant. We met it in chapter 8, did we not? There it is a remnant of Isaiah, his children and his disciples being for a sign to the rest of the nation as they wait for the Lord of hosts to deliver his people. Now we meet again the theme of a remnant. Notice that here it is a remnant of Jacob that shall return unto the mighty God. The question that must now exercise our minds is, when did that happen? Did a remnant of Israel return to God after the Assyrians were defeated? Has anybody here got any suggestion as to when this was meant to be fulfilled?

Audience: There was something during the time of Josiah, wasn’t there?

DWG: There was, yes. Tell us about that.

Audience: Well, I think Assyria was broken in its power, and Josiah was able to extend his domain further north. And, as I recall, in reinstituting the Passover, some of the remnants of the northern tribes joined in the worship.

DWG: That’s right. Even under Hezekiah it happened, according to Chronicles. But when the Assyrians were defeated and had to leave, then Hezekiah set about reforming the house of the Lord, and cleansing it, and decided to keep the festivals. And he sent notices to the few Israelites that were left in the land, and invited them to come and join with Judah to keep the Passover, of all things. The Passover celebrated God’s deliverance of his people from the Gentile Egyptians. Hezekiah invited them all to come, if they would, and join with Judah, and unitedly seek the Lord’s face, and celebrate the Passover together. And Josiah did a similar thing. There were a few who came. A lot of them laughed Hezekiah’s messengers to scorn and wouldn’t come back, but some came.

The New Testament also quotes this passage, in Romans 9. We had better look at it to see how it understands this prophecy of Isaiah.

As indeed he says in Hosea, ‘Those who were not my people I will call “my people”, and her who was not beloved I will call “beloved”. And in the very place where it was said to them, “You are not my people”, there they will be called “sons of the living God”.’ And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: ‘Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.’ And as Isaiah predicted, ‘If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring, we would have been like Sodom and become like Gomorrah.’ (vv. 25–29)

You notice there in verses 27–28 that Paul is quoting our passage from Isaiah. Now tell me, how do you understand it? What is Paul saying? Tell me first, if you will, what was meant in Hosea when God said, ‘Lo-ammi, you are not my people’ (see 1:9 kjv). What did God mean when he said that to the ten tribes?

Audience: He’s talking of the lopping off of the olive branches.

DWG: Yes. Was it fulfilled there and then?

Audience: There and when?

DWG: When God said it through Hosea, or prophesied it through Hosea. When did that start?

Audience: In picture form, it happened when Hosea’s second son was born. God rejected them because they had rejected him, at that point in time.

DWG: Yes, so they were rejected because of their rejection of God. All I’m asking is, when did Israel become ‘not my people’? I think you are suggesting after they rejected Christ.

Audience: Right, yes.

DWG: Would that be historically true, because Israel was carried away to Assyria? Did Israel ever come back?

Audience: No, there was no general returning of those from the Assyrian captivity, was there?

Audience: Not yet, they haven’t come back.

DWG: They haven’t come back yet. Our question is, at what stage did Israel cease to be God’s people? I mean this quite seriously. Suppose I were to argue that because of those judgments we have just read of, the Assyrians were allowed to take away Israel finally to Assyria and in their place put a lot of foreigners, so that Israel ceased to exist as a separate, identifiable nation. Would you think I were right, or exaggerating, or misunderstanding if I said that from that time onward, Israel was ‘not my people’?

Audience: It would seem that way from Hosea 1 where it is in the present tense, ‘she conceived again and bore a daughter and then God said to him, “Call her name Lo-ruhamah, for lo, I will no longer have mercy on the house of Israel, but I will utterly take them away”’ (see v. 6 kjv). He said it at that point, and then in verse 8 it says, that ‘when she had weaned, she conceived and bore a son and God said, “Call his name Lo-ammi, for you are not my people”.’

DWG: Yes, and you see Hosea is more or less talking about the same time. And when God said, ‘Lo-ruhamah, I have not compassion,’ well, we read those verses, didn’t we? Through Isaiah, God says, ‘I will cease to have compassion’ (see 9:17). So let me hear your considered judgment, because it has implications, doesn’t it? Is the present nation of Israel God’s people?

Audience: I would put it this way. I have a son. He is my son forever. He doesn’t always enjoy the fellowship when he does something he shouldn’t do and then comes into my presence. I think what God is basically saying here is that God’s fellowship would have still been extended to them, but they weren’t going to enjoy God’s fellowship, because they rejected it. They went away from God saying, in effect, that they are not his people; although they are still God’s people in the sense of being his sons.

DWG: Could we put what you are saying in other words: that he is not treating them as his people?

Audience: He’s put them aside.

DWG: He’s put them aside as his people.

Audience: He’s given them a bill of divorcement.

DWG: A bill of divorcement.

Audience: I’m interested why Paul is referring this to the Gentiles in Romans 9.

DWG: Yes, well that is the point of my enquiry, so I’m glad you’ve brought it up so I can ask you now.

And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people’, there they will be called ‘sons of the living God’. (Rom 9:26)

Tell me, who are the ‘they’? Well, look now at verse 24: ‘even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles’. So, yes, the ‘not my people’ also includes Gentiles, who never were God’s people in that sense.

Audience: Would the thought be that if God treated those who were his people as if they were not his people, then he is treating them like Gentiles?

DWG: Yes, he is indeed.

Audience: And if they then can find a way back to God, and he’s treating them like Gentiles, then Gentiles can look at that and say, ‘Hey, if he’s treating them like Gentiles and there is a way back, then there’s a way back for me too.’

DWG: Would I be right in saying that Paul is arguing that now what you call ‘the way back’ is the same for Jews as for Gentiles? They must come on the same terms as now the Gentiles are coming. Is that the implication?

Audience: Yes.

DWG: To be God’s people and owned as God’s people, yes, there is a way back, but it’s not now just for Jews; it is for Jews and Gentiles. And, secondly, Jews will have to come on the same ground as Gentiles. Is that all agreed? Does anybody object?

Audience: I’ve always taken that sense in Acts 15 where Peter is dealing with this very issue with Gentiles, and when he recounts the situation and what has happened, he says ‘and [God] made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith’ (v. 9). And he says in verse 11, ‘But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.’

DWG: Yes, and that is a Jew talking and saying to his Judaising brethren, ‘Hold on, my dear brothers. You are not to say that the Gentiles have got to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, because even we Jews have learned that to be justified and saved, we must be saved exactly like the Gentiles are, through the grace of our Lord Jesus.’

Audience: You would have expected them to say, ‘They have to be saved just like us.’

DWG: That’s right. He turns it around: ‘We have got to be saved like they are.’ And that is a Jew talking. He is one of the remnant, as he will tell us in Romans 11. ‘There is a remnant left, and I’m one of them.’ If you ask, ‘How do you know?’ he says, ‘I know, because I happen to be one. You see, I am an Israelite’ (see vv. 1–5).

Audience: But there is still yet a future restoration, not of the church, but the grafting back in of the natural branches that Paul talks about in Romans 11. That refers to a yet future national restoration of the nation of Israel as a remnant.

DWG: Surely it does.

Audience: He says in Romans 11,

Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved. (vv. 25–26)

And that includes the northern tribes. Now, Zechariah prophesied regarding the restoration of the northern tribes of Israel, along with Judah, after the captivity of the southern tribe had been restored. So, it is still future, past the time of Hezekiah and his progeny. We still look forward to a fuller fulfilment of that restoration.

DWG: Oh, surely we do. And the argument of Paul in Romans 11 is that all Israel shall be saved one day, that is, ‘Israel as a whole’ shall be saved. He quotes you evidence for that at the beginning of Romans 11. He says that unless the Lord had (as Isaiah said) saved a remnant, we would have been like Sodom and Gomorrah: completely finished. The very fact that God has preserved a remnant is God’s indication that one day he will restore the whole lot. For if God had determined to destroy the whole lot, he would have done it there and then. There would have been no remnant left. The very fact he has left a remnant is the indication and guarantee that one day Israel as a whole shall be restored. As Paul says at the beginning of chapter 11,

God did not cast off his people which he foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah? How he pleads with God against Israel, ‘Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have [torn] down your altars: and I am left alone, and they seek my life.’ But what is the answer of God unto him? ‘I have left for myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to Baal.’ Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. (vv. 2–5 rv)

He says, ‘I’m one of them. I’m a Benjamite, an Israelite’ (see v. 1). But the fact that God has left a remnant is the guarantee and indication that one day the nation as a whole shall be saved.

Now, what would Paul have said if you had asked him how he himself was saved, as one who was in his time a member of the remnant of the nation that God had saved? Did he get preferential treatment as a Jew? If you asked him, ‘Did you really need to be saved, Paul?’ he would have said, ‘I had to come dressed like a Gentile sinner myself. Those are the terms. And when Israel as a whole is saved, they will have to come on those terms. There are not two kinds of salvation. There is only one kind of salvation.’

And Peter is on record quoting this passage from Hosea.

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. (1 Pet 2:9–10)

You had not obtained mercy (Lo-ruhamah), but now you have obtained mercy. That is Hosea. So, yes, this consummation and a remnant shall return. The remnant was already there in Paul’s day, guaranteeing that one day the whole nation, and not just a remnant, shall be saved.

Audience: To go back to the initial point that you were raising with the situation in Isaiah at that time that the Assyrians were in control. You are saying there was a small remnant that returned at one time; then in Paul’s day we look at him and the other Jews who came to Christ as another aspect of the remnant.

DWG: That’s right. Yes, there was a historical remnant that was mentioned. And you see the comforting invitation of God in Isaiah 10. Now he is not talking so much to Israel but to Zion.

Therefore thus says the Lord God of hosts: ‘O my people, who dwell in Zion, be not afraid of the Assyrians when they strike with the rod and lift up their staff against you as the Egyptians did. For in a very little while my fury will come to an end, and my anger will be directed to their destruction. And the Lord of hosts will wield against them a whip, as when he struck Midian at the rock of Oreb. And his staff will be over the sea, and he will lift it as he did in Egypt. And in that day his burden will depart from your shoulder, and his yoke from your neck; and the yoke will be broken because of the fat.’ (vv. 24–27)

Whatever that means, it is a guarantee to Isaiah’s contemporaries that in God’s chastisement of Israel, now in the approaching of the Assyrian armies, the people of Jerusalem are not to be afraid. The Assyrians will attack them; they will make life very difficult for them. The Assyrians will attack their outer defence cities, like Lachish, down in the south and all the other ones, and destroy them. They shall come right up to the neck. It will be a desperately difficult time, but God is saying in advance now, ‘People who dwell in Zion, don’t be afraid because I shall preserve you through it and, all of a sudden, the Assyrians will be defeated and you will be free.’ That is the point of it, isn’t it?

Audience: Again for clarification, you posed some questions at the beginning. You did not answer them, at least directly, but made us think, which is good. Now, if I have understood correctly, those who were removed under the Assyrian captivity, that is, northern Israel, were not his people. That was a literal fulfilment in Israel’s history. The Jews who were there were not his people at that point, there was a bill of divorcement and so on. However, Paul will take us to that intermediate level of Christ and the church and apply it there. As Gentiles, we were not his people. But a Jew must come on the same ground as the remnant. But someday it will all be fulfilled when all Israel is saved.

DWG: That’s right. Praise the Lord, amen! God is sometimes more generous than we make him out to be, yes.

Audience: There are two details that we went past, but they are interesting. It says in 9:11, ‘Therefore Jehovah will set up on high against him,’ (meaning the northern tribes, as I understand it, or Ephraim) ‘the adversaries of Rezin and will stir up his enemies, the Syrians.’ It sounds as if the Syrians were divided among themselves. Perhaps Rezin was the king of some of the Syrians, but the other Syrians would take forces against Rezin and Pekah, and so forth.

DWG: It could be.

Audience: Secondly, I asked my Turkish friends who use oxen about ‘the yoke being destroyed by reason of fatness’, or ‘by reason of the oil’ (10:27). They said, ‘Oh yes, they absolutely ruin their yoke strap if they’re not accustomed to the yoke. The neck gets fatter, and if you try to yoke an ox with an accustomed neck to another with an unaccustomed neck, the one that is unaccustomed will break the yoke, and you’ll have a hard time catching him.

DWG: That’s very interesting, that. Very interesting indeed.

The enemy approaches (10:28–34)

I take it then that the last paragraph of chapter 10 follows on very dramatically from the Lord’s assurance to the small number of people left in Jerusalem. What verses 28–34 are now describing is the advance of the Assyrian forces. It would be no pleasant thing to stand inside little Jerusalem and hear the news of the oncoming of the Assyrian forces and where they’ve got to, and to see the refugees fleeing in from every town and flooding in from the countryside.

This very day he will halt at Nob; he will shake his fist at the mount of the daughter of Zion, the hill of Jerusalem. (v. 32)

He gets as near as that. It would have taken a lot of courage to dare to believe in the Lord’s message that Jerusalem would be saved, and that they could trust God.

That begins to tie up the message that was sent to Ahaz. The prophet is not denying the tremendous threat that Assyria will pose. The question is, in spite of the threat of Assyria, will Ahaz believe God and profit from his protection, or will he will lose his nerve and abandon faith in God and put his trust in political alliance? Those who are left in Jerusalem under Hezekiah proved that faith in God will be honoured. They were preserved, though it came to a very fine point before they were delivered.

Audience: Is what the Lord promises in Luke’s Gospel totally contrary to what’s being said here? I mean, in the sense that in Luke’s Gospel they were told they should flee when they saw Jerusalem surrounded (21:20–21).

DWG: Oh yes, from the Romans they were to flee, because the Lord was telling them that this time, as distinct from what happened with the Assyrians in the past, this time Jerusalem would fall.

Audience: This prophecy in Isaiah is then linked to a future remnant, which will understand this in a different way when they are under a great siege. They won’t flee. They must have the courage to believe that the Lord then will come and all Israel shall be saved.

DWG: Yes, it will come to a very close thing according to Zechariah 14. The city shall be taken, and then the Lord shall come. It will surely take a great deal of nerve on the part of the believers.

Audience: Should we take what he says about, ‘All Israel shall be saved’ in connection with, for instance, Zechariah that you mentioned? There two thirds of the people will be killed, according to chapter 13. Should we take that to mean then that the ones that are left in Israel, who are not judged in the time of Jacob’s trouble, then will be restored to the Lord?

DWG: Well, sir, I think the quickest answer to that is, when it says ‘all Israel’ it doesn’t necessarily mean every individual man in Israel. It means Israel as a whole. The nation of Israel as a whole shall be saved.

Audience: He speaks of bringing a third of them through in Zechariah. They make it through the refining fire, whereas two thirds apparently don’t. So, it is those that are left on the other side of refining fire that would constitute the nation of Israel as a whole.

DWG: As a whole, yes, surely. There, I presume again, you speak in terms of physical Israel at that level, as it was in Hezekiah’s time. I wonder whether Paul, in talking of the olive tree being restored, is thinking not just of physical preservation, but of nothing short of spiritual and eternal salvation.

Audience: But it says ‘they are not all Israel, which are of Israel’ (Rom 9:6 kjv).

DWG: In that sense, yes, but there will come a time when the nation as a whole shall be believers in the Messiah.

Audience: There in Zechariah 13 it says, ‘I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: And they shall call upon my name, and I will hear them and I will say, “My people,” and they shall say, “The Lord, my God”’ (see v. 9).

DWG: Yes, that’s right. Very good. Right, we must finish now. It is five past o’clock and dinner is served at 5:30. Just let’s give thanks for God’s word.

Blessed Lord Jesus, we thank thee for thy remark, ‘I have not treated you as slaves but as friends, for a slave does not know what his Lord does.’ Thank thee, Lord, for making known thy truth and entrusting us with thy promises and thy purposes regarding the future. Help us to understand them, that we may be wise as to thy will and thy strategies, that our hearts may, through comfort of the Scripture, have hope and abound in hope. And help us to understand them that, though the world darken, we may be the more zealous to spread the glorious gospel of hope through Jesus Christ our Lord.

So Lord, we thank thee for this word of Isaiah. We confess to thee the limits of our understanding, but thou who has given it, go on, we do beseech thee, to show us the truth of thy word, that we may walk in thy ways. That we ourselves, in our day and generation, may be a beacon light, as Isaiah and his disciples were in his day. So bless thy word, we pray, as we thank thee for it. For thy name’s sake. Amen.

11: Prophecy of the Coming Messiah in Isaiah 11:1–12:6

Part 1B (7:1–12:6) Continued

We are going to do our level best to get into the second major part of the prophecy of Isaiah from chapter 13 onwards before night and darkness completely overtake us, but we have some unfinished business to do in Part 1B of Isaiah, as we have called it. We must now, for a short while, look at chapter 11 and then at chapter 12.

The emphasis of Isaiah 11

Chapter 11 and its first nine verses constitute a large paragraph, talking about the coming of Messiah. As we read it, we shall be aware that, though it talks of the coming of Messiah, as did the paragraph at the beginning of chapter 9, there is a different emphasis. We saw, for instance, that chapter 9 began with the light dawning in Galilee and how Matthew interprets that as applying to the ministry of our Lord here on earth. He began his public ministry in Galilee of the Gentiles and there proceeded. Here we notice something different as we come to the first verses of chapter 11.

There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit. (v. 1)

It continues with the seven-fold spirit, as we are told in verse 2.

And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord. And his delight shall be in the fear of the Lord. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide disputes by what his ears hear, but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked. (vv. 2–4)

When he reigns

We have immediately to ask, to what time does this refer? And I suggest to you that, whereas the prophecy in chapter 9 began by referring to our Lord’s earthly ministry that began in Galilee, this one is concentrating on what will be the nature of his coming at his second coming and the establishment of his government on earth. This portion has to do throughout with the righteousness of his government and therefore, among other things it says, ‘he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked’ (v. 4). It seems to me that if you choose to regard these phrases as metaphorical, or something of the sort, then that last phrase, slaying the wicked with the breath of his mouth is so extreme a statement that it could not possibly be attributed to his present ministry and still less to his ministry on earth. ‘Slaying the wicked with the breath of his lips,’ is a phrase that is used by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2. There it is said to be what the Lord Jesus will do when he comes again.

For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. (vv. 7–8)

Our Lord is not, at the moment, punishing the wicked, is he? Nor is he smiting the earth, as far as I know, or as anyone has observed.

The notion that he is already reigning cannot be true, can it? He is not putting down ‘the tares’. He himself said that it wasn’t his programme. In this present, he would establish the kingdom of God by his word. He is the sower going forth to sow. But he would not be attempting to pluck out the tares (the evil, bogus people) or the wicked from the field of this world. He would leave the tares to grow until harvest, then he shall send forth the reapers (and the reapers will be angels, not missionaries) and shall gather the wicked into bundles, and they will be for burning (see Matt 13:24–30).

So, I take it that this description in Isaiah 11 is a description of the future reign of our blessed Lord, in that it differs from the prophecy description given in chapter 9. Moreover, in chapter 9 the emphasis lies on who the king is, his identity: he is the Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of eternity, Prince of Peace. The emphasis is on who he is. This prophecy of his coming in chapter 11 is describing, not so much who he is, but the power by which he will reign and the wisdom and so forth, by the Spirit of God.

How he will reign and judge

This prophecy speaks of his judging of the earth, meaning not necessarily judging in the sense of a judge consigning criminals to jail, but in the Old Testament sense, like in the book of Judges. There we are told that so-and-so was judge, and he judged his realm for forty years; he was their ruler; he decided all cases that needed arbitration; he kept society behaving as it should. This is judging in that sense, not judging in the sense of the final judgment.

When Paul was talking to the Athenians on Mars Hill, he pointed out that God has appointed the day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he has ordained (Acts 17:31). If you look at the Psalm from which Paul is quoting, the whole creation there is asked to join in and clap their hands, as best mountains and trees can do that (96:10–13). Why is that? ‘Because the Lord comes’, they say; ‘the Lord comes to judge the earth! He will judge the earth in righteousness.’ The psalmist is not particularly thinking of the final judgment and people being consigned to the lake of fire. He is looking forward to the day when justice will be done, and the world ruled justly.

At the beginning of Psalm 94, the psalmist tells you the problem he has: ‘O thou to whom vengeance belongs, how long, O Lord?’ Meaning, how long are you going to leave this world to go on in its present state, where evil men triumph and faithful souls are persecuted and oppressed and unjustly treated? ‘How long, O Lord, will you not avenge?’ It does not say ‘revenge’ but ‘avenge’. Avenge, as you rightly know of course, is not revenge. ‘Avenge’ is seeing that justice is done. So our Lord said in Luke 18: ‘And he told them a parable to the effect that they ought always to pray and not lose heart’ (v. 1). Why are we always to pray and not lose heart? ‘Well’, our Lord said, ‘consider this widow woman.’ She came to a judge, because the local businessmen were taking advantage of her and cheating her. (It’s not uncommon, even in some countries to this day). So, she went to the local judge and said, ‘Avenge me of my enemies’ (see vv. 2–3). Not ‘get revenge’ but, ‘please intervene and see that justice is done.’ But the judge did nothing. I expect he played golf with the businessmen, but anyway, he did nothing, for he was an unrighteous soul and cared nothing about justice really; he liked the perks that came from being judge. But the woman was not to be put off like that and she came so frequently that he was moved to metaphorical language, and said, ‘She buffets me black and blue. I must do something about this woman’ (see vv. 4­–5). So, to get a bit of peace and quiet he avenged her of her enemies and saw that justice was done, even though he was an old rascal himself and didn’t care for justice.

Then the Lord drew the analogy from that little parable, ‘And will not God avenge his elect who cry to him day and night?’ (see v. 7). Of course he will, but the cry of the afflicted of the saints of all ages has gone out to the ears of the Lord of Hosts. ‘O Lord, how long? How long, O Lord, will you not avenge us?’ How many Jews went to their death in the gas chambers (forgive the term) trying to believe that there is a God in heaven who cares for justice, as they recited their Psalms under their breath? ‘How long, oh Lord, thou to whom vengeance belongs? How long?’ And in Psalm 96, the assurance is given to them, for justice shall one day be done. How? And here is where creation starts to clap its hands!

Say among the nations, ‘The Lord reigns! Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity.’ Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice; let the sea roar, and all that fills it; let the field exult, and everything in it! Then shall all the trees of the forest sing for joy before the Lord, for he comes, for he comes to judge the earth. He will judge the world in righteousness, and the peoples in his faithfulness. (vv. 10–13)

‘The Lord reigns.’ That is a perfective tense in Hebrew, meaning the Lord has initiated his reign. Or, to use the words of the Revelation, ‘You have taken your great power and begun to reign’ (11:17); ‘begun to reign’, an initiatory perfect tense. And so the Psalms say, ‘The Lord reigns; the Lord comes.’ He will judge the world in righteousness at the coming of the Lord. That is what the Psalms preached, and what Paul preached in Athens. And Paul added the words,

because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead. (Acts 17:31)

And our Lord himself indicated the same thing in that parable of the widow and the unjust judge: ‘Shall not God avenge his elect who cry to him day and night? Even though he is longsuffering over them, even though he takes a long while before he eventually intervenes? Therefore I say unto you, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?’ (see Luke 18:7–8). Or, will people have given up and say, ‘There’s no use praying and hoping for justice. There’s no God out there who cares anyway.’ Will he find faith on the earth?

This idea then of God rising up and avenging and seeing that justice is done, at which creation claps its hands, doesn’t sound to me like Christ coming and destroying the world—every jot and tittle of it—and the heavens as well. It sounds to me much more like creation rejoicing that at last the Lord has come, and he is going to run the place as it should be run. Do shout ‘Hallelujah!’ over that.

Creation delivered (11:6–9)

Not only shall there be justice done, since the administration will be in the wisdom and might and understanding of the Spirit of God (v. 2), but look at what verses 6–9 tell us. Well, what do they tell us? We shall agree with the literalists at this point, that creation shall be delivered from her bondage to corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. So, this is a promise that creation shall be restored, of course, in poetic language as you see: cows and bears feeding together; and a little child shall lead the lions about. I don’t know how many little children there are going to be, do you, or how many lions? Will all little children have lions? You say, ‘It doesn’t mean that kind of literalism! No, it’s just a poetic way of saying that nature shall no longer be red in tooth and claw. Creation shall be delivered from her bondage to corruption.’ At which also we shout, ‘Hallelujah!’. But I know a few lions of a different sort that gobble up the poor, and plant a few bombs now and again, and cheat widows, and other such things. I hope those kinds of lions are going to be subdued as well, to be honest; but that’s a personal preference.

In that day (11:10–12:6)

Then we have a string of statements beginning with ‘In that day’. It is a familiar device of Isaiah’s writing when he will announce a main project and then work out the implications of it by saying, ‘In that day . . .’; and ‘In that day . . .’; and ‘In that day . . .’. The consequences of the Lord’s coming and his reign of perfect justice will come to pass.

In that day the root of Jesse, who shall stand as a signal for the peoples—of him shall the nations enquire, and his resting-place shall be glorious. (v. 10)

He shall be the centre of attraction, but not merely for the godly in Israel; he shall be a centre for all the Gentiles worldwide.

Then we read of the restoration of God’s ancient people.

In that day the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time to recover the remnant that remains of his people, from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Cush, from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the coastlands of the sea. He will raise a signal for the nations and will assemble the banished of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. (vv. 11–12)

It says ‘a second time’. What was the first time? It refers to Zerubbabel leading the return of the exiles from Babylon. So, here in these verses it is now suggesting a second return, far bigger than anything that Zerubbabel led, this time of converted Jews from all over the earth.

We then read of another remarkable effect of the rule of Christ.

The jealousy of Ephraim shall depart, and those who harass Judah shall be cut off; Ephraim shall not be jealous of Judah, and Judah shall not harass Ephraim. (v. 13)

That would be an astonishing thing to see come true. Among the people of God, the Jews in Judah and Israel split early on; and fights between the Judahites and the Israelites went on interminably. Just read the books of 1 and 2 Kings. It is a sign of the millennium when the so-called people of God shall stop fighting each other. We can add that we shall believe the Lord has come when people in Christian churches stop fighting each other as well. ‘And every one that has this hope set on him purifies himself, even as he is pure’ (1 John 3:3 rv).

Then, in terms of the day, we read,

But they shall swoop down on the shoulder of the Philistines in the west, and together they shall plunder the people of the east. They shall put out their hand against Edom and Moab, and the Ammonites shall obey them. (Isa 11:14)

All the opponents and enemies of David from the time his kingdom was set up shall be put down. Isaiah is presumably using the language of his own day to indicate that, at last, all enemies will be put under the feet of Messiah.

Now look at verses 15–16. We come back to this question of the return of God’s people and ‘the highway’. This, as you will see in the notes, is the song of salvation, and God’s anger has turned away.

And the Lord will utterly destroy the tongue of the Sea of Egypt, and will wave his hand over the River with his scorching breath, and strike it into seven channels, and he will lead people across in sandals. And there will be a highway from Assyria for the remnant that remains of his people, as there was for Israel when they came up from the land of Egypt. (vv. 15–16)

You will have noticed in a previous session, as we looked over a general survey of the contents of chapters 1–35, the constant repetition of the idea of ‘the highway’. For the sake of time, we shall have to return to that idea in our time of discussion, and also to anything anyone would like to raise from chapter 12 and the people’s reaction ‘in that day’. For the moment, and before we turn our attention to part 2 of Isaiah’s prophecy, let’s just enjoy together what that reaction will be.

You will say in that day: ‘I will give thanks to you, O Lord, for though you were angry with me, your anger turned away, that you might comfort me. Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and will not be afraid; for the Lord God is my strength and my song, and he has become my salvation.’ With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation. And you will say in that day: ‘Give thanks to the Lord, call upon his name, make known his deeds among the peoples, proclaim that his name is exalted. Sing praises to the Lord, for he has done gloriously; let this be made known in all the earth. Shout, and sing for joy, O inhabitant of Zion, for great in your midst is the Holy One of Israel. (12:1–6)

And with that, we turn our attention now to Part 2.

12: False Hope and the Judgment of God

An Overview of Part 2 (13:1–23:18)

It is not my intention in any way to examine all the details of Part 2 exhaustively. I want to do very little more than to sketch in some of the leading ideas of this particular section.

The two halves of Part 2 (13:1–23:18)

As you see from the chart that lays out the parts of these chapters, which we looked at earlier, I have suggested that Part 2, like Part 1, is in two sections. And I had better demonstrate to you now why I think that is so. ⁷

Part 2A (13:1–19:24)

Part 2A seems to me to comprise the first five oracles, and that will take us up to the end of chapter 19. At the end of those first five oracles you have once more this recurrent theme of ‘the highway’. We saw it in 11:16, and now we meet it again in 19:23.

In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and Assyria will come into Egypt, and Egypt into Assyria, and the Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians. In that day Israel will be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the Lord of hosts has blessed, saying, ‘Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my inheritance.’ (vv. 23–25)

Each time that theme of the highway occurs, it tends to come at the end of a section, and so it is here. At the end of the first five oracles, you have this tremendous story of the conversion of Egypt. Then you have the reconciliation of Assyria and Egypt and, along with Israel, the three are recognized by God. It is a tremendous vision of the triumph of God among the nations. Since that mention of the highway is typical of the end of a section in Isaiah, and it comes here at the end of the first five oracles, I say to myself that will probably constitute Part 2A.

Part 2B (20:1–23:18)

Then notice what chapter 20 is about. It doesn’t start with an oracle, as you notice. It starts with a bit of history.

In the year that the commander-in-chief, who was sent by Sargon the king of Assyria, came to Ashdod and fought against it and captured it . . . (v. 1)

As you know, Sargon was one of the earlier kings. This was not Sennacherib, nor Tiglath-Pileser, nor any of that ilk, but Sargon, if you please. And Ashdod was one of the Philistine cities.

at that time the Lord spoke by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, ‘Go, and loose the sackcloth from your waist and take off your sandals from your feet’, and he did so, walking naked and barefoot. Then the Lord said, ‘As my servant Isaiah has walked naked and barefoot for three years as a sign and a portent against Egypt and Cush, so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptian captives and the Cushite exiles, both the young and the old, naked and barefoot, with buttocks uncovered, the nakedness of Egypt. Then they shall be dismayed and ashamed because of Cush their hope and of Egypt their boast. And the inhabitants of this coastland will say in that day, ‘Behold, this is what has happened to those in whom we hoped and to whom we fled for help to be delivered from the king of Assyria! And we, how shall we escape?’ (vv. 2–6)

When you see that at first, you might well be puzzled, because chapter 19 has talked about the conversion of Egypt to God and the reconciliation between Assyria and Egypt, and the two of them along with Israel forming three of God’s favoured peoples in the day to come. How does it come about, then, that chapter 20 seems to go back a long while, to be talking about a warning given by God through Isaiah to the people, and in particular a warning to Egypt and Ethiopia? How do you go backwards in time in that way? It shows us that Isaiah is not always interested in chronology but more in themes.

The particular emphasis of the second half of Part 2, what I call Part 2B (20:1–23:18), is highlighted by this introductory historical chapter, and its thesis is simple. People have looked to Egypt, or even Ethiopia, for protection against Assyria. In the name of God, Isaiah has warned them for three years running that their expectation will be belied and let down. And so it was, because Assyria eventually conquered Egypt. They conquered half of it later on, and took away their exiles and took away Ethiopian exiles as well. Then the inhabitants of the coastline speak up. The coast is where the Philistine cities were, Ashdod among them. Here are the little Philistine cities that had been looking to the great superpower to the south to save them from the Assyrian power of the north. When they see Egypt conquered, they shall say to themselves, ‘Well, all our expectations of Egypt have been shattered. How shall we now escape?’ And the answer is: there is no escape. For those that put their hope in false things, there will be no escape.

I take it, then, that chapter 20, which now introduces the second group of five oracles, is going to have this as its great running theme. God founded Jerusalem (Zion) to stand for something, to be a religious and philosophical refuge against the great movement of Assyria and what it stood for. If your hope against godless Assyria is in anything other than what Jerusalem stood for, in anything other than God himself, you will be absolutely helpless against the power of Assyria.

Let all little nations and all little people take notice even now. If your hope is not in the living God that Jerusalem stood for, you can look to any other combination of powers you like, but when the man of sin arises you will be helpless and hopeless.

So, there are two sections to this second major part of Isaiah: the first five burdens (or oracles) and then the second five burdens. I suggest they have a somewhat different general theme and general message, which we shall see as we go through them.

Overview of Part 2A (13:1–19:24)

The oracle concerning Babylon

We start with the burden of Babylon in chapter 13. As you know, you will find the commentaries arguing as to what exactly is meant by Babylon. Is this Isaiah now being moved of God to prophesy the destruction of Babylon? Well, if it is so, which Babylon, and when? We think of the destruction of Babylon described in chapter 14.

For the Lord will have compassion on Jacob and will again choose Israel, and will set them in their own land, and sojourners will join them and will attach themselves to the house of Jacob. And the peoples will take them and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel will possess them in the Lord’s land as male and female slaves. They will take captive those who were their captors, and rule over those who oppressed them. (vv. 1–2)

So the Lord is going to judge Babylon to set Israel free. Well, when is this referring to? Is it referring to the capture of Babylon by Cyrus?

Audience: Or at the beginning of the millennium?

DWG: Oh, this chap over here says it’s the beginning of the millennium. Well, that’s a point, isn’t it? Because, as far as I know, when Cyrus came against Babylon the Great and let the Israelites go back free into their land and gave them money and helped them to get back, I don’t read in Scripture that the stars fell from heaven, or that the earth wobbled, or anything like that. Do you?

Audience: Or that they took captives of their captors.

DWG: That’s right. Under Ezra and Nehemiah, the company were a bedraggled crowd on the whole, weren’t they?

Audience: And yet before the millennium, is it the Medes who are going to destroy Babylon?

DWG: Yes, that’s a very good question. It’s such a good one that when we have the next question time, I’ll ask it to you! Who are ‘the kings of the earth’ (Rev 18:9), and all the rest?

So we have to come to terms with such matters, partly because this business about Babylon is painted in this eschatological language in chapter 13. I find myself unwilling to think that this eschatological language is rather hyped up verbiage that is meant to say there was a certain political disturbance. It was more than that, I think. So whatever the history it is talking about, it is doing what prophecy often does. It takes its springboard from that particular in history and it goes on into the future when these principles that Babylon stood for would come to their highest fruition. And God will deal with them at the highest level. That, I understand, is frequently the nature of prophecy.

Audience: Was that Revelation 18 and 19?

DWG: Yes, if you like; and our Lord’s Olivet discourse in which he is talking, in part, about the capture of the city in ad 70 by the Romans, and the destruction of the temple. And yet, it is going forward in its language to the second coming of our Lord, which sets the expositors a little task of knowing which verses apply to which time. But that is a secondary thing, and that is why we have expositors, so that they can do that kind of thing.

The second question you may rightly ask, however, is an historical one. When we hear of the burden, the oracle, about Babylon, and then you read about ‘the king of Babylon’, we have to make up our minds.

You shall take up this parable against the king of Babylon, and say, ‘How has the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!’ (14:4 rv)

Is this the king of Babylon in the sense that Nebuchadnezzar, king of Neo-Babylon, was king of Babylon as an independent monarch? Or, is this king of Babylon, as Seth Erlandsson suggests in The Burden of Babylon, the king of Assyria who was king of Babylon, strictly so-called? It was the king of Assyria who was, at the time, king of Babylon, but he ruled Babylon by a series of vassal kings and was seriously displeased with most of them and eventually sacked Babylon and turned the river over it, and destroyed it. That could possibly be so, couldn’t it? So then the king of Babylon that is described in chapter 14 would be this same Assyrian, now shown in his true colours as one that said in his heart,

I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north. (v. 13)

We must also give an explanation for what is said later in chapter 14, that it is God’s purpose to break, not the king of Babylon, but ‘the Assyrian in my country’.

The Lord of hosts has sworn: ‘As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand, that I will break the Assyrian in my land, and on my mountains trample him underfoot; and his yoke shall depart from them, and his burden from their shoulder.’ This is the purpose that is purposed concerning the whole earth, and this is the hand that is stretched out over all the nations. For the Lord of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back? (vv. 24–27)

I think I at least want to say that if it refers to the fall of Babylon under Cyrus, yet that fall merely becomes a stepping stone to the great end of the age described in Revelation 17 when the Babylon of Revelation 18, which is not necessarily the same but distinguishable, shall be judged. You will notice that the Babylon of Revelation 17, religious Babylon, is destroyed, not directly by the Lamb of God coming, but by the beast. The king of Assyria destroyed ancient Babylon and became infamous around the world for doing it (as though Hitler had destroyed the Vatican), because Babylon was recognized around the world as the great centre of religion, whatever else it was or wasn’t. Just as Sennacherib eventually destroyed Babylon, so in the Revelation it is the beast that destroys the religious Babylon of the day. We shall hear that re-echoed in Part 2B in Isaiah (20:1–23:18), where it looks very definitely that Babylon is fallen under the work of the Assyrian. Therefore the party in Judah that supported the coalition against Assyria is of course absolutely dumbfounded when Babylon falls. But Babylon in Revelation 18 is not said to be destroyed by the beast. She is described there in terms that are used in the prophecy of Ezekiel to describe Tyre, the empire formed on commerce. We see there an early form of globalization. When she is destroyed, it is not said that she is destroyed by the beast. And when she is destroyed, the merchantmen lament over her, because she’s gone and the hope of their commerce is finished.

I mention these things simply by way of interest, to provoke your studies and thoughts.

Discussion of religious and commercial Babylon

Audience: There is a converging of the first and the last oracles, of Babylon and Tyre. The first and the last oracles become the whore.

DWG: That’s right, yes. And why the religious Babylon is a whore can easily be seen. In the book of the Revelation, she has mounted the beast and is trying to control it, decking herself out in rather extreme rouge, colours and whatnot, and rather gaudy dress, with doubtful morality. She is compromising with the beast in the hope of controlling it. That is what world religion will try to do, and has long since tried to do. It will be the beast that will destroy that system. The Babylon of Revelation 18, however, it is not so gaudily dressed, but she is exceedingly wealthy and has all sorts of merchandise at her disposal. She is described in terms of Tyre, the commercial empire in the ancient world. They owed allegiance to nobody, hence they were called a harlot, because they were loyal to nobody. They were a little island off the coast, but there they ran a very big commercial empire whose great ships went right through the Straits of Gibraltar, even around to benighted England and got the tin from Cornwall and Devon, perhaps, and went down the coast of Africa. They were the chaps that, with their ships, visited all the countries around the Mediterranean and persuaded the housewives that they did really need a Greek red-figure vase, because they were the latest fashion. It was expensive and they made a lot of money.

When Alexander destroyed them, they were rebuilt but eventually moved to Carthage in North Africa, which became a great merchant empire. They had their armies, of course, and Hannibal was a Carthaginian. He nearly defeated Rome at one stage, taking his elephants across the Alps, and all that. An enterprising lad was Hannibal. Eventually the two big empires, the Roman Empire and the Carthaginian Empire, met head on as the younger Scipio faced Hannibal at the Battle of Zama in North Africa. It was because Rome saw that the two big powers couldn’t coexist, or so they thought. And, of course, that battle decided the fate of Europe for many generations. The Romans hated trade, or rather they despised it. They were either farmers or generals, or they were senators in parliament. As for making money with shops and selling goods, Romans despised that sort of thing! They felt that was the kind of things for the nasty little Greeks, and other nations, but not for Romans. And the English aristocracy, my lord and my lady, took the same view, having been brought up on the classics since the Enlightenment. They didn’t go in for trading. No, they were farmers of their estates of thousands of acres, and they were generals in the army, what else? And of course, they were in parliament and governed the country. They left this little, mean business of trade to other, lesser lights. Many of them in the twentieth century found themselves penniless because of it. The newly rich, the engineers and the merchantmen, had all the money, while the gentries clothes were worn threadbare, and they couldn’t keep up their houses and estates. But that’s another long story.

Why do I wander like this, like an old man talking? These, however, are the big forces that have been at work in history, and the different attitudes taken by the world powers about these things. And, of course, it won’t be merely world religion in the end, nor only world politics, strictly so-called. It also will be the globalization of commerce. The big multinational firms of today, of course, are already more powerful than many governments, and in the end, they will control governments. They are for globalization. That is another matter, but I am just making a point that Tyre was called a harlot because, presumably, in her trade she was loyal to nobody. She would buy you or sell you, as the case may be. She had no loyalty to your economy; don’t get that into your head.

Audience: Might it be called the World Trade Organization?

DWG: Surely. You could. You might be sued for slander or something! But the emphasis here is that Tyre was loyal to nobody.

Audience: But the concept of the oracle concerning Babylon, then, as I’m reading it (if it’s really the king of Assyria as interpreted by 14:24–27), is essentially saying the king of Assyria is destined for destruction because he represents the ancient evil, the satanic evil, of Babylon. He’s showing his true colours as the representation of that.

DWG: That’s right. Sennacherib was the king of Babylon. It often rebelled against him. In the end he lost his patience and destroyed it, and then his sons built it again. But he was not, himself, religious. Well, all atheists are religious, you know, and have their idols, but he was the God-defying chap in a way that Nebuchadnezzar wasn’t quite.

Audience: Sennacherib turned against the Babylonian ideology?

DWG: Oh, he did, yes, indeed. In a big way.

Audience: And asserted his own?

DWG: Oh, yes, that’s right, because he was fed up with the vassal king of Babylon constantly trying to negotiate against him and raise up the little nations against him to try to unseat him.

Audience: But if we take that line, that Sennacherib, rather than representing the system of Babylon, stood contrary to it, then we might like to see this burden as referring, not to the king of Assyria, but strictly and precisely to Babylon and its future role in Israel’s life. That could be another way of looking at it.

DWG: Well, yes, it could. And do think it through for yourselves. I’m not here to be dogmatic, and I mustn’t let myself be drawn into too much detail. What I am trying to do is to sketch in the kind of thought pattern that is going on. So, think it through and come to your own decisions.

Looking to the future

Now, let me move on to an observation about the eschatological terminology used in chapter 14. The question of the eventual deliverance of Israel, God’s judgment on the great superpower, is described here in eschatological and cosmic terms, and points our minds forward to the future. The reason why the great king of Assyria will be destroyed, ‘in my land’, says God (v. 25), is because of the argument between them and what God is going to show to the world, namely, that he did choose Israel. And, as he says through Ezekiel, he will restore Israel for his own name’s sake, because he did choose Israel. What they originally stood for is true and, therefore, he will destroy the Assyrian in his land.

The oracle concerning Moab

Now look at the oracle about Moab in chapters 15 and 16. There is an early description of a destruction of Moab through chapter 15. Notice, however, what chapter 16 is saying.

Send the lamb to the ruler of the land, from Sela, by way of the desert, to the mount of the daughter of Zion. (v. 1)

Here speaks someone advising the Moabites to send lambs to the ruler, the king that is in Zion. Why would Moab do that?

Like fleeing birds, like a scattered nest, so are the daughters of Moab at the fords of the Arnon. (v. 2)

The Arnon was one of the local rivers. As the Assyrians come down, the refugees will start fleeing. And here are a bunch of Moabite women, refugees frightened of the oncoming Assyrians.

Give counsel; grant justice; make your shade like night at the height of noon; shelter the outcasts; do not reveal the fugitive; let the outcasts of Moab sojourn among you; be a shelter to them from the destroyer. When the oppressor is no more, and destruction has ceased, and he who tramples underfoot has vanished from the land, then a throne will be established in steadfast love, and on it will sit in faithfulness in the tent of David one who judges and seeks justice and is swift to do righteousness. (vv. 3–5)

Here is Moab described as being in a dither because of the approaching hostile superpower. He has got women refugees. Where shall they hide to be safe? And the suggestion is that the Moabites send a present to the king of Judah and ask, if he pleases, would he accept the Moabite women as refugees and hide them from the invading troops?

Now, for Moab to do that is significant, of course, for Moab at one time was subject to David; but when it got half a chance it revolted and had been in revolt against the house of David for some years now. But in face of the threat of Assyria, Moab is asking the king of Judah to shelter these refugees. And from that point there is, perhaps, a prophecy of the coming of a righteous king in the tent of David. This is Moab, then, seeking refuge in Jerusalem.

But now comes the sad story. As you read down the rest, you will see that Moab itself has asked protection for its refugees but has no intention of submitting once more to the king of the house of Judah. They are too proud to do so.

We have heard of the pride of Moab—how proud he is!—of his arrogance, his pride, and his insolence; in his idle boasting he is not right. Therefore let Moab wail for Moab, let everyone wail. Mourn, utterly stricken, for the raisin cakes of Kir-hareseth. For the fields of Heshbon languish, and the vine of Sibmah; the lords of the nations have struck down its branches, which reached to Jazer and strayed to the desert; its shoots spread abroad and passed over the sea. Therefore I weep . . . (vv. 6–9)

Therefore, I will weep for the Moabites. They are seeking refuge for their womenfolk but are too proud themselves to come to seek refugee under the wings of the king of Judah.

This is the word that the Lord spoke concerning Moab in the past. But now the Lord has spoken, saying, ‘In three years, like the years of a hired worker, the glory of Moab will be brought into contempt, in spite of all his great multitude, and those who remain will be very few and feeble.’ (vv. 13–14)

They could have had protection in Judah. They were too proud. They shall be diminished and brought low.

The oracle concerning Damascus

In chapter 17 we have the oracle about Damascus.

Behold, Damascus will cease to be a city and will become a heap of ruins. The cities of Aroer are deserted; they will be for flocks, which will lie down, and none will make them afraid. The fortress will disappear from Ephraim, and the kingdom from Damascus; and the remnant of Syria [or, Aram] will be like the glory of the children of Israel, declares the Lord of hosts. And in that day the glory of Jacob will be brought low, and the fat of his flesh will grow lean. And it shall be as when the reaper gathers standing corn and his arm harvests the ears, and as when one gleans the ears of corn in the Valley of Rephaim. Gleanings will be left in it, as when an olive tree is beaten—two or three berries in the top of the highest bough, four or five on the branches of a fruit tree, declares the Lord God of Israel. (vv. 1–6)

Why is that? Why that destruction?

For you have forgotten the God of your salvation and have not remembered the Rock of your refuge; therefore, though you plant pleasant plants and sow the vine-branch of a stranger, though you make them grow on the day that you plant them, and make them blossom in the morning that you sow, yet the harvest will flee away in a day of grief and incurable pain. (vv. 10–11)

The oracle about Damascus turns out to be mainly about the ten tribes of Israel. Why is that? It is because the Israelites, as we heard earlier, have gone into confederation with Aram and put their faith in Aram for protection against the Assyrians, and the ten tribes have forgotten the God of their salvation and turned to idolatry. When they might have had his protection, they shall perish because of their forgetting the God of their salvation.

One gets the impression that the message is being repeated. So it is in chapter 18 likewise, as it speaks of the country that sends ambassadors by the sea, and they are to tell the nation, and so forth and so on.

Ah, land of whirring wings that is beyond the rivers of Cush, which sends ambassadors by the sea, in vessels of papyrus on the waters! Go, you swift messengers, to a nation, tall and smooth, to a people feared near and far, a nation mighty and conquering, whose land the rivers divide. All you inhabitants of the world, you who dwell on the earth, when a signal is raised on the mountains, look! When a trumpet is blown, hear! For thus the Lord said to me: ‘I will quietly look from my dwelling like clear heat in sunshine, like a cloud of dew in the heat of harvest.’ For before the harvest, when the blossom is over, and the flower becomes a ripening grape, he cuts off the shoots with pruning-hooks, and the spreading branches he lops off and clears away. They shall all of them be left to the birds of prey of the mountains and to the beasts of the earth. And the birds of prey will summer on them, and all the beasts of the earth will winter on them. At that time tribute will be brought to the Lord of hosts from a people tall and smooth, from a people feared near and far, a nation mighty and conquering, whose land the rivers divide, to Mount Zion, the place of the name of the Lord of hosts. (vv. 1–7)

Here is conversion, to respect and worship the Lord of this people, as a result of their experience in these terrible days.

Audience: Did that have an historical fulfilment in Ethiopia with a connection to Israel?

DWG: You will have to tell me, sir. I can’t remember any time when Ethiopia actually came to Israel or sent a present. If this Ethiopia is the same as Cush, the land of Saba, from which the queen of Sheba came, well, she brought a present to Solomon but that was years before this.

Audience: From what I remember reading, Cush, or Ethiopia, had taken over Egypt at this time.

DWG: Yes, that’s right.

Audience: In the histories of Egypt, I think, as reported by Herodotus, this amazing stopping of the Assyrian army at Jerusalem was recorded with gratefulness. So that’s the closest that secular history gets.

DWG: Yes, that’s right. Those are the Cushites, wherever they came from. Perhaps from the Saba direction, who knows? A missionary to Ethiopia was last week telling me that the Ethiopian tradition at present is that their people eventually came away from Yemen, from that famous, ancient civilization that has been uncovered there, called Saba, but they came over into what is now called Ethiopia. As you rightly say, the Cushites at one stage did take charge of the land of Egypt. It talks about the streams, doesn’t it? It is talking about the delta of the Nile. Therefore, they were grateful for Judah’s stand against the Assyrians, and in those troubled times they acknowledged that.

So, I want to say that here is a situation where, under the pressure from the invading Assyrians, we hear the response of these other little nations and their attitude to Israel for what Israel stood for. It was in fact the only refuge against the Assyrian. Therefore the question is, where will the little nations put their hope? Some of them, like Philistia, put their hope in the wrong place, but there was no hope there. The Moabite women were protected because the Moabites humbled themselves to ask for refugee status for their women, but Moab was too proud to stand with Judah, and they were devastated. These Ethiopian people in Egypt, as you say, would hear eventually that Hezekiah and company in Judah, had stayed the Assyrians, and would be impressed and send a present to the place of the name of the Lord of Hosts in Zion.

The oracle concerning Egypt

Then we come to the final burden, the fifth of the oracles. At first, the Egyptians are talked of as a bad lot. They were famous for their counsel. Egyptians were the wise people, but the Lord will deal with them. He will cause internal fighting, and their counsel will be destroyed.

And I will stir up Egyptians against Egyptians, . . . and the spirit of the Egyptians within them will be emptied out, and I will confound their counsel. (19:2–3)

And then he says,

I will give over the Egyptians into the hand of a hard master, and a fierce king will rule over them, declares the Lord God of hosts. (v. 4)

Their commerce will come to nothing; their linen work will be seriously affected (vv. 5–10). The princes of Zoan, famed for their wisdom and their counsellors, have become brutish. ‘How can you say to Pharaoh, “I am a son of the wise, a son of ancient kings”? Where then are your wise men?’ (vv. 11–12). Then the Lord says,

The princes of Zoan have become fools, and the princes of Memphis are deluded; those who are the cornerstones of her tribes have made Egypt stagger. The Lord has mingled within her a spirit of confusion, and they will make Egypt stagger in all its deeds, as a drunken man staggers in his vomit. And there will be nothing for Egypt that head or tail, palm branch or reed, may do. (vv. 13–15)

But having given that account of God’s discipline of Egypt, making a mockery of their supposed wisdom and their skills, there now begins the word of God’s recovery of Egypt and their positive conversion. They have been impressed by Judah and have become afraid of Judah.

And the land of Judah will become a terror to the Egyptians. Everyone to whom it is mentioned will fear because of the purpose that the Lord of hosts has purposed against them. (v. 17)

And then they shall swear to the Lord of Hosts (v. 18).

In that day there will be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the Lord at its border. It will be a sign and a witness to the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt. When they cry to the Lord because of oppressors, he will send them a saviour and defender, and deliver them. And the Lord will make himself known to the Egyptians, and the Egyptians will know the Lord in that day and worship with sacrifice and offering, and they will make vows to the Lord and perform them. And the Lord will strike Egypt, striking and healing, and they will return to the Lord, and he will listen to their pleas for mercy and heal them. (vv. 19–22)

That will eventually lead to Assyria and Egypt being reconciled and then becoming, together with Israel, a triad in the world in acknowledgement of the true God.

In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and Assyria will come into Egypt, and Egypt into Assyria, and the Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians. In that day Israel will be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the Lord of hosts has blessed, saying, ‘Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my inheritance.’ (vv. 23–25)

That is an extraordinary passage. I wish some historian would tell me the answer to the question that was asked earlier: is there any record of this happening in Egypt? Some people will refer to the fact that in the Hellenistic period there was a Jewish high priest, or he wanted to be high priest but he got sacked. Ananias was the man’s name, and he went down to Egypt to ‘the city of destruction’ or ‘the city of the sun’, Heliopolis as it’s now called. And there among the exiles from Israel and Judah he set up a temple in Egypt, if you please, and had sacrifices. Some expositors say, ‘Ah, that must be what Isaiah is referring to here.’ I seriously doubt it. Would Isaiah have approved of a temple of the Lord being established outside of Jerusalem in Egypt, and sacrifices offered on it by some renegade priest? I doubt it.

Well, then, what does it refer to? I don’t know. I hope you can tell me, but I can’t tell you. All I’m doing myself is once more simply to point out this theme of the attitude of the other nations to Judah and what it stood for, as God deals with the nations. Here, first of all, are the Ethiopians coming to acknowledge the God of Israel. Then, eventually, come the Egyptians, if you please, seemingly converted to faith in the God of Israel. And, lo and behold, eventually the Assyrians likewise! I believe it simply because it’s there.

I suspect it refers to the future, of what shall happen at last when the Lord, the lion of the tribe of Judah, shall come and deal with the Assyrian, and the effect it will have on the various nations. So the idea that all the nations will be destroyed might not necessarily be correct. The preservation of Jerusalem by God’s immediate intervention and deliverance seems, here, to suggest that it will lead to conversion, at least of some nations; and some of the bigger powers will come to acknowledge the God of Judah.

Discussion concerning the triad of Egypt, Israel and Assyria

DWG: How does it seem to you?

Audience: Assuming these various judgments are prophetic, are they what the Lord was referring to in Matthew 25, when he spoke of the judgment of the sheep and the goats?

DWG: It could well be. This concerns God’s dealings among the nations, as you notice.

Audience: Again, excuse my ignorance in this. How does this idea of the triad including Assyria here tie in with 14:24­–26, when it says that ‘the purpose that is purposed’ is that ‘the Assyrian will be broken in my land’?

DWG: Well, I think what that says in chapter 14 is that God is going to break the Assyrian. That is, the God-defying king, the dictator. What happens, then, to the people as a nation is another story. Be it far from me to be dogmatic in the slightest, but if we are anywhere on the right track and correct in our general interpretation of the flow of thought through these first five oracles, then it seems to me to open up a vision of great hope, that what Jerusalem stands for will, in the end, be vindicated by God and will be a testimony to the God of heaven that leads to conversion, perhaps on a big scale.

Audience: I don’t know if it’s of any significance, but in the Middle East now the name of Christ (in a great deal of imperfection) is confessed by Orthodox groups, primarily in Egypt, the Palestinian-Lebanese strip and through Syria and places in Northern Iraq, which would be Assyria. Those are the concentrations of Orthodox Christians in the Middle East now, which more or less follows this kind of road, which is interesting. Whether it’s significant, I don’t know.

Audience: But isn’t it true that politically in that part of the world, Egypt is one of the nations that is most favourable toward Israel? Modern day Assyria would be rather against them, wouldn’t it.

Audience: Yes, absolutely, because that would now be Iraq.

DWG: Perhaps God will not forget that his Son found refuge in Egypt.

Audience: In Revelation 5, the Lion of the tribe of Judah takes the scroll. They say of him,

Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth. (vv. 9–10)

So, I take that also with hope that our God will save of every family of the people of the earth, whether they be Moabite or Egyptian or Cuban—from every family, so no one will have excuse. They can all be saved.

DWG: God will do it, as through the Lion of the tribe of Judah he vindicates what Judah stood for and that, yes, God appointed them to that role. In Ezekiel, God says it. To Israel and Judah, he says, ‘I’m going to restore you, but be confounded. I’m not doing it for your sake; you’ve been a very sinful lot. I’m doing it for my own sake, to demonstrate to the nations that I did genuinely choose Israel in the first place’ (see 16:53–63). For unless God restores Israel, the nations will say, ‘Well, all the claims that Israel made that they were the people of God were a lot of nonsense and legend, you know.’ God isn’t going to have that happen, and for his own name’s sake he is going to restore Israel, to demonstrate to the world that it was true right from the start, that in spite of all the compromise and the sin and the rebellion and God’s chastisement upon them right to the last, yet God will restore them and vindicate what Israel was supposed to stand for. For his own name’s sake, he will do it.

Audience: It has been suggested that the burdens to Babylon and the one to Tyre have the spiritual equivalent in Revelation. Do these other burdens to these other nations that are mentioned also have spiritual equivalents?

DWG: Well, if they do, I’m not aware of them, except in Revelation 11, for instance, where there is talk of the great city where also our Lord was crucified, which spiritually is called Egypt and Sodom (see v. 8). There is a use in the Revelation of the names of ancient cities and then ancient Egypt, now to be used in a sort of spiritual sense, if you see what I mean, to characterize the great city of the future.

Spiritual characteristics

Audience: I just want to say that you encouraged my heart with something that has encouraged me toward the beginning of this study. That was in chapter 6 when the Lord told Isaiah of his continuing, diminishing ministry. When we read these burdens and oracles, here was Isaiah standing in Judah. In the first part of the sermon, he speaks of the destruction of Egypt or the devastation of the coming storm. Then to read that Egypt was going to turn and believe in the Lord and that for these different nations there is a hope held out through Egypt that is almost evangelistic, in that sense; it’s just so expansive. I mean, is it any wonder just from a practical level that as Isaiah must have preached this, particularly with some of those enemies breathing down their necks at the time, it would have had to have seemed extremely improbable?

DWG: It would be. It’s glorious gospel, isn’t it? And if we had the time to look into the detail we would see that even more. For instance, we could look at the detail of Egypt, as distinct from Moab, and start with the national characteristics, not spiritualizing them (not to start with at any rate) but starting with the natural characteristics.

Perhaps I ought to explain myself. Sometimes when I have tried to talk on the book of Judges, and I have said that the enemies in those days represent different things, I have been accused by the knowledgeable, very politely, that I am offending. First, I am offending against true hermeneutical principles, because this is fanciful to say that the Moabites stood for anything at all. Second, I shouldn’t put people in categories and talk about ‘a typical Frenchman’, or even ‘a typical American’, because there is no such a thing; people are individuals. So, I take notice of that, of course I do. But if you listen long enough, you will hear some of the same people say, ‘But, of course, if you go out as a missionary, you must first consider the culture of the nation you are going to.’

Oh, so there is a culture, is there? I see. Dear oh dear, how contradictory can you get? It is the fact of history that, because of history and climate and all sorts of happenings, nations do develop certain national characteristics. Of course, we are not saying that everybody is absolutely alike; but that nations have cultures, who can doubt it? The culture of Turkey is not exactly the same as London.

Audience: That is evident in Paul’s letter to Titus, when he talks about the Cretans.

DWG: Well yes, the Cretans were of a certain character, though not every Cretan that ever breathed, but they did have some national characteristics (see 1:12–14). That being so, it is interesting to watch these nations here in this passage, and Egypt in particular. What was Egypt famous for in the ancient world? Well, it’s wisdom, of course: the princes of Zoan and their ancient law and their ancient civilization going back thousands of years. Look at their pyramids! Consider what you needed to know about secular wisdom and mathematics and astronomy to build those pyramids. The wisdom, therefore, of Egypt.

The wisdom of Egypt

Audience: They had a settled, vast economy.

DWG: That is right, yes, and they knew how to make linen. They knew how to harness the inundation of the Nile, and they knew a great deal about fisheries. They were, if anybody was, an independent nation, famed for their knowhow, for their wisdom. There’s nothing wrong with wisdom except when people trust their own wisdom as against faith in God. And there 1 Corinthians 1–3 would talk to us about what conversion implies. That if people will put their faith in their own wisdom, then God will have to humble their supposed wisdom to transfer their faith to the living God, so that, ‘He that glories, let him glory not in the wisdom of the wise man or the strength of the strong man, in all the riches of the rich man, but he that boasts let him put his confidence in the Lord’ (see 1 Cor 1:26–31). It’s not, therefore, excessive spiritualization to say that for all its powers, the Egypt of that day will one day be brought low by God and, by being humiliated, learn to put their trust, not in their own wisdom and abilities, but in the living Lord, and find the true God of Jerusalem.

Audience: To this day in the Arab world, Egypt is renowned as a place of education and of very good Arabic. But I’m thinking historically, and the Jews did concentrate there and spoke the language of Canaan. They used their liturgical language of Hebrew there in Egypt, and later the gospel did have a very intensive spread in Egypt. So there is at least some sort of pre-fulfilment in history there, too.

Audience: In Alexandria, too, there was a great centre of learning.

DWG: Well, thank you for reminding me of that, particularly as I’m a Septuagint fan, you see. Yes, there was, in the time of the Ptolemies and then in the Seleucid times, a large centre of Jews in Alexandria. They were brought there largely by Alexander the Great. They were taken captive but established themselves in Alexandria, which incidentally was named after Alexander the Great, because he founded it, although he was no Egyptian. The civilization that flourished in Alexandria was not Egyptian; it was Greek in the first place. And, of course, the rulers, the Ptolemies, were Greeks, and the local Egyptians very often tried to rebel against their Greek overlords. It so happened that one of the later Cleopatras, when the local Egyptians were rebelling against her, appointed two Jews as her two chief generals, because at that period they would side with the Greek Ptolemies against the local Egyptians. Certainly, it was a city of great learning, as the Ptolemies built the great and famous library and museum in Alexandria. They collected thousands of volumes of texts of ancient authors from all around the Greek world and elsewhere in a famous library that eventually, alas, was destroyed, and has gone under the sea anyway. It was a centre of learning then, but by that time it was hardly Egyptian learning. It was a part of the Greek world, ruled by the Greek Ptolemies, as the Asian part of Alexander’s empire was ruled by the Greek Seleucids. But the Egyptians themselves, with their long, long history, were distinct from what they then became under the Ptolemies, which was rather subservient. Their ancient fame was in their wisdom and their commercial, technological, mathematical and astronomical skills. They were ‘the wise’. Witness what Herodotus says about them in his book.

Audience: In 19:23–25, Israel is only given the third place. Why is that so?

DWG: Yes, well, some Jews didn’t like that. You should read the Septuagint if you care to. It alters that somewhat. Of course, the Septuagint was translated by Jews from Hebrew into Greek. They didn’t care too much for that ordering, but so it is. That is extraordinary, isn’t it, that Israel comes in the third place?

A lesson in geography

Audience: I need just an elementary geography lesson, because I have a pitiful translation. Where are you saying Aram is today? And where is modern Assyria today?

DWG: One must distinguish, first of all, between Assyria and what we today call Syria. Syria is a comparatively little, small state north of Israel, bordering on Israel in parts at the Golan Heights, and then bordering on Iraq to the east and so forth. This is Syria, so called. But in the ancient world, and this applies to the time when Isaiah was talking, there was a widespread ethnic group called the Arameans from which we get the language, Aramaic. And the lingua franca of the Assyrians, and in particular the Babylonians, and then the Persians when they ruled their great empire, was Aramaic. So, in Palestine in the time of our Lord the ordinary people spoke, not Hebrew, but Aramaic. In the earlier days, there were various kingdoms of Arameans—eastern and western and so forth. There was a great civilization at places like Byblos on the northern coast in Palestine, and so forth. You will read in the Old Testament of different kings of Aram. They were Arameans, but they were in different kingdoms. So, there is the way you read ‘Syria’ in your Authorized Version and I in my Revised Version, but you will find modern translations are more correct. The Hebrew says ‘Aram’ is the name of the nation. Aramaic is their language.

Audience: Is the word ‘paddan’ connected with Aram?

DWG: Well, Paddan Aram is one version of Aram. That is one section. There were many different, smaller units of Arameans at various times, and various permutations of kingdoms and so on. You will find various different divisions of Arameans when reading of the time of David.

Audience: Are they all from Laban who was from Paddan Aram?

DWG: Well, if you read Deuteronomy, where the Authorized Version has that delightful phrase, ‘A Syrian ready to perish was my father’ (26:5), which is much preached on by preachers (who are jolly good), it actually means ‘a nomad Aramean was my ancestor’. For Laban and all those relatives of Abraham from way back in the direction of Mesopotamia were Aramean, and that particular lot were nomadic. ‘A nomad Aramean was my ancestor’ is what the Israelites in their country had to remember; and God chose them and brought them into the land, and so forth and so on. When I am talking about Aram, I am so old fashioned that I slip into talking about ‘Syria’ because of the Authorized, that is, the King James, Version. You’ll forgive me for that.

Audience: What is Assyria?

DWG: Assyria is a different thing altogether. Assyria is the name given to the big empire north of Babylon, again in the direction of the two great rivers—Euphrates and Tigris, and it was based on places like Nineveh, as distinct from Babylon. Now, there was an ancient Babylonian empire, going back about three thousand years. It had a famous king called Hammurabi, who issued systems of law, but that early Babylonian Empire eventually succumbed to the Assyrians. They were based in the north, and they overcame the Babylonians and succeeded. In fact, eventually Esarhaddon conquered half of Egypt, and then after the empire had come almost to its zenith with a vast amount of territory conquered, it suddenly collapsed. Then Babylon once more came to the fore. We call it Neo-Babylon, under Nebuchadnezzar, who was king of Neo-Babylon. He became the great emperor. As you see, it was he and the Babylonians that took Judah captive, but in the earlier years the reigning great super power was not Babylon but the Assyrians. They were not just a few little countries; they became the mighty world empire of the day that could even subdue most of Egypt.

So, it’s very important to consider the difference between Assyria, Ashshuwr in Hebrew, which is utterly different in Hebrew from Aram, which is translated in the King James Version as Syria. Ashshuwr is the Assyria that became the world empire, so to speak. Aram always remained a little state.

Audience: What country would modern day Assyria be?

DWG: Saddam Hussein hangs out there today. He thinks he’s going to be another Nebuchadnezzar or a second Sennacherib, or something.

Audience: So Iraq is not modern-day Babylon?

DWG: Yes, he also controls modern Babylon, does he not? So, what was Nineveh and Babylon is in Iraq now. There is a map here, if you’d like to come up and look at it.

Audience: Could you give us a character sketch of Assyria, similar to what you gave us on Egypt?

DWG: Assyria was renowned in the ancient world for being absolutely ruthless and cruel in developing their empire. Some of their stone carvings, the bas reliefs, some of which are in the British Museum to this day, show how they got their captives and impaled them, right through their body; and they inflicted all sorts of other tortures on the people they conquered. They were absolutely cruel. They are famed for their palaces, and if you look at Assyrian sculptures you will see they were mad on lions. Many of their beautifully executed bas reliefs coming from the palaces are of lion hunts. I wouldn’t know what else to say about the Assyrians.

Audience: Was it in one of the Minor Prophets that the Assyrians are also shown as a great mercantile power of their own? And their cruelty was also part of a psychological warfare tactic, so some of the imagery we have may be war propaganda as well.

Audience: I was going to comment on Hosea 14 where it says,

Assyria shall not save us; we will not ride on horses; and we will say no more, ‘Our God’, to the work of our hands. In you the orphan finds mercy. (v. 3)

I understand that ‘we will not ride on horses’ is a reference to Egyptian cavalry, so the three of those are still linked together. Israel is saying they should not trust in anything from these other countries but only in God. It’s just interesting that those three countries are still seen linked together there in Hosea as well.

DWG: Yes, surely.

The nations going up to worship in Jerusalem

Audience: Going back to your triangle of Assyria, Egypt and Israel being redeemed, is there a connection to Zechariah 14 where the nations will come up to Jerusalem to worship in the millennium?

DWG: Well, that is a very interesting reference. Zechariah does hold out this hope that there will be nations that will survive and come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem, and maybe Egypt and Assyria will recognize that and do it, if they are converted to faith in Israel’s God.

Audience: Is it there that they have faith in Israel’s God, or just that they did not come and gather with the other nations against Israel?

DWG: It might be that, of course. Can you read the actual phrase to us in Zechariah 14?

Audience: It begins in verse 16.

And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. (vv. 16–18 kjv)

DWG: Well, to answer your question, it seems to me that everyone that is left of all the nations that came may well be those that did not go up with the armies, and they, therefore, survived the great battle. But nations as a whole won’t be wiped out. There will be those that are left.

Audience: They will be redeemed?

DWG: Well, it depends what you mean by ‘redeemed’.

Audience: Well, I mean, they still have the opportunity not to go up, and eventually when Satan is loosed they will side with him in the end.

DWG: Surely.

Audience: If I read Matthew 25 correctly, at the beginning of the millennium all that will be left will be the sheep. There will be sheep among all of these nations, in the terms of Matthew 25, as opposed to the goats that are sent to eternal damnation.

DWG: Good. Well, it is now late, and perhaps we have had enough for one day. I wouldn’t like to load your minds so much that you can’t sleep, so somebody now bring our business to a conclusion by seeking the Lord’s blessing and grace upon us this night. Let us hear from somebody who feels moved thus to bless the Lord.

Our Father, as we open this book of Isaiah that has often been referred to as the fifth evangelist, we think of how expansive the gospel is that not only has a message for Judah, but of all the glorious expectations that are yet held out for the big nations, and even to the little nations: ‘an altar to the Lord in the middle of the land of Egypt’. What it all means, we confess our ignorance in many of these areas, and yet we look forward to the glory of what the ultimate fulfilment will be, as it says even in these passages: ‘in that day’.

And, our Father, it would prompt us even now to think of the age in which we live, that all must come: Jew, Gentile and whoever else, on level ground to the cross and to the person on the cross, our Lord Jesus Christ; of a gospel that goes out, that is the power of God and salvation to everyone that believes.

We thank you for the gospel that has been presented to us to trust, to preach, regardless of culture, of ethnic background, racial background or any other. We have that gospel now that brings people to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ and all that is involved with it. What bright prospects lie ahead even perhaps through the midst of great trouble and difficulty, but what bright hope for the future is held out. The very purposes of God will not be defeated. The very word of God shall stand. The very thing that Jerusalem was established for will be realized in that day. We give you thanks. We pray that it might bless our hearts and that we might, in turn, bless the living God. We give thanks in our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

⁷ The full size version of this chart can be found in the Appendices.

13: False Hopes Against the Assyrian Attack

Introduction to Part 2B (20:1–23:18)

Our studies so far

A little revision would not go amiss so that we can remind ourselves of, number one, what our basic presuppositions are and, number two, exactly what it is we are aiming to do in the course of these studies. Our basic presupposition is that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable. Perhaps the first part of that proposition is easy to believe. Many of us, with God’s grace and help, would go to the stake for the belief that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. The next bit, that it is all profitable, is not quite so easy to believe.

Naturally, we like to come to Scripture like infants to a piece of cake and take the cherries and leave the cake itself. We find the cake a bit boring, but the cherries are good. We come to Scripture and naturally love those parts that speak directly about our blessed Lord and his glories, and about our personal salvation. In them, we rightly rejoice. So, yes, it is a good way to study Isaiah, to come and pick out those parts that are so evidently prophecies of our Lord and to enjoy them. Next we come to those bits that talk about salvation that we can apply to ourselves, and we enjoy them as well. Secretly then we might wish that Isaiah had confined himself to those parts instead of talking in endless detail, which is largely inscrutable, about past empires and emperors and things, and to do it in poetic language that has metaphors that are difficult to understand. So, it is difficult to believe that Scripture is not only inspired, but that all of it is profitable.

Dealing with the book as it stands

In this set of seminars we are trying, therefore, to deal with Isaiah as it stands, not merely to go to the songs or the passages about our Lord, but to come to the book in the conviction that all of it is inspired of God, and that if God opened heaven and you said, ‘God, tell us what Isaiah is about,’ he would repeat Isaiah! This is the word of God, and the implication is that if we believe it, we shall be prepared for the hard, hard work of mastering the contents and waiting on God, that he would show us the significance.

You will know enough about computers to know that you can’t get answers out if you haven’t put the basic material in. Our brains are like it. If we want to know the significance of Isaiah, we shall have to get Isaiah into our brains. That is hard work. The only thing that will keep us at it is the conviction that this is inspired of God, whether we can feel it or not. Only when we have got the contents into our heads can the Holy Spirit begin to point us to what the significance is. We mustn’t suppose that we can just open Isaiah and see the wonderful point and be elevated to the third heaven in our spirits, just by reading it for the first time. Some verses will be like that, but for a lot of Isaiah we have to do the hard work of getting it onto our brains, and then the Holy Spirit can begin to show us the significance of what we have learned. So, as part of that hard work, let me ask you to look once again at the structure and themes of 1:1–35:10. ⁸

You will see that I have laid out here the thirty-five chapters in three columns. I have done that, not because I am imposing some analysis on Isaiah’s work, but merely following his subject matter. As we said in an earlier session, chapters 1–12 rightly come to their climax at the end of chapter 12; and at chapter 13 we meet another set of contents, quite different from what we have had before. From chapter 13 to the end of chapter 23, we have a series of ten oracles. And since those ten oracles begin in 13:1, and go to the end of chapter 23, they form a section by themselves. That leaves the chapters from the start of 24 to the end of 35 standing by themselves. Therefore, there are three major parts to the 35 chapters, as judged by the nature of their contents.

I have then suggested that in each of those three parts the subject matter is divided into two halves. Why I have done that in the first column is, once again, because of subject matter. In what I have called Part 1A, we have God talking to Judah and then to Israel about their sins and rebellions, generally speaking. He speaks to them about their false religion, their false politics, their false commercialism and their false legal system; but nothing is there said in any detail, if at all, about the reigning king and monarch.

Part 1A is addressed to the people in general, whereas you only have to step inside chapter 7 to be told immediately that the concern now is the house of David and its present incumbent, the monarch Ahaz. His sin is likewise denounced, but it is the peculiar sin of the house of David and its representative in now denying, by his behaviour, everything that the house of David was meant to stand for, and in particular its belief and claim that David was God’s anointed, and that the kings who came after him were placeholders until the Messiah, the greater than David, should come. By his behaviour, Ahaz, and many in his house, now threw away that whole concept and refused to believe it. Instead of looking to God to maintain his anointed royal house, they went down to anti-God Assyria for help to maintain it, thereby denying what the house of David stood for, and emptying its claim.

So, I was suggesting that the first column divides into two halves, but then, as I said the other day, my structure that I put before you is only meant to be tentative, a kind of scaffolding around a house from which you can get up aloft and look at some of the details. When you have done that, you can scrap the scaffolding merrily, if you want to. This scaffolding is not inspired. It is what the scientists would call a heuristic tool. It is merely a tool to find out things.

Now, some people soon get very tired of this sort of analysis, dividing it up into sections and subsections and paragraphs numbered one, two, three, four and on to a hundred, and then again starting at one, two, three plus A, B, C, on to Z and so forth. ‘What on earth is the point of all that? Why don’t you come immediately to something that will stir our hearts?’ I can understand that, but today we are trying to do the hard work not, at this stage, of making sermons, but of understanding God’s word.

Seeking the purpose of a section in order to understand the book as a whole

Let me use an extended analogy that might be helpful to grasp what we are trying to do in Isaiah and what, incidentally, it is worth doing in many another book. I want you to imagine a large house with many rooms amply furnished, and we shall enter it together. I forewarn you that in this house you will see a lot of detail, and tables in particular. You will find tables all over the place, and you’ll find chairs all over the place, bewildering in their variety and then again in their repetitiousness. What would you need to do in order to understand these chairs and tables? They are all chairs and tables, and some of them are exactly alike, and you will find a similar chair in another room. Then some of them have their peculiarities, and they are not exactly the same; but they are all chairs. And the same thing is true of the tables.

To understand them, you could, if you wanted to, take one individual chair and study it ad infinitum and be the expert on that one chair. That is good, and you would come to know it is obviously something to sit on and to comfort your weary bones. And you would understand this particular chair. But even so, it would help to observe what room the chair is in, and what particular room the table is in, because that might even shed some light on what the purpose of the chair is and what the purpose of the table is.

Come into one room, and you will see that the table is a very large table with nice, moulded legs, and there are lots of chairs that are more or less upright backed chairs. They are chairs, anyway, aren’t they? It’s a table. What more will you say about it? Well, you could observe that the room they are in is the dining room, and because it is the dining room, then that particular table is geared to the purpose of the room. And the chairs are geared to the purpose of the room. They are dining chairs, actually.

Step into the next room. There is a table here as well, but it’s a funny looking one. Its legs are very short, and the chairs are a bit peculiar. You might care to notice, however, they are the sort of chairs you will find comfortable for long stretches while sitting down to read a good book in front of the fire. And the table? It is just the sort of a table that is appropriate for the holding of a cup of tea close at hand. This is, of course, your sitting room. Or, you may call it your living room. Whatever name you give it, here we find again that the pieces of furniture are in keeping with the purpose of the room.

We could continue our tour throughout the various rooms of the house, but I think you understand my point. By observing the purpose of any particular room, we come to understand the particular chairs and tables it contains, how they contribute to that room’s purpose, and eventually how each room contributes to the overall purpose of the house.

So then at this level of Bible study, we are concentrating on looking at this book as a whole and trying to see its main structure and composition and the overall message that it is going to bring to us. If by God’s grace we can see the overall message, then that will in itself be a tremendous help for us as we go away and continue to think about the relevance of the details, here and there in the book, to the overall message. We shall hardly interpret the details, and apply them correctly and efficiently and accurately, if we have no real concept of the major message to which those details are meant to contribute.

Correcting our expectations in Part 1A

In our early sessions, we looked at Part 1A and noticed there were two prominent statements about the future restoration and the glory that would accompany it. We took the opportunity to notice how the subject matter of those two paragraphs about the coming glory was geared into the major theme of Part 1A. The major theme is, of course, announced in the very first words: ‘The vision which Isaiah saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem’ (see 1:1). And so, when we came to the first statement of the coming glory, which is in 2:2–4, we noticed there was nothing there at all about the Messiah specifically, though it was a statement of future glory. It was about the exaltation of the mountain of the Lord’s house and how the Gentiles would come to it: ‘For out of Zion shall go the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem’ (v. 3). If you were disappointed at that statement of glory because it didn’t talk about the Lord Jesus being Messiah, well, you were disappointed because you were expecting the wrong thing. Isaiah was writing about Jerusalem, and God was talking to Jerusalem and, in accordance with the theme, this statement of the coming glory is about what is going to happen to Jerusalem.

Similarly, the second paragraph (4:2–6) is devoted to a description of the coming glory: ‘In that day the branch of the Lord shall be beautiful’ (v. 2). Yes, it is about Messiah, but then there is very little about Messiah in the rest of it. What is it about? Well, look at the next verses.

And he who is left in Zion and remains in Jerusalem will be called holy, everyone who has been recorded for life in Jerusalem, when the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and cleansed the bloodstains of Jerusalem from its midst by a spirit of judgement and by a spirit of burning. Then the Lord will create over the whole site of Mount Zion and over her assemblies a cloud by day, and smoke and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for over all the glory there will be a canopy. (vv. 3–5)

We read repeatedly of Zion and Jerusalem. You couldn’t miss it if you tried to, could you? The Holy Spirit normally says what he wants to say, and he is talking about Jerusalem and Zion. If there is only one phrase in half a verse about Messiah, that isn’t to do despite to him. It is the Holy Spirit continuing the theme that he announced (in verse 1) he was going to talk about. This is about Jerusalem.

Hearing the emphasis of the Holy Spirit in Part 1B

When we come to Part 1B, the subject matter of this part, this ‘room’, if I may use the term, is told us at the very beginning. The Holy Spirit normally does that. He’s a very good preacher, amongst other things, and you know from the start what he’s going to talk about, because he’ll tell you. This section is going to be about the house of David, panicked by the news it has just received, and an analysis of the sin of Ahaz and so forth. That is the major theme running through.

Then we noticed that in this part there are two major paragraphs about the coming glory, but this time they are different from those in Part 1A. The first one is in 9:1–8. We saw that this is about Messiah himself and his tactics to begin his work in Galilee. Then look at verses 6–7, which are crammed full: every inch, every letter, every word, every comma, every semi-colon is about Messiah of the house of David. What do you expect it to be? Of course it is so, because it is in this section about the house of David. That is simple, isn’t it? A kindergartener could understand that.

The second major passage of this Part 1B is 11:1–9. And it is about, what? You could say it is about the shoot that is to come out of the stock of Jesse and the branch out of his roots. It is about Messiah, and all of it is about Messiah. Now the focus is not who he is, but the nature of his government.

So, asking which room we are in will help us to see the significance of the detail and how it coheres. And it makes sense of the detail. In my little experience, I have seen that is how Scripture is written; therefore, it will reward, eventually, a lot of hard work. We are studying a book as a whole, seeing what its major ‘rooms’ are, what its major themes are, delimited by the author himself by his choice of subject matter. Where does one theme begin and where does it end? And where does the next theme start, and where does it end? Which room is which? And what is the major theme of each room? We do it so that then we can see how the detail in each room is geared toward the major theme. And when the Lord shows us that kind of thing, we shall perceive with what slide-rule accuracy, Scripture is written by the Holy Spirit.

Part 2 (13:1–23:18)

We come now to the second major section and its two parts, which I have called 2A and 2B. We notice that 2A and 2B have a common theme. It begins in chapter 13, and it extends to the end of chapter 23. It is held together by the fact that there are ten oracles about the Gentile nations. That is one whole theme.

The placement of the oracles concerning the nations

It is interesting that if you look at Jeremiah and Ezekiel, each of those prophets has a section of his book devoted to the oracles about the nations. So, if you’ve been fed up with Isaiah and all that detail about the nations, well, don’t read Ezekiel, because he’s got a whole long section on the oracles against the nations. And then Jeremiah, if you please, has two such sections! Dear me. But this theme of the nations must have been important to them.

It is interesting to notice in what part of the prophecies the oracles about the nations come. In Ezekiel, they come slap in the middle of the book. In Jeremiah, they come at the end. At least, in the Masoretic text they come at the end. In the old Greek, the so-called Septuagint translation of Jeremiah, the oracles against the nations come in the middle; and they did so in certain Hebrew manuscripts, whereby hangs a long tale of much interest, why’s and wherefores. In Isaiah, they don’t come at the end of his prophecy, and they don’t come in the middle, do they? They come a third of the way through the whole book, in the middle of this first part of his book.

So, you shouldn’t think that just because you studied the oracles of the nations in Isaiah that you know what Jeremiah was doing with them, and why he recorded them. It is somewhat like the Gospels, isn’t it? Our Lord preached the parable of the Sower. Perhaps he preached it more than once. Matthew, Mark and Luke all record the parable of the Sower, but if you look at their Gospels, they record it in different places. Mark has it in chapter 4, Luke has it in chapter 8 and Matthew has it in chapter 13. What were these good gentlemen doing, putting it in different places? We come across this problem again. Well, it’s not a problem so much as an interesting feature.

Matthew finds it appropriate to record the parable of the Sower in a special place that fits in with the general theme of that part of his Gospel, and it contributes what it has to say to that theme. Luke puts it in a different place. He isn’t cooking the books, but he is taking the truths taught by the parable of the Sower and putting them in his particular context, because they have got something to say in that context as well. And so it is with Mark. He puts the parable of the Sower in his chapter 4, and he has a parable alongside of it that no one else has. He is not cooking the books either, but he is seeing that the truth taught by the parable can add something to his particular context.

Detail has to be interpreted in the context of its major theme. So it is with the oracles against the nations that you find now in Isaiah, in Jeremiah and in Ezekiel.

The evidence for the two halves of Part 2

I was suggesting that Part 2 of the prophecy (13:1–23:18) falls into two halves, as is the case with Part 1. I pointed to some of the evidence for that in a previous session, but you may care now to take your Bibles in hand and to look at the evidence that these ten oracles about the nations do fall into two parts.

You will see that the first five oracles come to their end at the conclusion of chapter 19, and that end is marked by a typical Isaiahan concept of the highway between Assyria and Egypt, that is, the conversion of Assyria and Egypt together with Israel. Then chapter 20 begins, but it isn’t an oracle, is it? It is a description of another prophecy, an object lesson that Isaiah was told to put on for three years. Therefore, it introduces the second set of five oracles that now occur in chapter 21 to the end of chapter 23. The second set is much briefer than the first.

Now have a look at this other difference between those halves. In the list of oracles about the nations in 2A, there is no specific oracle about Judah and Jerusalem. There are references to Jerusalem in 2A, and they are important. Jerusalem is the refuge for the afflicted, and we read of the king of Jerusalem giving refuge to the refugees from Moab, and so forth and so on. And we talked yesterday about the function of Jerusalem and of Judah among the nations when all these little nations, and the bigger nation of Egypt, were being threatened by the oncoming of the Assyrian forces. The function of Jerusalem and its king (Hezekiah in particular) was to stand for the truth that Jerusalem was the capital city of the Messiah anointed by the God of heaven. They were standing for that truth, among the nations, as against the great forces of the Assyrians with their God-defying king, but there is no oracle about Jerusalem. The oracle is concerning Israel; that is, the ten tribes.

Just let me refer you to it in chapter 17. It starts off, ‘The burden, or the oracle, of Damascus.’ It goes on to talk about Damascus in the first three verses of chapter 17. Then, all of a sudden, it starts talking about Jacob, as you notice: ‘And in that day the glory of Jacob will be brought low, and the fat of his flesh will grow lean’ (v. 4). And the rest is about Jacob, or Israel.

Why is Israel subsumed under the oracle against Damascus, or Aram? It is because they sold out to them. They joined up with Aram and now are subsumed under them and, as the prophet warns, will come to destruction because of it. It says what the trouble was with Israel. ‘For you have forgotten the God of your salvation and have not remembered the Rock of your refuge’ (v. 10). This is the charge against Israel, and Israel will be destroyed. They become indistinguishable, in that sense, from the rest of the Gentile nations and share their fate along with Syria (Aram), with whom they had made their ungodly alliance.

Now, when we come to the second set of oracles against the nations, starting with the introductory chapter 21, and then proceeding from 21 to the end of 23, this time we shall find among them an oracle about Jerusalem. There is none about Israel, but this time there is an oracle about Jerusalem, and it is a very long oracle indeed; it fills the whole of chapter 22. It is conspicuous because it stands among a lot of other oracles that are dismissed in one, two or three verses. It doesn’t say it’s Jerusalem. It is entitled at the start of chapter 22, ‘The oracle concerning the valley of vision’ (v. 1). But as you read through it, it becomes self-evident that this is about Jerusalem city. Of course, these oracles too are against the background of the oncoming of the great forces of Assyria.

The major theme of the oracles

What then are these oracles about? As distinct from the fact that they are oracles, what is their major theme? Is Part 2B just a repetition of Part 2A? Or, does it have a slightly different slant? One suggestion I offer is that previously we saw in 2A this recurrent note of hope for the little nations around Judah facing the oncoming of the great forces of Assyria. There was a refuge. It is distinctly said that God has planted Zion as a refuge for the afflicted (14:32). There was a refuge for the refugees from Moab, but in a deeper sense there was a refuge in what Judah stood for as distinct from the motivations and ideologies that were moving the great king of Assyria. That preached a lesson in its own day, and it preaches a lesson for us still. The more it becomes apparent that there is working in the world the spirit of antichrist, the nearer we come to the appearance of antichrist and his godless ideologies gobbling up the nations and forcing them into submission to him, the more we see the need of this refuge. The refuge ideologically, if I can put it that way (or spiritually, you may prefer to put it), from those forces will be found only in what Jerusalem really stood for. There is a God in heaven, and that God has a purpose in history. That special purpose was carried by the nation born from Abraham, chosen of God to be the vehicle of a testimony to the living God against the idolatry of the rest of the world.

That is what Judah should have stood for. The sadness is their compromise. Of course, we as Christians are meant to stand for the same thing, but your heart will be dismayed to notice how much of Christendom has given in to the fashions of thinking and the ideologies of the world. The doctrine of creation is compromised. The doctrine of the law of God is compromised. The doctrine of the deity of Christ, God’s intervention in history in the virgin birth, the sending of his Son, his atoning death, resurrection, ascension and second coming: a lot of it has long since been jettisoned by Christendom. When you had the massive forces of atheism in Eastern Europe and Russia, there were some who dared to stand against it who were not believers in God; but it was not so in intellectual circles, among the vast majority of professors in the universities of Russia who were supposed to stand for the truth. Isn’t that the academic ideal, that we are supposed to stand for the truth and to pursue it at any cost? The vast majority of the professors of the universities kowtowed to Marxism and taught it to their students, even though in their hearts they didn’t believe it.

I found myself at one stage, with a friend, being entertained in a dacha in Georgia (not your Georgia here in the USA but the other Georgia, on the border with Russia). Those who invited my friend and myself there were a bevy of professors of the university. One of them was particularly boasting of all the books he had now published. He was a geographer. He was saying how the West was drinking it all in and how famous he was. He wasn’t short of words in praise of himself. I began to be a little un-Christian. I called upon ancient history and said, ‘Gentlemen, you know, it was very interesting in the days of Tiberius Caesar, wasn’t it? How the senate, almost to a man, kowtowed before his nonsense; and with Nero the same thing happened. People like Thra’sea Paetus, who dared to stand up in the senate and contradict and deny the nonsense that the Emperor Nero was claiming, were not only hated by the emperor but hated by his colleagues all through the senate. What happens to people when you get tyrant dictators? What happens to the intelligent?’ And then I suddenly thought I said too much, for sitting around me were men, supposedly devoted to academic truth, who had kowtowed to atheism and Marxism.

You might say their lives were at stake. Well, I know that, but if it’s the truth we stand for, the only thing that will save the world with the oncoming of a godless, anti-God man of sin, will be faith in what the house of Judah and the house of David and Jerusalem were meant to stand for. And we, in Christian times, are the inheritors of that duty, are we not? If some of the branches of their olive tree were cut off, we who have been grafted in must learn to stand in an increasingly godless and anti-God world.

The message of Part 2A, therefore, is that against the rising tide of the Assyrian aggression there is a refuge. In that day, that was what Jerusalem and Judah stood for, sadly compromised though often it had been.

Discussion concerning the oracle against Israel

Audience: I’m sorry. Can I interrupt you?

DWG: Yes.

Audience: I apologize. When you were dealing with Part 2A, you made a reference to chapter 22 and the oracle of the valley of vision, which is about Jerusalem. I guess that has confused me as to why you brought that reference in when dealing with the theme of the first five oracles, which is that the only refuge is found in Judah, and in what Jerusalem stands for. And though Jerusalem is not given an oracle in Part 2A, there are many references to it.

DWG: Fair enough, sir. My deepest apology. Why I mentioned, in passing, the long oracle about Jerusalem in chapter 22, was to make the contrast. In Part 1A, there is no oracle about Jerusalem. There are references to it, and those references are significant in Part 2A because they represent Jerusalem and its king as a refuge to the other nations, to their refugees and so on. But I mentioned chapter 22, which belongs to Part 2B, by way of contrast. In Part 2B, there is not only an oracle about Jerusalem, but it is a very long oracle about Jerusalem. That stands in contrast to Part 2A where there is no oracle about Jerusalem, but there is a long oracle about Israel. That comes under the title of ‘an oracle concerning Damascus’, so you wouldn’t notice it if you weren’t careful.

The oracle against Damascus in chapter 17 occupies three verses about Damascus and then in verse 4 it turns without warning to be about the ten tribes of Israel (17:4–14). That is interesting. There is no oracle about Jerusalem in Part 1A, but there is an oracle that concerns the ten tribes at some length, and it is subsumed under the oracle about Damascus. The reason, as we observed, was that the ten tribes had sold out to Syria, to Aram, and therefore they are subsumed under Aram, that is, Damascus, the capital of Aram. The ten tribes are selling out to Aram and joining with it in a conspiracy against the house of David in Jerusalem. It will prove to be their utter undoing, and the oracle says they will be destroyed. They will be destroyed because they have forgotten the God of their salvation. That is the ten tribes. They share this oracle with Damascus in Part 2A.

Audience: It is an interesting thing to notice that the oracle concerning Damascus and Israel is the fourth of five; and the oracle concerning Jerusalem is also the fourth of five.

DWG: Yes, that is interesting, isn’t it? Thank you for that, because now you are provoking us to expect that, in all this detail, it is not a confusing quagmire; it is very carefully written, with things matching other things, and things matching and contrasting. If we have got the patience to study the detail, and the Lord opens our eyes, we shall come to see the thing is not a quagmire in which even the wise get lost, but a very carefully and accurately written, inspired piece of literature.

Part 2B (20:1–23:18)

Now we come to Part 2B. What is that concerned with? I take it that, as you would expect to find them in the various movements of a symphony, the leading theme of Part 2B is struck by the opening chords of the particular movement. That would mean that chapter 20 sets the tone of Part 2B. As we saw previously, it is the story of the coastal cities.

And the inhabitants of this coastland will say in that day, ‘Behold, this is what has happened to those in whom we hoped and to whom we fled for help to be delivered from the king of Assyria! And we, how shall we escape?’ (20:6)

It is the story of how the inhabitants of this coastland had put their expectation and hope for deliverance from Assyria in Egypt and the Ethiopians. The theme of the second set of oracles is given by this record of a prophecy Isaiah was given to speak and to enact for the benefit of the cities of the coastland (vv. 1–6). They had put their expectation and their hope for deliverance from Assyria in Egypt and Ethiopia when, to their dismay but as they had been warned, Assyria conquered Egypt and the Ethiopians. So the whole basis of their hope flew out of the window and left them absolutely hopeless: ‘we fled for help to be delivered from the king of Assyria! And we, how shall we escape?’ (v. 6). That is going to be the theme of so many of the oracles that now follow. For those who reject God’s offered refuge, there is no escape.

Audience: So, verse 6 says that Egypt and Ethiopia were let down?

DWG: Yes.

Audience: I don’t think a lot of our translations have that.

DWG: Oh, it doesn’t say that in so many words. Look at verse 4.

So shall the king of Assyria lead away the captives of Egypt, and the exiles of Ethiopia, young and old, naked and barefoot, and with buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt. And they shall be dismayed and ashamed, because of Ethiopia their expectation, and of Egypt their glory. (vv. 4–5 rv)

They had put their confidence in Egypt and Ethiopia, but now Assyria has conquered them. So, those two nations can no longer offer any refuge and escape for the coastland cities.

And the inhabitant of this coastland shall say in that day, Behold, such is our expectation, whither we fled for help to be delivered from the king of Assyria: and we, how shall we escape? (v. 6 rv)

They are saying, ‘We had put all our hope in Egypt and Ethiopia. Now Assyria has conquered them. Well, they can’t save us, so what can save us?’

If, against God’s warning, you put your hope in the wrong thing, you will find it lets you down, and there is no hope. We are talking, of course, of the cities of the coastland going down along the Mediterranean Sea. If you look at a map, you see that Jerusalem is a little inland, but Tyre is on the coast and so is Sidon. To the south of that is Philistine country, with Ashdod and places like that. They were the coastland cities and nations. When Assyria started coming with its massive troops across from the north and east, in the direction of the Tigris and the Euphrates, they had to choose. Do you join with Assyria and submit? Or, do you appeal to the other world power, that is, Egypt down in the south, with the Ethiopian dynasty which at one stage was in charge of Egypt? They were a colossal power, and human wisdom will say, ‘Well they are nearer, so we put our expectation in Egypt and Ethiopia to be saved from the invading forces of Assyria coming from the other direction.’ And for three years God, through Isaiah, told them not to. To enforce the lesson, poor old Isaiah was told to go naked. I’m glad I wasn’t him. I don’t know how many volunteers there would be to be an Isaiah in those conditions and to give an object lesson to cities of the coastland nearer home to Jerusalem to not put their trust in Egypt and Ethiopia, because Assyria was going to take them and lead them away as their captives.

That’s what the Assyrians used to do, nice gentlemen that they were. They not only took them captive, but of course they insulted and humiliated them and cut off their clothes to the buttocks. So, they trudged away naked. That is an Assyrian concept. And God, through Isaiah, had warned them for three years running, with this vivid object lesson, not to put their expectation and hope elsewhere. They did. The result was that they were left hopeless and helpless.

Audience: Both hopeless and helpless?

DWG: Yes, indeed. You as gospel preachers, gentlemen, should preach the same message still (dressed properly of course). You should stand and say to your congregation, ‘I’ve preached in this place for forty years and told you that Christ is the only refuge, and not to put your hope in religion, and not to put your hope in modern science, and not to put your hope in philosophy or anything else; your ultimate hope, that is. The only refuge is God. And you go and put your hope in these things.’

Do you think that with enough intelligence in modern science you will defeat the terrors of an atheistic tyrant? No, you won’t. If you think that, look at Germany under Hitler, who was a wallpaper hanger man. The intelligentsia of one of the leading intellectual nations in Europe bowed down to Hitler. If you suppose that trust in modern science, or human philosophy, good as those disciplines are, will save you from the beast—the anti-God dictator—then you have a bitter lesson in front of you. The only hope is in God and his gospel and his plan in history, via the Jews, via the Messiah of the Jews, via they who belong to Christ and eventually are restored. In that sense, the only hope is via Israel. That great movement in history is the only refuge, ultimately. You preach it, gentlemen. It was what God was preaching, through Isaiah, to the cities of the coast. They didn’t listen. As a result, their hopes were shattered. They were consumed by Assyria.

When we begin to understand what is going on in Isaiah, even with its endless detail, and begin to understand the big lines of thought, then we begin to see how Isaiah is ranked by the early church as the most evangelical of all the prophets. We can see that even in these first thirty-five chapters. Some scholars say those chapters are the Old Testament of Isaiah, and chapters 40–66 are the New Testament. Okay, we know what they mean. The Old Testament bit is more difficult than chapters 40–66. Yes, but we are so valiant that we have chosen to do the difficult bit!

Returning to chapter 19, we see what takes place in Egypt. We read of Egypt, under God’s discipline, turning first to fear the God of Judah, and then eventually coming to what appears to be conversion to the true God, and also its reconciliation with Assyria. And finally we read,

In that day Israel will be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the Lord of hosts has blessed, saying, ‘Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my inheritance.’ (vv. 24–25)

That is a tremendous conclusion of the first five oracles. They end with a spectacular statement of God’s mercy and blessing, and the conversion of these two powers, or what is left of them. And therefore we read in the previous verse, ‘In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria’ (v. 23). That idea, that concept, of a highway, marks so many of the endings of the sections of Isaiah, though not all of them.

A preliminary warning to the coastal cities (20:1–6)

Chapter twenty, then, I suggest, introduces the second set of five oracles and sets the tone of them. Those who, against God’s warnings, have put their faith and hope of deliverance from Assyria in the wrong nations or the wrong source will be confounded as the powers in which their hope has been placed are overcome by Assyria, and they are left without hope whatsoever. So, that is what I have called a preliminary warning to the coastal cities.

The oracle about the desert by the sea (21:1–10)

Then comes the oracle about the desert by the sea. It is referring to Babylon’s position by the two great rivers. It stands in the same position to this set of oracles as the oracle of Babylon stood in chapter 13, at the beginning of the group of oracles. But as you read this through, there is a grievous vision about Babylon, and it spells the end of Babylon. The seer (perhaps the prophet or else a personification of Jerusalem) is filled with fear and anguish and pain, dismay and horror. Verse 5 seems to be a description of the careless optimism of the leaders, perhaps in Jerusalem city.

They prepare the table, they spread the rugs, they eat, they drink. Arise, O princes; oil the shield!

This is a convivial party, and they are full of expectation of victory. It is probably that here Isaiah is describing Jerusalem and their attitude, or maybe some other of the peoples, hoping against hope that their political and military alliance with Babylon is going to be successful against the forces of Assyria. Then, to their dismay, the messengers inform the watchmen that, ‘Babylon is fallen, is fallen; and all the graven images of her gods are broken unto the ground’ (v. 9 rv).

Now, let us repeat what we said before. It is most unlikely that this refers to the fall of Babylon under Cyrus when he attacked the city. Why is that unlikely? Because at that time the fall of Babylon spelled deliverance for the Israelites, and would have rejoiced them. And the Cyrus who came and conquered Babylon was the Cyrus prophesied of in Isaiah 41. The godly in Israel would have been expecting deliverance and rejoiced when Cyrus took Babylon. Moreover, he didn’t destroy it. It was preserved. Here the fall of Babylon causes great dismay in Jerusalem.

O thou my threshing, and the corn of my floor: that which I have heard from the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, have I declared unto you. (v. 10 rv)

You will remember that the temple was founded on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite (2 Sam 24). And here the prophet is expressing his distress for Jerusalem.

It may be that the term, ‘Babylon is fallen, is fallen,’ is a prophetic perfect tense. That is, it may not have already fallen, but its fall is so certain that it is now announced in the perfect tense as though it had already happened. Or, it may be this is the announcement of the actual fall. But it comes to the same thing in the end. The message implied that if Judah, Jerusalem and its leaders are being persuaded by Babylon to attempt a united front against the Assyrians, they are doomed to disappointment.

Let me change key for a minute and hop to things much distant. It has been, and still is the argument, and now it gets more insistent, that even as evangelicals you must join with those that are idolatrous, if only in a common effort to counter the atheism in society. You will have heard the argument that says, ‘At least we have this in common’. So would Babylon have argued to the kings and princes of Jerusalem. ‘We can agree on this at least: we ought to fight Assyria.’

That, incidentally, is a kind of thing that we meet elsewhere in different language. The book of 1 Kings tells the story of how old Ahab (not Ahaz here in Isaiah, but Ahab), had a word in the ear of Jehoshaphat. You will remember it well. ‘Jossy,’ he said, ‘do you not remember that Ramoth Gilead is ours really? It belongs to us, doesn’t it?’

(Well, yes, in the days of the united nation it did.)

‘Why not join forces and get it back? We have this in common, even if we have split and you are the two tribes and, well, we have our view and we are the ten tribes. And you worship in Jerusalem, don’t you? I don’t think you care for our worship down in Samaria, but we like it! And Jezebel, she adds a little bit of spice to it, and colour. And some people prefer that kind of thing. But though we are so different, I mean, at heart we are the same, aren’t we? And at least we can join together in this enterprise to go and get Ramoth Gilead from the Arameans’ (see 2 Chr 18).

I needn’t tell you how that enterprise ended, but it is an argument that is constantly recurring, isn’t it? And for Jerusalem to join Babylon, in the hopes that with Babylon’s help they could find a united front against the Assyrians, comes now to disaster. Babylon is fallen. It fell under Sennacherib, the merciless. It was destroyed, and the river and the canals were turned loose over it. They made it a rubbish heap. So will the Babylon of the final days be destroyed by the beast (see Rev 17)?

The oracle about Dumah/Edom (21:11–12)

The third oracle is about Dumah, which is another name for Edom. But there is a probable play on words because dumah could also mean ‘silence’. Here, the brief oracle depicts the watchman who anxiously seeks to know: ‘One is calling to me from Seir [one of the cities of Edom], “Watchman what time of the night? Watchman what time of the night?”’ (v. 11). This one is hoping for definite news from the watchman set in Jerusalem, but no answer can be given. When is the doom to be finally relieved? The response is that the morning comes but you mustn’t suppose that is going to be a morning without clouds or without night, for it adds: ‘and also the night.’ When will the ultimate thing come? He cannot tell you, but he urges immediate repentance: ‘If you will enquire, enquire; turn and come’ (see v. 12).

Beware of fixing dates, gentlemen.

The oracle against Arabs (21:11–12)

There follows the oracle against Arabs. It is the only one where the Hebrew is rightly translated ‘against’, not only ‘about’, but ‘against’. Here you see the sad phenomenon that we know about so much still today. Here are refugees pouring out from their homes and their home countries to try and avoid the oncoming of Assyrian forces.

It is noticed that the relief agencies got to work in the various little nations, and they brought water to those that were thirsty and so forth. They met the fugitives with bread while they were fleeing from the violence of war. But those relief agencies, for all the good that they did, could not put an end to the real source of the trouble. The destruction is coming. God has foretold it. For the Lord, the God of Israel has spoken it. The judgment is sure to come (vv. 16–17).

The oracle about the valley of vision, i.e. Jerusalem (22:1–24)

Now we come to the oracle about the valley of vision, namely, Jerusalem. It becomes apparent as you read down chapter 22 that it is about Jerusalem. Why it is called the valley of vision, nobody that I’ve ever met knows, though there are suggestions. Let us consider the detail as far as we can. We see here false, worldly, attitudes in the city of David itself.

Inappropriate joy (22:1–6)

First of all, look at verse one and following. The prophet seems to rebuke Jerusalem for its inappropriate joy. ‘What’s happened to you now? What’s stirred you up?’

The oracle concerning the valley of vision. What do you mean that you have gone up, all of you, to the housetops [as people did when they were exultant and joyful], you who are full of shoutings, tumultuous city, exultant town? (vv. 1–2)

What had they got to be joyous about at that particular time? I don’t want to be dogmatic, but it could be that their joy at this stage might have been at the relief obtained by Hezekiah’s attempt to buy off Sennacherib with vast sums of money. You find a record of it in 2 Kings 18. Hezekiah took a lot of money out of Jerusalem and tried to buy off the Assyrians. They took the money and then came and attacked the city anyway, which is perhaps behind the statement that is made more than once, ‘The treacherous dealer deals treacherously’ (see 21:2; 24:16). Sennacherib took the money but then came and attacked in spite of it. But here there seems to have been relief and joy, as though this had solved the problem. They were very soon disabused, for their joy was inappropriate. Many, alas, of their leaders had defected (v. 3). And now here come the enemy forces to fill the choicest valleys around Jerusalem. They are getting very near the city.

Therefore I said: ‘Look away from me; let me weep bitter tears; do not labour to comfort me concerning the destruction of the daughter of my people.’ For the Lord God of hosts has a day of tumult and trampling and confusion in the valley of vision, a battering down of walls and a shouting to the mountains. (vv. 4–5)

Trust in their own resources (22:7–11)

Verses 7–11 seem to be Isaiah’s rebuke in the name of the Lord, for their apparent rejection of God’s call to repentance and their attempt to meet the oncoming forces by their own sense and ingenuity, and to trust in their stockpile of arms. There is nothing wrong in the stockpile itself, of course. David had put up the treasures and the spoil that he had taken from many a kingdom into the armoury of his house. It was famous for its supplies. The people in this day, of course, had recourse to them (vv. 7–8).

They looked to their water system. Naturally, of course, if any city in ancient times was threatened with a siege, the number one necessity was to guarantee the water supply for the people in the besieged city. We talked yesterday about the water engineering that was done in those days in many a city. You can go and see some examples of Canaanite water engineering in places like Gibeon to this very present day. What they tried to do was to hide the external source of water, so that when the enemy besieged them, they couldn’t find where the source of water was and they couldn’t defeat the inhabitants of the city by thirst. So, they looked to the water system (v. 11). And then they cannibalized the buildings in the city. They broke them down to fortify the wall (v. 10).

Their rejection of God’s call to repentance (22:12–14)

Isaiah doesn’t seem to approve, for he reads it as though they were putting their faith in these things rather than putting their trust in the Lord. How did he decide that? Well, look at his description in the next verses.

In that day the Lord God of hosts called for weeping and mourning, for baldness and wearing sackcloth; and behold, joy and gladness, killing oxen and slaughtering sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine. ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’ (vv. 12–13)

Instead of giving themselves to prayer and, if need be, to fasting and repentance and waiting on God, and instead of heeding the Lord’s call to weeping and mourning, behold joy and gladness! They were indulging themselves, instead of being cast upon God and having an exercise of heart before him. But the saddest thing of all comes at the end of verse 13, ‘Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die’. You just imagine hearing sentiments like that expressed in Jerusalem city. The hopelessness of men without God, without any hope of his deliverance and certainly no hope of resurrection: ‘Live it up for now. You’re going to die anyway, perhaps tomorrow, so live it up.’ The phrase, a kind of a proverb, is quoted in 1 Corinthians 15. ‘If there’s no resurrection,’ says Paul, ‘why won’t we follow this advice? Let us eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we shall die, and that’s the end of it’ (see v. 32). It is the hopelessness of people without real faith in God or his salvation. It is sad to hear the leaders of Jerusalem indulging in that kind of attitude, for which God pronounces a grievous sentiment.

The Lord of hosts has revealed himself in my ears: ‘Surely this iniquity will not be atoned for you until you die,’ says the Lord God of hosts. (v. 14)

How sad to find Jerusalem with this attitude expressed by the way they lived. Threatened with the onset of the Assyrians, they see no sense getting distressed and fasting and praying and waiting on God. ‘You are going to die anyway, so live it up’. But how many there are for whom that would be true, even in Israel to this present day. They have no hope. This life is all they have. The Sadducees were like it, in the time of our Lord. They didn’t believe in any resurrection. They held there was nothing beyond death. They were men of this world, and had no hope beyond it. How sad to find that attitude in Jerusalem.

The misuse of the office of high steward in the house of David (22:15–19)

Now we turn to one of the chief officers of state. Notice that throughout this chapter the king himself is not mentioned. There is nothing about Hezekiah in this chapter, as far as I can see. We are introduced first to this treasurer, ‘Shebna, who is over the household’ (v. 15). Meaning, he was in charge; he was the high steward in charge of the palace and all its affairs. His was one of the highest offices of state in the realm under the king, and he is rebuked for his attitude to affairs.

Thus says the Lord God of hosts, ‘Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him: “What have you to do here, and whom have you here, that you have cut out here a tomb for yourself, you who cut out a tomb on the height and carve a dwelling for yourself in the rock?”’ (vv. 15–16)

What was he using his high office for? Simply to glorify himself, and building himself this great sepulchre? Well, I suppose that could be sensible. If you don’t believe in any future, and you don’t really believe in God and his word and his promises, if you don’t believe David’s hope of resurrection (for David had a hope of resurrection), then what would your aim be in life?

Let me put it to you now. What do you hope for, for that time when you will be dead and gone? Do you hope that your life will count? For what? Do you aim to have a mighty, great burial monument so that the tourists coming to America will see the inscription: ‘This is the tomb of Joe Bloggs’?

And the poor Englishman will say, ‘Well, who on earth was Joe Bloggs?’

‘Well, he was the chief undersecretary of state under so-and-so.’

And there’s you, a mouldering to bones and ashes in your big sepulchre. And your only hope is to be remembered by tourists coming to see it? Or perhaps you’re looking forward to be buried in Westminster Abbey or something.

What a hope. What an ambition.

Holding high office, under the anointed messiah of God, in the very city of Jerusalem, this is the limits of the man’s ambition. He was using his high office for that end. It would break your heart to read about it. Where is the man’s faith? Where is the man’s vision? Did he believe nothing at all of what Isaiah said, and the marvellous future that God had in store for the house of David? It is a bad thing when the high officials don’t believe what they’re supposed to believe. And so God pronounces his judgment on him and hands over his office to a certain Eliakim.

There is a difficulty with Eliakim, isn’t there? Because God describes his appointment in glowing terms.

In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your sash on him, and will commit your authority to his hand. And he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honour to his father’s house. (vv. 20–23)

The terms are so glowing that when our Lord addresses one of his churches in the book of Revelation, he takes these words to himself. Addressing the church in Philadelphia, he says, ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens’ (3:7).

God had set an open door before Eliakim, and gave him the key, as the high steward, in the house of David. Therefore, he seems to have been a reliable and good and godly man, having some sense of the responsibility of his office, as being the practical executive under the king in running the house of David. And yet look at what follows. What do you make of it? Did he too utterly fail in his office?

And they will hang on him the whole honour of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. (v. 24)

Some time ago I came across that verse, and I found it a tremendous comfort to me, as applied to our blessed Lord: a nail fastened in a sure place, on which you could hang all the cups and things. And I said, ‘Well, I qualify for that. I’m not a very big vessel, but perhaps I could rise to thinking of myself as a cup in the house of the king and there for the king’s use. Yet I would like somebody to depend on.’ And it is the fact that our blessed Lord is the one who holds the key of the house of David, and is fastened as a nail in a sure place. My little cup can hang on him, and he will maintain me in my little job in the kitchen in the house of the king.

So, I took great comfort in it. Then I read the expository volumes and how, in Eliakim’s case, the nail that was fastened in a sure place shall give way. The expositors say that the trouble with Eliakim was that, while he was a good chap in himself and did his job well, the people came to depend on him instead of depending on God. And there was a little nepotism that took place: all his father’s house and his far-off relatives came to expect favours from him because he was of the family, and they depended on him. So, it was gross nepotism and, as a result, he too fell from grace and from office.

I suppose if you take that view and still bear in mind our Lord’s quotation of these words as applied to himself in the book of Revelation, you will say, ‘Well, poor old Eliakim. He was a good man, but he had his limits like all good men in the Old Testament had their limits. David himself, prototype of Christ, had his limits, didn’t he? He fell. And so Eliakim was a prototype of our Lord, but in his day he fell from grace, and that emphasizes the fact that our Lord is the reality and he was only a prototype. Our Lord is in charge of all the doings, as son over his own house (see Heb 3:6). That is the fact anyway. And if you are of the house of David yourself, princes in the royal house, then thank God for the chief steward who can direct you, and on whom you can depend in the exercise of whatever office you have in the royal house of the king.

The experts in Hebrew say that it is possible to read Isaiah 22:24–25, not as ‘they will hang’ but to translate that, ‘should they hang’ upon him all the glory of his father’s house, and come to trust him, instead of putting their faith in God, then their hope, likewise, will come unstuck.

So, the oracle about the valley of vision has the bright part in it with Eliakim, but most of it is sorry and sad. How would you expect the deliverance of Jerusalem with men like Shebna in charge? Within the city was that attitude that says, ‘Let’s eat and drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.’ And it came with self-indulgence and happiness for the moment, rather than trust in God and the consequent need to discipline, to pray and, if need be, to fast and to urgently wait on God that he would deliver the city. On the whole, it is a very sorry picture that is painted.

⁸ The full size version of this chart can be found in the Appendices.

14: Questions and Contributions

On the Royal House, Commerce and the Final Restoration

The absence of the king

Audience: Dr Gooding, you mentioned that King Hezekiah is not mentioned by name in these chapters? Why do you think that is?

DWG: Well, I’ve only observed the fact that he isn’t mentioned. The king isn’t talked about, is he? Maybe that is because, at this time, Hezekiah himself had been very wobbly.

Audience: The money that he used to buy off the Assyrians, wouldn’t that have come from the temple?

DWG: I’m afraid it did, yes.

Audience: And would the king’s steward not have been responsible for handling those funds?

DWG: He would, yes. That is a very good observation. And, I presume, as the chief executive under Hezekiah, he would not have done it without Hezekiah’s permission. It is the fact that Hezekiah, the great hero of chapters 36 and 37, who eventually defied the Assyrians, originally tried to compromise and took that money disgracefully out of the house of the Lord and compromised severely. And he would have been in league with his chief officer, Shebna, to do it. Why it is that, at this stage, Isaiah doesn’t mention the king, who knows? He blames Hezekiah’s chief executive.

Audience: Isaiah 22:22–23 seem to talk about God doing this and making him a prophet in this house.

DWG: Well, clothing him with his robe and strengthening him with his girdle will have been the official apparel of the high office of state.

Audience: He’s taking Shebna’s robe.

DWG: Yes, taking Shebna’s robe of office and his girdle in a great house like that, and this reference to the key of the house of David, speaks of him taking over that office.

Audience: That’s the thing. Is God saying, ‘I will’ do this? God has made him all these things?

DWG: Yes, God transfers him, and God appointed him.

The house of David and other references in the letters to the churches

Audience: One clarification on your notes here, in Part 2B and point 5. e. You speak there of ‘The only proper attitude to this high office: that of Eliakim; awareness of divine appointment, and maintenance in the enormous responsibility of being the chief administrator in the house of David, set up by God for God’s age long purposes in the world (22:20–23; cf. Rev 3:7).’ And you mentioned the church at Philadelphia. How does the idea of this key of David, and the administrator here, and God’s age long purposes, translate to the local assembly at Philadelphia? I’m anxious to hear what you have to say about that.

DWG: Oh, yes, my good sir, I am anxious to hear, likewise, your help on this topic! The letters to the churches in Revelation 2–3 are exceedingly interesting for their references to the Old Testament, are they not? And if you plot the references to the Old Testament throughout the seven letters, you will find that they come in order chronologically from Genesis to the exile of Israel to Babylon. In the letter to Ephesus, we read, ‘To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God’ (2:7). The word for ‘paradise’ is the word that the Greek translation uses for the garden of Eden.

The tree of life was in the garden of Eden, wasn’t it? And when Adam and Eve sinned, they got shut out from the garden and from the tree of life. They got removed out of their place. In the first letter to Ephesus, therefore, the Old Testament allusion is to the tree of life in the garden of Eden, from which Adam and Eve got shut out. The warning to the church is, ‘I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent’ (v. 5). And the promise to the overcomer is, ‘I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.’

Similarly, the oppression and the prison mentioned in the next church (vv. 8–11) has, as its Old Testament counterpart, the word of God through the flaming torch and furnace at the covenant with Abraham (Gen 15). He is told that his seed would be oppressed and have tribulation in a foreign land for a specific time, and then would come out. The Jews often take that as a specific reference to the furnace of the Egyptian affliction of the nation.

Church number three mentions Balaam and the way he taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the Israelites (Rev 2:14). And that, therefore, is a reference to the book of Numbers, chapter 22.

Church number four has a reference to Jezebel (Rev 2:20). You have moved on to the book of Kings, haven’t you?

Church number five is Sardis, whose works are not complete. The promise is, ‘I will never blot his name out of the book of life’ (Rev 3:5). You’ll find those terms used of the period in Israel around about Jeroboam the second. The works of the king before him were not complete. When he went to visit the dying Elisha, Elisha said, ‘Take your arrows and smite them upon the ground.’ And the good man took them and smote them three times, and then stopped. And Elisha rebuked him. ‘You should have hit them on the ground six times, and then your enemy would have been consumed; but you gave up half way, didn’t you? Your work is not complete.’ And the history says in that time God began to cut Israel short, but he didn’t eliminate them, for he said that he would not blot out their names (see 2 Kgs 13:14–23).

Oh, but now you come to the key of the house of David. And this is later on now. It is 2 Kings. You have got beyond Jezebel and beyond Jeroboam the second, in Israel. But with the sixth church, that is Philadelphia, you have come to Hezekiah’s time and ‘the key of the house of David’.

And the last church is threatened with the Lord saying that if they did not repent, ‘I will spit you out of my mouth’ (Rev 3:16), reminding us of what God said to the Israelites when they entered the land. In both Leviticus and again in Deuteronomy, he says, ‘Don’t you behave like the Canaanites, because if you do the land will spew you out like it did at the exile’ (see Lev 18:28; Deut 28:36–37).

So, the references in the churches in Revelation 2–3 are going right through the Old Testament. They go along a chronological route, from Genesis to the exile. When we come to the notion of the house of David in the church of Philadelphia, my point is to say that the very illusion takes us back to the house of David and what it stood for among the nations. That is only a simple exposition and application, but when our Lord identifies himself in this way, that he has the key of David, he is pointing to what David stood for.

Of the seed of David

David is the famous predecessor of the Messiah. Our Lord is David’s greater son, and if the church had any concept of what David stood for, they would give heed to our Lord’s words and the analogy that he is creating by reference to the key of the house of David. Paul, writing to Timothy from prison, says, ‘Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel’ (2 Tim 2:8). Paul, preaching in Antioch of Pisidia, not only quotes the death of Christ, by which we can be justified, but quotes Isaiah: ‘I will give you the sure mercies of David’ (see Acts 13:34, cf. Isa 55:3), as evidence of the resurrection of Our Lord. The ‘sure mercies of David’ would require a long bit of exposition I can’t take time for now. It turns on the Hebrew word hesed, used in Isaiah 55.

Incline your ear, and come to me; hear, that your soul may live; and I will make with you an everlasting covenant, my steadfast, sure love for David. (v. 3)

David was God’s ‘faithful one’, ‘holy one’, one devoted to God. You will not ‘let your holy one see corruption’, David says (Ps 16:10). This would be an immoral universe if a man can live his life in utter devotion to God and be a hasid, and then God abandon him to corruption and the worms. God is loyal; and if David is loyal to God, God will be loyal to David. He says, ‘I will give you, therefore, the hasde, the loyal promises that I made to David. I will fulfil them.’ And in those promises is the hope of a resurrection. ‘When I awake, I shall be satisfied with your likeness’ (17:15). ‘You will not . . . let your holy one see corruption’ (16:10), and all of those kinds of statements.

To Paul, this business of David was a substantial part of our Christian gospel. And when he reminds Timothy that Jesus Christ has risen from the dead, he adds, ‘of the seed of David,’ as against the Roman authorities, the Emperor at Rome, that now had Paul in prison and would one day behead him. Paul is suffering, and Timothy is called to suffer in the name of the seed of David, the great world ruler to be. This is God’s anointed, as distinct from the Emperor Neros of this world.

And we, as Christians, stand in that tradition, do we not? You would reckon yourself, wouldn’t you, to be a prince in the house of David? We need that sense of history behind us. And as you stand up to preach your gospel, gentlemen, and you start by reading Romans, you assure your congregation that Christianity is not a philosophy that some bright chap with a degree from Harvard thought up, because he was a good philosopher. Christianity is based on the sacred writings, and it talks about God’s Son who is ‘of the seed of David, according to the flesh’ (see 1:3). Your Christian gospel is about the Son of God, who is of the seed of David, according to the flesh. Paul is writing to Romans, if you please, a predominantly Gentile church, maybe. Our gospel is founded here, and therefore we are heirs to this great tradition. And the Lord of the church, who has the responsibility for opening and shutting, says to the church at Philadelphia, ‘I have the key. And when I open, nobody shuts.’ That is marvellous authority. This is the key of the kingly house. ‘I set before you an open door and none shall shut it.’ It is wonderfully encouraging to serve him who has the key of the house of David, particularly if you are surrounded by the persecutions of a Nero Caesar.

Audience: And it was said to a church who only had ‘a little strength’ (Rev 3:8 kjv).

DWG: That’s right. And the other side of it is the Christian church in Philadelphia, as elsewhere, was often slandered, if not persecuted, by the synagogue. And it is, to the church of Philadelphia, that our Lord says, ‘I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet’ (3:9). Yes, but notice what for. It is not that they will come and worship at your feet and confess that you are the really great ones. No, no, no. They will ‘come and bow down before your feet and they will learn that I have loved you’ (v. 9). This is said to a church where examples of the genuine love of God expressed through Messiah are an advertisement for the love of God. It is not said simply to puff up the pride of the Christians. Here is the overwhelming evidence of a church that is still glowing with the sense that they are vessels of mercy, and their very existence and salvation is to be attributed to the love of God. Those who see it are moved to say, ‘Here is somebody that God loves’.

Audience: I was thinking of the fact that it is the King, Jesus himself, who had said, ‘I have the keys,’ whereas in Hezekiah’s realm it was the head of the household who had the keys. It was the vizier, not quite the prime minister but something like that. In other words, Jesus doesn’t have a vizier. He doesn’t have a Peter who holds all of his affairs. He takes care of his own affairs, doesn’t he?

DWG: That is marvellous. He does, yes. He doesn’t even have a Pope, does he? Nor a Protestant one either.

Audience: I want to see if I have a right understanding of what you are saying. God is loyal. God is there and raises up those who are loyal to him, no matter how big the circumstance is. Is that where you would say we are at in Isaiah? Are we back in that section where this court official has that proper attitude? He is the prince in the house of God.

DWG: What I was doing there was lamenting the fact that people like Shebna (and many in the city) had virtually no hope, though he was chief officer of the royal house under Hezekiah. He had no hope beyond a sepulchre. And with that came the attitude, ‘Well, come what may, we’re going to die anyway, so why not live it up now?’ He had no hope even of a resurrection. Whereas, if you look to the New Testament’s comment on David’s psalms, David himself had a hope of resurrection.

Audience: It seems like God raises up the one who becomes the prince in the house of God. He is an example of this principle right there in David’s household.

DWG: Yes, that’s right. He raised up Eliakim to take Shebna’s place, therefore Eliakim was given the robe of state that Shebna previously wore and Eliakim was given the key. Even if he was only the big officer and his flunkies did the work, the great steward would have a girdle with the keys on. The key became, therefore, the symbol of his office. He had the authority to open or to shut. He had authority over the treasury, to dispense or not to dispense the money, and so forth and so on.

Audience: I have a question regarding 22:25. Can you tell us why that should not be taken as symbolic of the rejection of the Messiah in a way that’s similar to Daniel’s reference to the prince being cut off after the sixty-ninth week?

DWG: Well, I hadn’t thought of that. Perhaps I was simply influenced by the nail that was fastened in the sure place and it gave way, if you see what I mean.

A question concerning commerce

Audience: In Isaiah 23, Tyre is destroyed, along with all of her wealth. But is there a difference between commerce and how we use it? Tyre sold a lot of nice things, but there wasn’t anything wrong with the things themselves, was there?

DWG: You mean to say there was nothing wrong with the nice things themselves? Well, I see you are all beautifully dressed, gentlemen, and you bought those clothes somewhere.

Audience: It speaks in that chapter of the ‘pride of all glory’ (v. 9).

DWG: Yes, the pride of glory. There comes a point when beautiful things, nice things, useful things, can surreptitiously become idolatrous. We live in a consumer society. Thank God for the peace and plenty, but consumerism can become a danger, can it not? The world has gone mad in its goods, its beautiful goods, that help it to forget God and to be independent. Perhaps that is how it was with Tyre, and God therefore determined to bring it down in order to stain the pride of their glory.

But now at the end, Tyre is, after a certain while, after seventy years, to be restored (vv. 15–18). And it is said that, like a harlot, she will go around the city singing her songs and attracting people to herself once more. Why do you think Tyre is depicted as a harlot?

Audience: She has no allegiance to anybody. She’s unfaithful and has loyalty to no-one.

DWG: Loyalty to no-one. Embroider that a little bit.

Audience: Any avenue that would lead to its own enhancement and glory was acceptable.

Audience: The relationship is fickle.

DWG: Fickle.

Audience: It’s just business.

DWG: It’s just business. What do you mean by saying it’s ‘just business’?

Audience: The loyalty changes when the situation changes. Whatever is best for the day is right. It’s just business.

DWG: In other words (let me be the devil’s advocate for a moment), you think this is narrow-minded Jews talking like this. They are happy to use anything they can afford to buy, but they are showing envy to people who are successful in business. Why should business not just be business? And why does any great business enterprise need to be loyal to any one particular country?

Audience: The loyalty is to mammon rather than to God.

DWG: You think it is loyalty to mammon rather than to God.

Audience: The loyalty is to Wall Street.

DWG: The loyalty is to Wall Street? Instruct the ignorant. What is Wall Street?

Audience: The American equivalent of the London Stock Exchange.

DWG: So, loyalty to a stock exchange, simply, but not loyalty to any country?

Audience: Is the issue at stake what is said in Matthew? ‘But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you’ (6:33).

DWG: My question there would be this. Judah was just as bad in that as the Assyrians. They weren’t seeking God first either. So, in all this array of countries who are addressed, why accuse Tyre of being a harlot?

Audience: Is there a connection with Revelation 18?

DWG: Embroider that a little bit. What do you mean by that?

Audience: Well, Babylon is described there as the harlot of commerce. The kings of the earth commit fornication with her, and so on.

DWG: Yes. That is the thing, isn’t it? Notice that the terms used, and the description of the lady in Revelation 18 are not in terms of religion but in terms of commerce. She has sandalwood and purple (that’s expensive stuff) and all these marvellous, lovely things. But because she is surrounded with lovely things, she says, ‘I sit as none like me. I shall never be a widow’ (see v. 7). Of course, in her was the blood of people. That is the slave labour side of it.

Audience: Isaiah 23:8 says, ‘Who has purposed this against Tyre, the bestower of crowns, whose merchants were princes, whose traders were the honoured of the earth?’ They made tremendous political decisions based on their own profit as opposed to any justice or mercy or loyalty.

DWG: Oh, surely.

Audience: Isn’t it true today that, as a whole, the peoples of the earth prostitute themselves to any political leader who will save the economy? Isn’t the economy the god that gets all the attention? We’ll vote for anyone who is able to control the economy.

DWG: Yes, but you see I, as an old age pensioner, was very grateful for Tony Blair, and his chancellor, when he put up the old age pension by seventy-five pence a week.

Audience: What did that buy you?

DWG: Much less than a dollar would buy you here! But yes, that is true, people will judge by the economy. But Tyre is a country in its own right and the whole empire was built on merchandise. The princes were princes of merchandise.

Audience: In Ezekiel there are several references to Tyre. In one, Tyre says, ‘I am perfect in beauty’ (27:3). And then the prince of Tyre, which I would assume represents the whole country, is told,

Thus says the Lord God: ‘Because your heart is proud, and you have said, “I am a god, I sit in the seat of the gods, in the heart of the seas”, yet you are but a man, and no god’. (28:2)

Would that have some bearing on what we’re discussing?

DWG: Oh, surely it would, because there Tyre is described in the same terms as Babylon in Revelation 18. We see there again the idea that wealth and the beautiful things and the control of world markets can induce in people a pride. We should remember the sin to which our foreparents were induced by Satan. He didn’t trick Eve by the horrible things of life but by the beautiful things of life, didn’t he? He showed her the tree, that it was good to look at and good for food, and desirable to make you wise. These are lovely, beautiful things of life. He tricked Eve to take the fruit in independence of God and contrary to God’s word (Gen 3:1–6). There will be more people in hell because of the beautiful things, which left them no time for God, than there will be people who are there because of their desire for the horrible things to be found in life.

Audience: So, is it the love of money?

DWG: Well, there is that, yes. And I think perhaps, as I say, by the standards of the ancient world, Tyre was a harlot in that it had no loyalty to anybody.

Audience: Did it have a little bit to do with their proliferation of the commerce, the travel to other places, and the fact that they would affect other countries and really the whole world with this idea of commercialism?

DWG: Well, that is right, yes. They did establish a mighty great empire set up like that, though Tyre itself was a small place. They were the Phoenicians. You should be reminded, perhaps, if you have forgotten, that they were the people that gave you your alphabet originally, for it was the Phoenicians who took the Semitic alphabet eventually to Greece where the alphabet was called Phoenician letters. The Greeks took it on and adapted it for use to the language of Greek. And the Romans got the alphabet through the Etruscans and eventually to Rome. And from Rome, we got our alphabet. It was the Phoenicians, the traders, that took the alphabet, invented by the Semites, across eventually into Europe. We feel the effect of it to this very present day.

Audience: They were also Canaanites: the children of Sidon, isn’t that right?

DWG: That’s right, yes.

Audience: Perhaps the problem of the sensuality of the Canaanite religion may enter into this as well.

Audience: They are mentioned as Canaanites here in this chapter (see v. 11).

DWG: Yes, and there is more than a little evidence, perhaps, that the Phoenicians engaged in infant sacrifice.

Audience: Wasn’t Jezebel a Phoenician?

DWG: Yes, she was a Phoenician (1 Kgs 16:31).

The final restoration

DWG: Now just let’s look at the final restoration that is promised. After seventy years, whatever those seventy years apply to, Tyre will come back again, take a harp and go about the city and make sweet melody, that she may be remembered again. She has been forgotten.

At the end of seventy years, the Lord will visit Tyre, and she will return to her wages and will prostitute herself with all the kingdoms of the world on the face of the earth. Her merchandise and her wages will be holy to the Lord. It will not be stored or hoarded, but her merchandise will supply abundant food and fine clothing for those who dwell before the Lord. (Isa 23:17–18)

Please tell me what I am to make of that.

Audience: The Lord is going to use commerce in the kingdom, but it will be in perspective, not as it is today.

DWG: Yes, this is so.

Audience: Or is this just a utilization of the loot, after spoiling the nation?

DWG: No, because she’s going to return. The Lord has appointed her. She’s going to return and her produce shall be for the Lord’s people.

Audience: There was a precise seventy years when Tyre was forbidden to trade. I’m trying to remember if that was under Babylon or if it was under Assyria, but they were forbidden to trade for precisely seventy years until the power that forbad them was crushed.

Audience: In Zechariah 14 we read the prophecy that even the pots shall be holy unto the Lord of hosts, and there will no longer be a Canaanite (vv. 20–21).

DWG: Yes, and there ‘Canaanite’ became a synonym for merchantman, so, ‘There shall be no more a merchantman in the house of the Lord.’ One thinks of Christ turning out the people that sold and made merchandise from the temple at Jerusalem. But Zechariah seems to be saying that even ordinary, everyday things like pots and pans will be regarded as things to use in the service of the Lord. And if that be so, there is nothing wrong with merchandise in itself and good can be done with it.

Audience: I agree with that. The reason I brought up that question was because the way the King James, the Authorized Version, translates Isaiah 23, doesn’t show her repenting, as other translations might, but her return, or her restoration, is to ‘her hire’, to commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth. The way the Authorized Version describes it, it sounds like she’s being revived at the end, before the millennium, during the tribulation period, to return to her harlotries.

DWG: Well, yes, verse 17 says that, ‘At the end of seventy years, the Lord will visit Tyre, and she will return to her wages and will prostitute herself with all the kingdoms of the world on the face of the earth.’ But then it adds that what she earns shall be holiness to the Lord (see v. 18). What does that mean? That eventually God will destroy Tyre and take the loot and use it for his servants? Is that what you feel it might mean?

Audience: That’s what it sounds like.

Audience: It’s the Lord Jesus bringing these great institutions of man: financial, economic and so on, under the dominion of God.

Audience: Is there a connection at all with the Egyptians and how the Israelites went out with a high hand after they had plundered the Egyptians (Exod 12:36)? It seems to me to be a parallel there.

DWG: There could be, couldn’t there? And if it is so true that if, when Christ comes, there is going to be a literal millennium, people will still be interested in clothes, won’t they? And they will still be interested in produce and the distribution of it, and so forth. To have Christ cleanse these systems, or set the process in its proper motivation, will be a marvellous thing.

But now it is getting late, and I shall not attempt to introduce Part 3, because far be it from me to stop people climbing on the mountains and filling their lungs with fresh air so that this afternoon they may come back revived and reinvigorated to answer the many questions that have been raised.

Shall we just pray God’s blessing.

Our Father, we thank thee once more for thy holy word and for treating us as thy sons, and disclosing to us thy purposes; and treating us as grown-up sons that we shall be interested in thy purposes in the earth. We thank thee we know that ultimately thou art in control of history, and thy plans shall be worked out. And we praise thee in advance that we shall see the day when the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. We bless thee for not despairing of earth, but before it ends, thou wilt make it the triumph that thou didst design it to be. Then shall we be glad indeed to see our blessed Lord owned as sovereign throughout the universe; and the acclimation and the attribution of, not only the honour, but all the wealth and the riches, to be put into his administrative hand.

Bless, then, thy word to us. We ask it for his name’s sake. Amen.

15: The Effect of God’s Judgment

Part 3A (24:1–27:13)

Now, if you have the courage once more to look at that sketch map I gave you about the contents of chapters 1–35, we could remind ourselves of one or two things. ⁹

The first thing is to recall why I say that the third section begins at 24:1. The first reason is the contents of the prophecy itself. At the end of chapter 23 you come to the last of the oracles against the nations, and chapter 24 now continues, but not with any oracles at that point. It is, therefore, the subject matter that is determining the structure of the book. Notice, then, that if you follow that hint and begin your third section at 24:1 and following, you come across a theme that you will have met before, namely the cosmic convulsions of heaven and earth. Similar wordage was to be found at the beginning of chapter 13, but now these cosmic convulsions are described with an even larger and more vivid vocabulary. We will return to these cosmic convulsions in a moment.

The two halves of Part 3

Why do I suggest that this section three is like the preceding two sections and falls into two halves? Well, because for one thing, at 27:13 we have again this question of the return of Israel from Assyria and Egypt. There is just one verse of it.

And it shall come to pass in that day, that a great trumpet shall be blown; and they shall come which were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and they that were outcasts in the land of Egypt; and they shall worship the Lord in the holy mountain at Jerusalem. (v. 13 rv)

Audience: Is that the return of Israel or just the two tribes?

DWG: Well, you’d have to look, I think, to the context for that, wouldn’t you? It is simply here those that ‘were ready to perish,’ as far as I can see. But verse 12 says, ‘you shall be gathered one by one, O you children of Israel.’ Sometimes the term ‘Israel’ is used in its lesser sense, that is, of the ten tribes. Other times it is used of the nation as a whole, and I think one would have to look to the context here to decide to which, exactly, it referred.

Why say that chapter 28 begins a second half? The second reason is that at the start of this chapter another series of woes begin. Six of them now proceed. The first comes at the start of chapter 28, ‘Woe to the crown . . .’ (v. 1 rv). Then in 29:1 the same word in Hebrew comes again, but here in my translation it is translated ‘Ho’, for in Hebrew hoy can be used to pronounce ‘woe’ against or call somebody’s attention. That is what in English can be ‘ho’, and so forth. Then again in chapter 29 we read, ‘Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel’ (v. 15). It comes again through these chapters, at 30:1, and at 31:1, and finally in chapter 33. ‘Woe to thee that spoils, and thou wast not spoiled’ (v. 1 rv). So you have a series of woes commencing at 28:1, and perhaps that is enough to make the tentative suggestion that this third part of Isaiah does fall into two halves. Do be reminded that this suggestion that I’m putting forward is not meant to be dogmatic. If you decide that it is in error and needs to be corrected, well, of course, correct it and then let me know the better point of view.

Part 3A—The effect of God’s judgment on planet earth and its cities, and on the restoration of his people

Major themes and key terms

Here we come, then, to Part 3A, to consider what are its major themes. In the notes, I have listed some of the references to particular terms in this part of Isaiah, from 24:1 to 27:13.

Earth: twenty-five times in chapters 24–27

City: 24:10, 12; 25:2–3; 26:1, 5; 27:10

Mountain: 24:23; 25:6–7, 10; 27:13

The superhuman powers throughout creation:

In the heavenlies (24:21)

On the earth (27:1)

In the sea (27:1)

The earth

The term ‘earth’ is used twenty-five times in chapters 24–27. You may decide that it sometimes refers to the land of Israel; other times, undoubtedly, it refers to the whole earth as we know it. We’ll not bother to go through all of the instances, but we begin chapter 24 with that notion.

Behold, the Lord will empty the earth and make it desolate, and he will twist its surface and scatter its inhabitants. (v. 1)

And then in verse 3 we read, ‘The earth shall be utterly empty’. Then in verse 4 we read of the earth mourning; in verse 5 the earth also is polluted; and so it goes on. Then we read,

The earth is utterly broken, the earth is split apart, the earth is violently shaken. The earth staggers like a drunken man; it sways like a hut; its transgression lies heavy upon it, and it falls, and will not rise again. (vv. 19–20)

Whatever those words exactly mean, one can scarce escape the emphasis here upon the earth and the enormous and gigantic effects that will be put into operation at this time.

The city

Another term that will occur much more frequently than in other passages, proportionally, is the term ‘city’. You may care to look, for instance, to 24:10 and notice the curious phrase, ‘The wasted city is broken down; every house is shut up so that none can enter.’ Or look at verse 12. ‘Desolation is left in the city; the gates are battered into ruins.’ But look at the start of chapter 25.

O Lord, you are my God; I will exalt you; I will praise your name, for you have done wonderful things, plans formed of old, faithful and sure. For you have made the city a heap, the fortified city a ruin; the foreigners’ palace is a city no more; it will never be rebuilt. (vv. 1–2)

And when you add to that what is said in 25:7, ‘And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations’, you will see this question of the breaking of the city as being significant worldwide. Then in 26:1 we read,

In that day this song will be sung in the land of Judah: ‘We have a strong city; he sets up salvation as walls and bulwarks.’

Then, in verse 5,

For he has humbled the inhabitants of the height, the lofty city. He lays it low, lays it low to the ground, casts it to the dust.

Look, finally, at 27:10.

For the fortified city is solitary, a habitation deserted and forsaken, like the wilderness; there the calf grazes; there it lies down and strips its branches.

So this question of ‘city’ looms large in this part of Isaiah.

Now, mere word counts can sometimes be misleading. Sometimes words will appear again and again because grammar demands it, and the repetition is scarcely significant. But you see from chapter 26 that this mention of the city: ‘We have a strong city,’ and the bringing down of the lofty city, are terms in which the prophet is describing salvation itself. So, salvation is to be understood in terms of the word ‘city’ as we read the face of this prophecy, and that demands that we give some attention to the significance of what is meant by the word.

‘We have a strong city; he sets up salvation as walls and bulwarks’ is a highly poetical way of saying it, isn’t it? Of course, John Newton’s great hymn is founded on this verse.

Glorious things of thee are spoken,

Zion, city of our God;

he whose word cannot be broken

formed thee for his own abode;

on the Rock of Ages founded,

what can shake thy sure repose?

With salvation’s walls surrounded,

thou may’st smile at all thy foes. ¹⁰

You may not agree with John Newton’s theology, but there you are. It has prompted a glorious hymn in the English language, has it not? Here is salvation in terms of a city. And as to the city of confusion and other such terms, we are thinking of the summing up of evil.

Mountain and superhuman powers

There are other terms that we should notice in this passage. We have had ‘mountain’ before of course, but notice 24:23 and 25:6–7, and verse 10, and 27:13.

Then it is very interesting to notice the references to superhuman powers, it would appear, throughout creation.

On that day the Lord will punish the host of heaven, in heaven, and the kings of the earth, on the earth. They will be gathered together as prisoners in a pit; they will be shut up in a prison, and after many days they will be punished. (24:21–22)

This raises a question. Who are the ‘high ones on high’? What does it mean when it talks of them as being gathered together as prisoners in the pit and ‘shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited’? Or, indeed, who are these ‘upon the earth’ (rv)?

In that day the Lord with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea. (27:1)

This is strange wordage, whatever is it referring to. It doesn’t appear to be referring to human powers at that juncture.

The significance of the city

If these are some of the leading themes in this particular part of Isaiah, as is shown by this repetition of terms, then we ought to ask, perhaps, what is meant by the term city particularly. What is the concept behind it? A city is not just a place where people live, is it? Some people don’t live in cities. What is the biblical idea behind city? Has it any connotations?

If one may wander for a moment, in Greek social and political thought, city came to stand for the peak of civilization. They will say that man at the beginning was beastly, living like animals in the forest, each man for himself and preying on the other. Life was mean and beastly. Then man progressed, and he hit upon the idea of living together in a city, and this was a high peak of civilization, of course, when they agreed to laws, to a formal government, to helping each other, and defence and education and all the things that cities make possible. That gave rise in Greek to the term politika, that is, things concerning the city. So, politics in a Greek democracy concerned not merely what we nowadays call politics, but the arts and the sciences and social order and everything else under the sun—anything to do with life in a city. Later some Greeks began to think that that wasn’t such a good idea after all, and to get back to nature and live was a better course. And Juvenal, the great Roman satirist, came to see that the bigger a city was the worse a curse it was, and wrote his very bitter satire on the city of Rome.

In Bible terms, the book of Genesis devotes a few verses to describing some of the early big cities after the flood. In Genesis 10:8–12, Nimrod began to build big cities. There is nothing wrong, I suppose, with big cities in themselves, but one of them at least came to signify attempts to be independent of God. There was the building of the notorious tower, yes, but not only the tower but the city of Babel. It was a concerted effort of mankind, apparently, to be independent of God and to secure themselves so that they should not be scattered over the face of the earth, as they said. And God himself intervened by confusing their language to stop what they were trying to do.

City, therefore, has a double significance, doesn’t it? It is an expression of good human progress and the civilization of life and so forth; and then there is that darker side with the possibility of man’s independence of God.

It is true, as Francis Bacon said, that it was the Lord God Almighty that first planted a garden. ¹¹ So when the Lord began, he made a garden and put man in it. Some people say that that will be God’s ideal, and in the millennium and thereafter we shall go back to being gardeners. Not according to the Revelation, you won’t, necessarily, unless there are private gardens in the city of Jerusalem. Though God started with a garden, according to the Revelation, God’s eventual goal is a city—the new Jerusalem.

John saw it coming down out of heaven to fulfil two functions. Its first function is as a dwelling place, and it is said of this city, ‘the tabernacle, the dwelling place, of God is with man’ (see 21:3). Secondly, its function is to perform the function of the bride of the Lamb, not so much in terms of romance as to be his queen when he is king, for the administration of the new heavens and the new earth. We are being prepared for that city, are we not? Abraham, we are reliably told, lived as a pilgrim when he could have gone back to the big cities from which he came out, but he didn’t go back because ‘he looked for the city which has the foundations, whose builder and maker is God’ (Heb 11:10 rv). The great heavenly and eternal city, Jerusalem, is built on the foundations that were laid in the life of Abraham: justification by faith and justification by works. That eternal city shall have on its gates the names of the tribes of Israel. It was Jacob and his wives that provided the names that shall eternally be engraved, so to speak, on the gates of the city.

The gates of that eternal city are not merely places where you can go in and out. Like any eastern city, the gate is the place of administration. The elders sit in the gate. So, Jacob had his great vision at Bethel and saw a ladder, or a staircase, set up on earth with the top nearly reaching heaven. Note the direction of it. It was not, ‘let down from heaven with the bottom almost reaching the earth’. He saw the angels of God ascending and descending upon that staircase and saw the Lord standing not, please, at the top of the ladder, but at the bottom and at the side of it, as you see from his comment. Upon waking from his sleep, Jacob commented, ‘Surely, God is in this place, and I did not know it’. He knew that God was in heaven; he wasn’t aware that God was by his elbow!

Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, ‘Surely the Lord is in this place, and I did not know it.’ And he was afraid and said, ‘How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.’ (Gen 28:16–17)

It was not that Jacob was looking for a chance to go to heaven immediately and was glad he had found a way in. He was thinking, again, in ancient terms. This is ‘the gate of heaven’, the centre of heaven’s administration. Look at all those heavenly civil servants on the ladder, on the staircase, going out from the divine presence and going up, and returning to the divine presence, their service accomplished; and there is God at the centre of the administration. ‘This,’ said Jacob, ‘is the gate of heaven.’

Subsequently, it was Jacob’s wives, in the course of their daily life and their family life and in particular at the birth of their children, who made the birth of their children and family life a matter of prayer. Finding answers to their prayers from God, they recorded those experiences in the names they gave to their children (Gen 29–30). They shall be the names that go on the gates of the city. It is a way of telling us that, where that eternal city is concerned, if we would be a member of it we must be built on the right foundation, of course. But then, if it is true that the city is the Lamb’s wife, queen to the king, we shall be involved in the administration, shall we not? And we, like Jacob’s wives, are being prepared in the disciplines of life to be part of that eternal administration alongside of Christ our Lord.

The notion of city therefore, in Scripture, is certainly one that deserves close attention. Even salvation itself, in Isaiah 26, is spoken of in terms of a city. In regard to that basic principle, it doesn’t really matter whether you say, ‘Ah, but this city here is the literal city of Jerusalem that one day shall be rebuilt.’ That does nothing to alter the significance of the term.

The emphasis of Part 3A (24:1–27:13)

What is this section going to be about? I have listed the contents in your notes, and I have not much to add to them.

The shaking of planet Earth (24:1–20)

First is the shaking of the earth, in 24:1 onward. It will be turned upside down, physically and socially, with populations scattered and emptied. If there is any literalness to the series of judgments that are described in the Revelation, when the seals are opened, when the trumpets are blown, when the vials are outpoured, those judgments are going to decimate earth’s population. The reason for these judgments on earth and the shaking of the earth is given in Isaiah 24:5.

The earth also is polluted under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore has the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are found guilty: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left. The new wine mourns, the vine languishes, all the merryhearted do sigh. (vv. 5–7 rv)

Having got only that far, we perceive now that there is a difference here in emphasis from those cosmic disturbances described in chapter 13, and the ones that began the second major part of Isaiah. There is a similarity in chapter 24, for the beginning of the third major part resembles the beginning of the second major part in this matter of cosmic disturbance. But now notice we are not here in chapter 24 talking about great empires, nor in particular about small individual nations. We are not necessarily talking about the destruction of the Assyrian immediately, though we shall read of him presently. Here the emphasis lies on planet earth itself.

Earth was given to man as man’s temporary home, a stepping stone to eternity, of course, for the earth is not eternal. And man was given possession of earth under certain conditions. There were the conditions laid down to Adam, and there were the further conditions laid down to Noah. Man is God’s viceroy, to be God’s administrator and to be responsible for earth. The charge is that man has seriously misconducted himself in his stewardship of the earth and has transgressed the laws. The earth is polluted under its inhabitants. It is not simply that we have spent too much money on gasoline and are polluting the atmosphere and causing holes, as some say, up aloft and are therefore causing changes to the weather and the heating of the earth, though there may be some truth in that for all I know. But think of the terminology that Moses uses in the book of Numbers. ‘Don’t you behave like the Canaanites. Don’t shed innocent blood, for if you shed innocent blood it pollutes the earth’ (see 35:33–34). Did not God say to Cain, ‘The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand’ (Gen 4:10–11)? And Moses, speaking by inspiration to the Israelites, says, ‘Don’t you involve yourself in those crudities of sexual perversions or child sacrifice, for the earth won’t put up with it. The land will spit you out’ (see Lev 18:26–30).

It would appear from the Old Testament that God somehow has connected human behaviour with earth and its health. Perhaps earth is more a living ecosystem than we have imagined. Anyway, in God’s sight, wrong and vicious and perverse behaviour pollutes the earth.

‘They have transgressed the laws’; they have changed the ordinances of human life. If marriage between a man and a woman is a divine ordinance then homosexuality is a perversion. It is a perversion of nature and of the biological system.

‘They have broken the everlasting covenant’. You will remember how John discusses the everlasting gospel in Revelation 14. This is one of the last appeals of God to earth before his judgments descend.

Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and language and people. And he said with a loud voice, ‘Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgement has come, and worship him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water.’ (vv. 6–7)

‘Worship your creator!’ he says. It is an appeal against their worshipping and deifying of the beast. One day, when man reaches his perversion of ignoring and denying the creator, and supposes he has a hold on earth, God the creator will shake the planet. We are now talking about man’s relation with planet earth, and then the judgment upon the cities, or the city (or perhaps any city). The great civilizations and the big cities do depend, for their continuance, on the earth around them. And if things go wrong with the biosphere of earth, then the big cities are in trouble. That is what is going to happen, according to this passage, when the joy and the wine and everything else, and the attractiveness of the cities shall be seriously affected.

Audience: Did you say that the everlasting covenant refers to the Noahic covenant?

DWG: It could do, yes. ‘Seedtime and harvest’, and so on and so forth. I linked it in thought with the everlasting gospel as preached in Revelation 14, which is the very basic gospel of man’s relationship with creation. ‘Worship him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water’ (v. 7). That is your basic condition of man’s holding the planet, as distinct from that final perversion with man denying God and worshipping a self-deified man. Therefore, this speaks of man’s tenure of the planet.

For thus shall it be in the midst of the earth among the peoples, as the shaking of an olive tree, as the grape gleanings when the vintage is done. These shall lift up their voice, they shall shout; for the majesty of the Lord they cry aloud from the sea. Wherefore glorify the Lord in the east, even the name of the Lord, the God of Israel, in the isles of the sea. (Isa 24:13–15 rv)

Audience: Can you please read verse 15 again?

DWG: ‘Wherefore glorify the Lord in the east, even the name of the Lord, the God of Israel, in the isles of the sea’ (rv). And how do you translate it?

Audience: In different versions these are sometimes used as devotional verses: ‘Glorify the Lord in the fires’ (kjv).

DWG: Oh.

Audience: The New King James translates it ‘dawning light’ with a marginal note indicating a connection to the east.

DWG: Oh, I see. I fancy this is the response to those that are left to the evidence of God’s majesty in his judgment of planet earth. Is that according to context, would you say?

Audience: Yes.

DWG: So now we come to the following verses. We haven’t the time to go into them individually. There is the cry of treachery; people have been deceived, and now they sense the onset of judgment.

From the uttermost part of the earth have we heard songs, glory to the righteous. But I said, ‘I pine away, I pine away, woe is me! The treacherous dealers have dealt treacherously; yea, the treacherous dealers have dealt very treacherously.’ Fear, and the pit, and the snare, are upon you, O inhabitant of the earth. (vv. 16–17 rv)

And because of this, there is no escape.

And it shall come to pass, that he who flees from the noise of the fear shall fall into the pit; and he that comes up out of the midst of the pit shall be taken in the snare: for the windows on high are opened, and the foundations of the earth do shake. The earth is utterly broken, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly. The earth shall stagger like a drunken man, and shall be moved to and fro like a hut; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it, and it shall fall, and not rise again. (vv. 18–20 rv)

The reign of Christ (24:21–23)

The question I put to you is the next question in verses 21–23. What do you make of the punishment of these superhuman principalities, as well as the earthly king? Are we here talking of God’s intervention to deal, not only with the beast and the false prophets on earth and all his adherents, but with the old serpent, the devil himself, and all his hosts? Is this now saying that they shall be confined for the period of the reign of Christ, the millennium, to be finally dealt with at its end? What are they saying? I merely put it out as a suggestion. There is no doubting the brilliance of the occasion.

And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall punish the host of the high ones on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth. And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited. Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed; for the Lord of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously. (vv. 21–23 rv)

I take that to be a prophecy in its prime intention, going far beyond anything Isaiah ever saw or knew; a prophecy of the coming of Christ, when the Lord shall reign in Jerusalem and before his ancients gloriously. ‘His ancients’, I presume, are talking about the heavenly principalities and powers.

The joy of the messianic banquet (25:1–8)

Now we have the result of it, which we read in the lovely words of chapter 25. Let’s come perhaps immediately to verse 6 onwards.

On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death for ever; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the Lord has spoken. (vv. 6–8)

The first part of chapter 25 records the crushing of the old, arrogant city with the result that, ‘Therefore strong peoples will glorify you; cities of ruthless nations will fear you’ (v. 3). And then it looks back a little, surely, in verse 4.

For you have been a stronghold to the poor, a stronghold to the needy in his distress, a shelter from the storm and a shade from the heat; for the breath of the ruthless is like a storm against a wall, like heat in a dry place. You subdue the noise of the foreigners; as heat by the shade of a cloud, so the song of the ruthless is put down. (vv. 4–5)

This is referring, presumably, to the persecution that the faithful people of God had suffered during those years coming up to the return of Christ. They had been persecuted by the arrogant of this world, and now God has overturned the arrogant city, and these are saved and delivered, and in their joy they sing, ‘We have a strong city. It is protected by salvation itself. God has brought down them that dwell on high, the lofty city. The foot shall tread it down’ (see 26:1–6).

We will soon take time for questions, but before coming to those, let us first enjoy the passage, whatever it refers to. ‘For he must reign,’ says 1 Corinthians 15. Death will be destroyed, for there shall be a resurrection.

But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. (vv. 23–26)

When will all enemies be put under his feet, and when is it that the last enemy will be destroyed?

Audience: At the end of the millennium.

DWG: The end of the millennium is the vote over here.

Audience: At the final resurrection.

DWG: At the final resurrection and the coming of the new heavens and new earth is another view. Yes, well, like Felix said to Paul, I will hear you again on these matters.

Audience: But for us, death is swallowed up in victory in the resurrection of our bodies.

DWG: When the Lord comes?

Audience: Yes.

DWG: ‘They that are Christ’s, at his coming’ (15:23 rv)

Audience: ‘In the twinkling of an eye.’

DWG: ‘In the twinkling of an eye,’ as it says here in 1 Corinthians 15.

We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. (vv. 51–52)

The Lord shall come, the trumpets shall sound, and the dead in Christ shall be raised first, and we which are alive and remain shall be changed. We shall not all sleep but we shall all be changed, in the twinkling of an eye. As far as we are concerned, the end of death and sorrow forever is at the coming of our blessed Lord. And for this reason you rejoice, and are to ‘always abound in the work of the Lord’, because you have this hope (see v. 58).

Our question will be of the larger scene and what you think these chapters refer to. But, before the questions start, let us enjoy the lovely metaphors. He shall make the people a beautiful feast.

On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. (Isa 25:6)

This is poetic image, surely. It is not saying that in the millennium, or at any other time, there will be an abundance of alcohol, in the way that some Muslims picture heaven, but it is a feast of joy. As I read it, I can’t help remembering the first miracle our Lord did when he came to earth. It was at a marriage supper, wasn’t it? When the wine ran out, he multiplied the wine; and when the master of ceremonies tasted it and wondered and didn’t know where it came from, he said, ‘You have kept the best wine until now’ (see John 2:1–11). Here in Isaiah 25 we see the figure of tremendous joy. When the wine of earth has run out there is going to come the marriage supper of the Lamb, indeed there is. And the joy, the wine, shall never run out there, shall it? For by the time that marriage supper comes, his wife has made herself ready, and the divine bridegroom, by his zeal, will so have cleansed his church that there remains neither spot nor wrinkle, nor any such thing, and the joy will be unbroken for all eternity.

Yes, these are the images. We can talk about the timetable afterwards, but these are the heart of the matter. These are the glorious images and metaphors that the Holy Spirit supplies, not for our intellects, merely, but for our hearts and imaginations to lay hold of, that we may rejoice in our great salvation.

It is now time to pause, so let us take a break, and please be prepared to come back with the answers to my questions.

⁹ The full size version of this chart can be found in the Appendices.

¹⁰ John Newton (1725–1807), ‘Glorious Things of Thee are Spoken’ (1779).

¹¹ Francis Bacon (1561–1626), ‘God Almighty first planted a garden; and, indeed, it is the purest of human pleasures.’ Essays (1625) ‘Of Gardens’. 

16: Questions and Contributions

The Millennium

When death is swallowed up in victory

One question among several others that has been put to me concerns the timing of what Isaiah speaks of in chapter 25 when he speaks of death being swallowed up in victory. As we prepare to think about that, just let me comment on what is spoken of concerning the great white throne, as described in Revelation 20.

Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (vv. 11–15)

When the judgment before the great white throne happens, death and hades are cast into the lake of fire, which is a vivid way of talking, of course. Death is the experience on earth of how humans leave this earth, that introduces them into the unseen world, into hades. There are Scriptures enough to show us that the condition in hades is temporary. The angels that sinned, so we are told, were cast down to ‘Tartarus’. They are in chains, kept under punishment, until the day of judgment (see 2 Pet 2:4–10). They are on remand, so to speak. At the great white throne, these two temporary things (you might like to call them ‘institutions’): death on this side, leading to hades on the other, will pass away. Their place will be taken by the lake of fire, says the Revelation.

The millennium

So now the question comes. When Isaiah talks of death being swallowed up in victory in chapter 25, is he talking of the millennium, or is he talking of the new heavens and new earth? When will God wipe away tears, and so forth and so on? These are questions that, of course, necessarily assail serious expositors when they are seeking to think through their particular views about the millennium. So, let me read you the series of individual questions that one questioner wrote earlier and passed to me:

1. How much of the curse will be rolled back at the millennium? How much will be rolled back for believers, for unbelievers, for creation/nature, and in regard to sin?

2. Is it at the time of millennium that nature shall be ‘delivered from her bondage to corruption’ (see Rom 8:21), or does that wait for the new heaven and the new earth?

3. Will there be death during the millennium for believers? And, will there be death for unbelievers, or not?

4. Are the references to the new heaven and new earth in Isaiah 65–66 the same as those talked of in the Revelation, where the new heavens and new earth, by definition, are eternal? For they descend from above when the first earth and the first heaven flee away and are replaced by the new heavens and new earth. So, when Isaiah talks in Isaiah 65–66 of the new heaven and new earth, is that referring to the new and eternal heaven and earth, the same as in the Revelation? Or, is it simply referring to the millennium, and Isaiah uses the poetic terms ‘new heaven and new earth’ for the new society that will then prevail?

Those are the questions. You see they are related, and the man who gave these questions to me is looking forward to your contributions, as am I. What do you think on these matters?

Death and judgment

Audience: I don’t think the curse is done away with completely, because Isaiah 65:17 makes a reference to the new heavens and new earth. But what is common in Scripture is that first there is a declaration and then the verses that come after often describe what precede the time of that declaration.

No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed. They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat. (vv. 20–22)

So, to me, there is still some aspect of a curse, because there is still death. There is not a complete removal of death, as far as I can see.

DWG: Good. Thank you very much. Are there any other contributions?

Audience: I was going to open up another can of worms. One of the questions had to do with whether there would be death at all in the millennium.

DWG: In the millennium, yes. And will there be death for those who are believers in the millennium?

Audience: Well, the fact that there will be death at least at the end of the millennium seems clear because we read that Satan will be loosed and shall go out and deceive the nations throughout the four corners of the earth, and so on (Rev 20:7–9). So at least at the end there would seem to be death present.

Audience: It might be good to remind ourselves that there will be more than one group of people in the millennium. There are those that go up in the first resurrection, of course, because the church goes up when the Lord Jesus comes to the air. And there, of course, will be no death for those reigning with Christ. We will be like him and put on a body of incorruption, as 1 Corinthians 15 says. Yet there are those that Matthew 25 speaks of at the judgment of the nations: the ‘sheep’ that go in to inherit the kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world. The question would be whether it implies that they would have mortal bodies, and can they die? So, we’re clear about one set of people. There’s a set of people with Christ, and they will not die. They are incorruptible. But now I would assume the question is the nations on earth during that thousand years.

DWG: Yes, I think that is the question.

Audience: As long as we’re clear that death will not be an issue for the believers at this stage.

DWG: Well, we know when the Lord comes for us we are taken to be with the Lord. Let that be very clear. We are taken to be with the Lord, and we shall have transformed bodies ‘like unto his glorious body’ (Phil 3:21 kjv). We shall reign with Christ. But what that will entail, and how that will be brought about is something we should think through. Hebrews 2 says, ‘Now it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come [or, the age to come], of which we are speaking. It has been testified somewhere, “What is man . . .”’ (vv. 5–6). Now, our blessed Lord is going to reign. The age to come will be unto him, and his promise is that his people will reign with him. That being said, Hebrews seems to imply that the present age is, in one sense, under the rule and administration of angels: ‘it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking . . .’. If God uses angels at this moment to administer earth, we don’t see a lot of them. At least, I don’t. How will we reign with Christ in that coming day, with our glorious bodies? Will we be on earth, or will we be a kind of administration such as the angels now perform?

Audience: I hear the question. I’m not sure I understand all the implications, so I’m going to wait on other people to answer.

DWG: Good man, yes. I join you, sir!

Audience: Is life without death conditional upon being able to eat of the tree of life?

DWG: Well, thank you for raising that. I hesitate. You haven’t answered these questions yet. If somebody will answer a few more of them, I’ll come up with my own.

Audience: We’d love to hear you, brother, to tell you the truth.

DWG: You would? Only sometimes, though, right? Someone over here was going to say something.

Audience: Prior to the flood there apparently was a shield around the earth, so that man could live many, many years without dying. The curse really didn’t have the pronounced effect that it has today. So, I think that that could be part of that restoration, when the Lord comes and establishes his kingdom on the earth. And as far as death is concerned, I think that after he sets up his kingdom those that rebel will be immediately cast out, and for them that would be death.

Audience: Zechariah speaks of his judgment and we’re told he rules with a rod of iron, but it seems like he uses natural forces in all of those judgments, not instant death. For instance, it says that if Egypt doesn’t come up to worship, they’ll have no rain. It doesn’t say that he will punish with death, then, as much as he will do so by restricting their natural enjoyment of his millennium blessing of the earth. They will be withheld from enjoying his kingdom.

I think we (the church) are going to be more of a bride. Israel is given the promise to reign on this earth. They are going to be part of the ruling factor here. I might be in a class by myself on this point, but in Revelation 19 where he appears with the armies of heaven, I don’t know that he’s not coming back with Israel and maybe angels in this battle. I can’t see a man turning to his wife and saying, ‘Come fight with me.’ The bride is going to have a special place by his side, but our portion is spiritual, not earthly. We are the new Jerusalem, the temple, the house of God that comes down out of heaven. That’s what John sees. He sees the lamb’s wife, the lamb’s bride, as a city. But in Zechariah and at the end of Isaiah, it seems like the judgment the Lord Jesus uses, the rule with a rod of iron, would be withholding millennium blessings, that is, part of this curse that’s been removed so that the fields produce abundance. And there are all sorts of earthly blessings. Those blessings will be withheld from those who don’t obey. I don’t remember reading anything of him executing life or death judgment.

Audience: Does 1 Corinthians 6 not indicate that the saints will have some form of administrative duties? Paul is saying, ‘Why can’t you judge your own peers now? In a coming day, there are going to be administrative duties. The saints will judge the world. Don’t you know that you shall judge angels? How much more things pertaining to this life!’ (see vv. 1–3). There does appear to be a form of administration that will be committed to us in the future time.

Will the millennium be unbroken paradise?

DWG: Well, let me put two of my questions, in order to provoke you to love and good works. I believe in the millennium; let me make that clear. Where do you get your ideas from that the millennium is going to be an uninterrupted sort of a paradise place? For the Lord’s promise to the overcomer given in his letter to Thyatira reads as follows:

The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces [that is, the overcomer will thus rule], even as I myself have received authority from my Father. (Rev 2:26–27)

If that’s a description of the millennium, it doesn’t sound to me like unbroken paradise. He is speaking of ruling the nations with a rod of iron and breaking the vessels as a potter breaks his vessels in pieces. Have I got the right end of the stick?

Audience: Partially.

DWG: Partially? Well, that’s not bad, is it, to get it partially right?

Audience: In this sense from Scripture, I believe it will be unbroken paradise. While they will rule in that fashion, the judgment will be immediately meted out, so that whatever the rebellion is, it will not be allowed to continue and to pollute in that sense.

DWG: But it will be a time of rigorous government?

Audience: Yes, it will. And it will be instant judgment and swift justice.

Audience: To question just a little bit of what has just been said, I know that there are Scriptures that speak of God withholding the rain from nations who don’t come up to Jerusalem during that time. How would that fit in with swift and immediate justice?

DWG: Quite so.

Audience: I don’t think that’s enough. I think, for example, we read it in Isaiah 11, that great chapter about his government of peace, where they’ll neither hurt nor harm in all his holy mountain. And in the same context we read, ‘He will raise a signal for the nations and will assemble the banished of Israel’ (11:12). And we have their assembling and peace among one another. And then we read that the first thing they do is, ‘they shall swoop down on the shoulder of the Philistines in the west, and together they shall plunder the people of the east’ (v. 14). That’s not this withholding rain. Perhaps this is just the beginning of the millennium, but then we read the same thing in chapter 25.

It will be said on that day, ‘Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us. This is the Lord; we have waited for him; let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation.’ For the hand of the Lord will rest on this mountain, and Moab shall be trampled down in his place, as straw is trampled down in a dunghill. (vv. 9–10)

The competing mountain next to Zion is Moab, perhaps a symbol, perhaps literally. So, there is peace, but it must be firmly held.

Will salvation be different in the millennium?

DWG: Now, let me ask my second question, therefore. In the Revelation, the actual mention of the millennium, as we all know, is confined to six verses out of the whole of the Revelation. That might, perhaps, suggest a certain proportion of God’s estimate in the significance of the matter. But more to the point, let me ask a doctrinal question. Will there be a different kind of salvation in the millennium from what there is now? Or, is salvation, always the same because it rests on the work of Christ?

Audience: Well, you’re not going to end up in the body of Christ at that point. You’re not a part of the bride in the millennium if you’re saved then, right? The bride is complete at the rapture.

DWG: Would that mean that participating in the bride of Christ is not part of our gospel, but it is an addition given to some, but not to others? Or, must participation in the gospel that depends on the sacrifice of Christ be open to all believers, otherwise you are going to get in trouble with the doctrine of atonement and redemption?

Audience: Abraham was saved by Christ’s death.

DWG: He was, indeed.

Audience: But he’s not part of the body of Christ, the bride of Christ.

Audience: Yes, but ‘there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved’ (Acts 4:12). That, surely, is encompassing all.

DWG: Yes. I think that’s the point that I want to make. And you should see I pose it as a question. How much of these blessings depend upon the sacrifice of Christ in such a way that if you deny to one set of believers some of the benefits of the death of Christ, which then are given to other believers, you will be in serious trouble with Paul?

How much of these blessings are like gifts? We are saved and redeemed, as far as salvation goes, through the sacrifice of Christ. But the sacrifice of Christ does not give you the gift of being an apostle, or give me the gift of being an evangelist. Those gifts are not given to all believers in the Lord Jesus. But forgiveness of sins, surely, is given to all believers equally, on the grounds of the death of Christ. Is being born again of the Spirit of God part of our salvation that we get through redemption that is in Christ? Or, can you be a believer, trusting in Christ, and be forgiven sins but not receive the Holy Spirit?

Audience: ‘Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God’ (John 3:3).

DWG: That’s right.

Audience: Obviously, we are talking about a differentiation between dispensations in which in time past, God’s Spirit rested upon believers. David said ‘take not your Holy Spirit from me’ (Ps 51:11). Now, in this age, ‘Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him’ (Rom 8:9). So, there can be differences if we talk about believers from age to age; but in this age, as to the way God has decided to dispense his judgment, the way he’s reigning, there are certain things that are happening and certain things that aren’t happening. The question will be when we go into the next age, can certain of those things change? The point about ‘no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved’ is that salvation is always based upon Christ’s work, both forward and backwards. So, how much does the other thing that you’re asking depend on that?

DWG: Let me, if I may, follow that up just to press home the implication of my question, doctrinally. In the Old Testament, Abraham was justified by faith. There is no mention of ‘the body of Christ’ in the Old Testament. There couldn’t be, because the formation of the body of Christ depended upon the coming of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Abraham, therefore, and King David, and many more besides, would not have dared to go into the holiest of all, until the sacrifice of Christ was offered. In the millennium, will God go backwards? In the millennium, will they have access, like we do, into the holiest of all?

Audience: The veil is rent and it is finished.

Audience: Isn’t the long quote in Hebrews 8 about the new covenant from Jeremiah 31 essentially the millennial covenant that we enter into early on? It’s a millennial vision in Jeremiah, that new covenant passage, as far as I can see.

DWG: The new covenant will be in force in the new millennium, surely. But I thought Hebrews 8 said it has already been enacted.

Audience: Yes. We entered it following the last supper.

DWG: Yes, that’s right. And we receive the cup of ‘the new covenant’ (1 Cor 11:25). Marvellous. But my question (and I’m not being awkward) is this. Will God go backward in the millennium in regard to those that are saved on the basis of the work of Christ, so that they have no access into the holiest of all? And they are not, as we are, baptized in the Holy Spirit, subsequent to the work of Christ? Or, is being baptized in the Spirit of God an integral part of the gospel, such that if you were to grant that a believer in Christ in the millennium has forgiveness of sins, but not access into the holiest of all, you might be trespassing against the truth of the gospel? Is that so in the same way that if you say to a believer in the millennium he has forgiveness but doesn’t have the Holy Spirit, is not baptized in the Holy Spirit, you would be denying him an integral part of the gospel?

Audience: I will be willing to make an idiot out of myself. I think that Revelation 21:9–27 is not the new heaven and the new earth that John sees at the beginning of Revelation 21. It’s the millennial kingdom. One of my reasons for thinking that is that at the end of chapter 21 he says, ‘By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it’ (v. 24). Well, there won’t be any kings in the new heaven and new earth. I would assume the Lord would be the only king.

and its gates will never be shut by day—and there will be no night there. They will bring into it the glory and the honour of the nations. But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life. (vv. 25–27)

Those in the millennium that have believed will be able to enter into the city, which will be ‘the holiest’ because that’s the dwelling place of God. So, they will be able to go in and out of the city, but anyone that is not saved, anything that defiles, anything that is the work of an abomination, anyone whose name is not written in the Lamb’s book of life, will not be allowed into the new Jerusalem. So that, in the millennium, the believer would have access into the presence of God, but the unbeliever will not be allowed into the city.

DWG: Well, you say you’re willing to make yourself a fool, but actually, you stand in excellent company, for many serious exegetes hold that same interpretation, do they not? I wouldn’t quote the older names, but many so believed. And even such as Beasley-Murray in the present, in his exposition of the book of the Revelation, says that from 21:9 onwards it is a description of the millennium, really.

I am also pleased to see that you hold that salvation is the same then as now, in that it grants to every believer entrance into the holiest of all. That helps to support my case. Please understand, this is my own question. We agree that entrance into the holiest of all is granted on the grounds of the death of Christ, even for such as David who did not have that ground in his day because the sacrifice of Christ was not complete. So, if that is granted, can you say that being baptized into the Holy Spirit is not part of the gospel of Christ, even though it too depends on the sacrifice of Christ? That is, can we say it is not an essential, integral part of our salvation and therefore, in that coming day, believers will not be baptized in the Holy Spirit, and as a consequence will not be members of the body of Christ?

Audience: I think that you have to be careful about mapping church age concepts on subsequent ages. I mean, I could ask you that question about the Old Testament believers, and the fact that the Old Testament believers were not baptized in the Holy Spirit doesn’t mean they were not declared righteous, but they are not a part of the church. For us to map the gospel of the church age onto subsequent ages, I think, is dangerous.

DWG: Well, that, I think, is a question that I would like to ponder because that appears to me to be saying that being baptized in the Holy Spirit into one body is not an essential part of the gospel.

Audience: Well, it is in this age.

DWG: In this age, but not in the next?

Audience: Well, it wasn’t in the last age.

DWG: Yes, because the Holy Spirit had not yet been given.

Audience: When John the Baptist introduced Jesus, this is his whole identity as he was preparing people for the coming of the Christ, the one who would be the baptizer in the Holy Spirit (see John 1:33). Here’s an interesting Scripture for me. It’s in Hebrews 6.

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come . . . (v. 4)

The age to come is the millennium; that’s the next age to come. The Joel prophecies about the Spirit being poured out are again a millennial prophecy, but used of Pentecost. So that the coming of the Holy Spirit is a pledge of the glorious kingdom to come. This is just the beginning of the degree of outpouring of the Holy Spirit. That’s the way I understand it.

Audience: During the tribulation, will the Spirit of God be living in the lives of believers like he is today? Because we believe the Spirit will be taken out of the world. There will be a different situation even during the tribulation period, won’t there be? I mean, isn’t that what we’ve all been taught?

DWG: Well, yes, I believe many people have so been taught. I think I wait to see the actual explicit statement of the New Testament that the Holy Spirit will be taken away.

Audience: It’s in 2 Thessalonians.

DWG: Yes. What I mean, my dear brother, is saying that what restrains (2 Thess 2:7) is the Holy Spirit is the view of many godly and careful expositors, but it is not explicitly said, is it? It is an interpretation.

All I want to say in this matter is to put in a plea for careful examination of what is our doctrine of salvation, and our doctrine of the atonement and the contents of salvation bought for us by Christ’s death on the cross. I myself would be very hesitant to say that the gift of the Holy Spirit and being baptized in the Holy Spirit is a product of the death of Christ but only for some believers and not for others. That I would be very loathe to say myself, though I hear the arguments on the other side. I appeal for more positive, direct, explicit statements in those passages of Scripture that are concerned to expound the gospel.

Similarly, I respect the judgment of those who would say that 2 Thessalonians 2, which speaks of the removal of the restrainer, is referring to the removal of the Holy Spirit. I respect those who hold that view, and I am aware of the many different interpretations of that verse. On the other hand I want to say that the view that that is the Holy Spirit is not an explicit statement of Scripture; it is a suggested interpretation. Therefore, I think we should be careful to found our prophetic views more on explicit statements of Scripture, on those that we can be certain of, and hold with less tenacity those things that we have deduced from Scripture. Of course, deduction from Scripture is something we all do and must do, but our deductions do not have the same authority as the explicit statements of Scripture. Therefore the idea that a thing bought for us by the blood of Christ is not necessarily given to all believers, fills me with great hesitation. Though, as I say, I continue to respect those that uphold that view.

I do think, in our prophetic schemes, we should do as the great and godly Harold St. John used to say: ‘Every now and again you should challenge your own axioms to see whether they are really scriptural.’ And I would want to say we must put first rank on the explicit statements of Scripture, and then hold with a somewhat lighter hand what are deductions from Scripture.

Audience: I just want to mention something that you said earlier, to clarify, particularly for some of those who are younger here. And I’m not trying to correct you, because I know what you meant by the statement. But you said that the New Testament only has six references to the millennium.

DWG: Yes.

Audience: I think I personally would want to say that there are only six references that have to do with the timeframe of the millennium, but there are many other passages. Because often those who take the opposite view say that the only verses about the millennium in the whole Bible are those particular verses.

DWG: Thank you for that. What I meant to say was that in the book of the Revelation, which is our New Testament book pre-eminently sketching in the future, there are only about six verses that are devoted to the millennium.

The Holy Spirit in relation to prophecy

Audience: I was just going to mention the Scripture that I’ve always felt indicated that in the millennial kingdom those that are saved will be as we are today. It’s found in Joel 2, and it’s the prophecy that was given about the pouring out of the Spirit of God on Pentecost, and an elaboration of that time to the remnant mentioned in the chapter. So, I would just submit that passage as a support to that.

DWG: Thank you very much.

Audience: I’ve never heard the thoughts you shared about the differentiation between the role of the Spirt in the age to come and the role of the Spirit now. I hear what you’re saying about the importance of being careful of what we say in connection with the atonement. Would the role of the Spirit change? Christ said to the disciples in John 16, ‘He shall not come unless I go away’ (see v. 7). He is the paraclete, the great comforter who is fulfilling the role of Christ on earth. Will the role of the Holy Spirit possibly change in light of the fact that Christ will be there on earth, and so the Spirit is not in that same role as the comforter?

DWG: Well, that, again, is conceivable, I suppose. When I say that is a deduction, I admit we all have to make deductions. But for a thing of such magnitude I would prefer to have an explicit statement of the New Testament, rather than to found such a thing on deduction that might not be provable.

Audience: How much time exists between the rapture and the beginning of the millennium?

DWG: That is much debated and, to be frank, I would like an explicit statement of Scripture to tell you.

Audience: The reason I’m asking is, if there’s going to be no difference with persons being saved after the Church is gone, why do we preach that when the Church is gone, you’ll be left for judgment, and unless you accept Christ now, you won’t have another opportunity?

DWG: I have heard such preaching myself. In 2 Thessalonians 2:11, the charge is very specifically laid. God shall send them a strong delusion who receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. That is the reason why the strong delusion is sent to them. For the man of sin will come with all deceit of unrighteousness for them that are perishing, ‘because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them a [strong delusion], that they should believe a lie [or, the lie]: that they all might be judged who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness’ (vv. 10–12 rv). That is what seems to me to decide whether a person is given a strong delusion or not. It is not explicitly the coming of Christ, but whether they have or have not received the love of the truth. And if that is the charge that God lays down, then they must have known the truth in order to be able to be charged with having not received the love of the truth.

I am not persuaded that if the lord Jesus came tonight, everybody who had not professed faith in Christ would perish, for there are millions that have not even heard the truth. How can they be charged with not having received ‘the love of the truth’? The great thing that decides that a man has gone beyond the point of no return is that he has heard the truth, known the truth, and refused to believe the truth. That is the serious matter. That does not wait until the coming of Christ. Though it is not for us to say who they are, there are people on earth living now who have heard the truth, known it is the truth, and with eyes open have rejected the truth. They may already have gone beyond the point of no return, like the Pharisees in Matthew 12 who were warned of their danger of committing the unpardonable sin. That I think, again, is a matter where I would want to insist on the actual wordage of the text, because these are very, very serious matters.

I have heard many preachers say that if the Lord Jesus came tonight, everybody left behind would be lost. What, the little children of twelve years of age, born in a remote country, who have never heard the truth, let alone had a chance to receive it? They would be lost simply because Christ came? I doubt it; but I would think it important to keep strictly and literally to what Scripture says on the matter.

Audience: Regarding the Spirit of God in another age, Romans 8:23 says of our present age that we have received the firstfruits of the Spirit. So there is more to come of the Spirit. Also, as we’ve been noticing in the book of Isaiah, there are different happenings on earth in God’s relationship with earth, and in his programme throughout history. We are in different time zones, as it were, but it seems to me that after the death, burial, resurrection and exultation of Christ, and the firstfruits from the Spirit, salvation would include, for all believers, that which comes from the work of Christ.

DWG: That is how I would understand it. I would understand ‘firstfruits of the Spirit’ to mean the Spirit himself is the firstfruit. But, as to Israel’s expectation, am I not right in saying that in the vision of the valley of dry bones in the book of Ezekiel, if that is a figure of the national regeneration, when they are cleansed it is partly by the water of cleansing being sprinkled on them, and then by the coming of the Spirit? So, Israel’s rebirth is dependent on the coming of the Spirit to do it. What is needed is cleansing by water and the Spirit, says Ezekiel.

Now, I cannot prove to you what I am going to say, so I open myself to the criticism that I have made of others. I would like to have a verse that says it explicitly, but the regeneration of Israel in Ezekiel is brought about by the water and the Spirit. ‘I will sprinkle clean water on you’ (36:25), so cleansing. And then the dry bones, they don’t yet live, so ‘call to the wind and call to the spirit [ruach in Hebrew] and he will come’ (see 37:4–6). Our Lord said to Nicodemus, ‘How is it you don’t know this when you are the rabbi, when the Old Testament taught that you cannot enter the kingdom of God except you be regenerated by water and the spirit?’ (see John 3:10). And of the promised regeneration of Israel by the Spirit, it says, ‘And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you’ (Ezek 36:26). So what is that, if it is not being born again?

Do we not claim ourselves that the new covenant, established by Christ, and ‘enacted’ (so Hebrews 8:6 says) is the writing on our hearts of his laws? And Paul says that when he came to Corinth and the Corinthians got converted and saved, what was happening was that Christ was using Paul as a man might use a pen, and what corresponds to the ink was the Holy Spirit. He says, ‘Christ was using me by the Spirit of God to write his laws on your hearts’ (see 2 Cor 3:1–3). It is a synonym for describing the new birth, or being born of the Spirit. If that is indeed a covenant that God promised to make with Judah and Israel in the Old Testament, how could you deny to the restored Israel the benefits of that new covenant?

I have dear friends who are somewhat more dispensationally-minded than I am. They would say things that I would demur at. They would say that the new covenant itself refers to Israel and is not for the church. I would beg leave to differ upon that, but I am not disputing that it is for Israel. So we agree that the new covenant is for Israel of the future day, but then the new covenant is regeneration by the Spirit of God. How you could be regenerate by the Spirit of God, that is, be born again, and somehow not partake of the benefits of the Holy Spirit that we who are under the new covenant enjoy, would be a doctrinal mystery to me.

Audience: I’m not going to speak for everybody, but I wouldn’t question the benefits of salvation that Israel will experience, which are clearly stated in Scripture, but I would say that they are what they look forward to enjoying. But it’s not so much those particular benefits of salvation. I think the distinction lies more in what position Israel will hold, in other words, once ‘the bride has been completed’, as being those in this age. We now enjoy the position as the body of Christ, with a ‘head’ who is in heaven, as we are here on planet earth, united to him. The question to my mind is whether that position will be enjoyed by those of another age. That is where I would have trouble, without a clear statement of Scripture. I’m making a deduction to say it seems that that is a unique relationship that exists in this age.

DWG: For my part, I would catch hold of what you have said there and say, yes, if it’s a question of position and function, if it’s a gift, then I shall never be an apostle. That doesn’t contradict the salvation that God, through Christ, has given me. I shall not be an evangelist either, I fear. There are many other things I shall not be that are gifts. I would distinguish that from those things that all believers have because they come on the basis of the redemption that is in Christ.

Audience: I guess the point I see is that during the millennium period it goes back to the point where people once again come to Israel, to Jerusalem, as they had to in the Old Testament time before they could come to Christ. What Christ is going to do when he comes back is to set up the kingdom of David. He’s going to sit on the throne of David, and he’s going to rule in Jerusalem. Those who are going to be born outside of Israel and not be of the family of Israel are going to have to come through Jerusalem in order to get to the Messiah, to get to Jesus, in order to be saved, to be judged, in order to be part of that group of people that later go up into heaven, or the new eternal state. And so that’s where I see the difference in my own mind. Israel is finally going to hold the place that it was meant to hold in the beginning, but it failed miserably. Man is not going to change; man is going to be the same. He’s still going to have that old nature. If you say he’s going to take away the old heart and give him a new heart, and you correspond the new heart to the new nature, then you are saying he’s going to get rid of the old nature. So, the old nature is still going to be there, and that’s why you’re going to have rebellion. That’s why you’re going to have sin, and that’s why there’s going to have to be rule with a rod of iron. That’s where I see a difference during that other dispensation. They are going to have to go back through Israel again, which isn’t true today. We are in the age of grace, where everybody’s the same, whether Jew or Gentile.

DWG: Thank you for that. And now I must announce that we are over our prescribed time, so thank you for all those contributions, and thank you for the spirit in which you have made them. It is a lovely thing when believers can meet and discuss matters of this sort and all others and, even where they differ, love each other just the same and seek grace to profit from one another’s observations, and determine to investigate further these matters in the fear of the Lord.

Audience: Dr Gooding, I’m requesting something aside from our contributions. Could there be a time for you to simply expound your understanding of these matters, based on Scripture, without our contributions or questions, and just have you expound how you see the eternal state?

DWG: Well, there might be such a time in the next few years, but we will not have time on this occasion. We are running short now on our programme to get through this part of Isaiah. To expound that fully, as distinct from expounding it in question and answer, would be a lengthy job. These are not matters that can be decided in five minutes. Godly men and women for decades and decades have thought about this subject. In expounding such a thing formally, I would want to be fair to all that serious people have said, and not simply dismiss their views and just substitute my own without careful weighing of the evidence and of opposing views.

You have asked me to say in this session what I believe. I have indicated some of my beliefs, and some of the questions (and I mean that seriously) that I would want to put to some of my brethren on their prophetic forecast. They are serious questions, and I am interested in the answers that have been given, but they remain for me serious questions.

We must finish, but I will say this. I was brought up to believe in such prophecy as implies there are two different gospels. I was taught that in this church age, we are saved by faith. In the next time, people will have to endure to the end to be saved. What a different gospel from the one that I am saved by. That cannot be right. There cannot be two gospels. The fact is that we also are required to endure. The parable of the Sower declares it. The only ‘seed’ that’s any good are those people that receive the word in an honest heart and bring forth fruit with endurance (Luke 8:15). Endurance is one of the major terms of Pauline, Petrine and Jacobean doctrine. Romans 5 says that, ‘Tribulation works endurance’ (see v. 3). James says, ‘Count it all joy when you fall into diverse temptations knowing that the trial you will face works endurance’ (see 1:2–3). And to be taught, as I was, that there are two different gospels: ‘We don’t have to endure, but they will have to’, is to make two doctrines of the gospel.

That, among some people, has been one of the things that has disturbed them and put them off from a doctrine of the millennium. They say, ‘Look, it seems to us your implications are that you are preaching two different gospels.’ Now, no one who is a serious believer in the millennium would want to do any such thing, but I think we do, from time to time, need to examine our axioms here. And if you asked me to expound my views in full on that, I would say yes, I will do it, but give me a week, but not off-the-cuff, as a little part in a series such as we are doing now.

But shall we just ask the Lord’s grace, and proceed.

Father, we thank thee for thy holy word. We thank thee for all that thou hast given us to understand. We thank thee that thou hast not left us isolated and alone, and for the help of our fellow brethren to understand thy word. And Lord, we pray that thou wilt lead us all in confidence in thee and in the teaching of thy Holy Spirit, that we might progress in the truth, ever nearer to that ideal that thou hast held out before us, till we come to the unity of the faith, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, and all come to that blessed time when we shall all believe exactly the same.

Until then we pray thy grace, that in meekness we might help each other to progress to grasp the truth as it is in Jesus. So bless us now as we take our break, for his name’s sake. Amen.

17: The Waiting of the Righteous and the Coming of the Lord

Part 3A (24:1–27:13) Continued

Part 3A continued

We come now to the end of Isaiah 25. To resume what we saw earlier, chapter 24 talks of the shaking of planet Earth and other cosmic disturbances that will precede the reign of our Lord. Then verses 21–23 talk of the reigning of the Lord of Hosts who ‘shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously’ (v. 23 rv). Then we came to chapter 25, and its expression of the joy of ‘the messianic banquet’, as it has come to be called, when God shall make them a feast.

On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. (v. 6)

The joy of the messianic banquet (25:1–8)

We read of praise to God for having fulfilled all of his promises, for bringing down all hostile opposition and for having been a stronghold to his people when they were under persecution. Then we read of the banquet for all the nations, of sumptuous joy, the swallowing up of death, the wiping away of tears, and the removal of the reproach of his people. Then we find two prospective responses to this promise.

Two prospective responses (25:9–26:5)

Notice 25:9, ‘It will be said on that day’, and 26:1, ‘In that day this song will be sung’. So the prophet is looking forward to the time when these glad responses will be made to those who experience the joys of the messianic banquet. And first of all, gladness and rejoicing in God’s salvation that the long years of waiting are over.

It will be said on that day, ‘Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us. This is the Lord; we have waited for him, let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation.’ (25:9)

It is good to notice that as they respond to the messianic banquet their first response is personally to the Lord: ‘we have waited for him’, and then to the salvation that he brings at that time. Then we have, in their terms, the judgment of their inveterate enemy Moab.

And the high fortifications of his walls he will bring down, lay low, and cast to the ground, to the dust. (v. 12)

Likewise, the first verse of chapter 26 shows us their sense of joy in their awareness of the security of their strong city and the protection of salvation.

In that day this song will be sung in the land of Judah: ‘We have a strong city; he sets up salvation as walls and bulwarks. (v. 1)

Then we read of ‘A mind at perfect peace with God’, as the hymn puts it. ¹²

Open the gates, that the righteous nation that keeps faith may enter in. You keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on you, because he trusts in you. (vv. 2–3)

So, the gates of that city are open that the righteous nation that keeps truth may enter in. Then we see the peace that comes in being right with God, for the person whose mind is stayed on God. Therefore there comes the exultation, ‘Trust in the Lord for ever, for the Lord God is an everlasting rock’ (v. 4). It is the awareness of the everlasting rock as a result of his dealing with the enemy that has tormented them so far.

For he has humbled the inhabitants of the height, the lofty city. He lays it low, lays it low to the ground, casts it to the dust. (v. 5)

The spiritual exercise of the righteous during the waiting period (26:6–21)

Now, taking it on from there, we have what seems to be a meditation, perhaps also a prayer, from those to whom this prophecy came. They seem to be concerned in this mediation with what they are anticipating in the meantime, as they look forward to the fulfilment of this prophecy. Because, as you will see as the verses proceed, they are constantly addressing the Lord in prayer. And from what they say they are not yet, at this moment, enjoying this messianic banquet. At least that seems so to me from the language they use. They are still waiting for the messianic banquet to come. And in their waiting, in the prospect of what they have been told or promised about this glorious banquet, their hearts are exercised and they begin to think.

Their awareness that their feet shall one day tread on the defeated enemy (26:6)

The foot tramples it, the feet of the poor, the steps of the needy. (v. 6)

According to this promise, then, God will give victory to the poor and the needy. Their foot shall tread it down. Even the feet of the poor shall tread down the opposition. It makes me think of the word of Paul to the Romans: ‘The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet’ (16:20). That’s a lovely prospect. He is going to kick him hard, or something.

God must train and guide his people in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake (26:7)

Then we read, ‘The way of the just is uprightness: you that are upright do direct the path of the just’ (Isa 26:7 rv). They had been talking of the gates being opened that the righteous nation that keeps truth may enter in. And now their confidence is being expressed in God, that the way of the just is uprightness, but it is guided by him who is himself upright. The one who himself is just is directing them towards that great city, and to entering into its gates.

They have accepted this period of training in righteousness (26:8–9)

So now as they address the Lord they say, ‘in the way of your judgements, O Lord, have we waited for you’ (v. 8 rv). They are conscious that they are still waiting, but as they wait it is not just twiddling their thumbs doing nothing. They have waited on the Lord, ‘in the way of your judgements’. That is, they have accepted the disciplines of God, the way of his judgments. ‘To your name and to your memorial is the desire of our soul’ (v. 8 rv). They are waiting for the Lord, and because they are waiting for the Lord, they accept his lordship in the discipline and the timing and his judgments, and they recognize that this is part of his training for their eventual entry into the city.

This is how the inhabitants of the earth learn the righteousness of God (26:9)

In verse 9, they express the desire of their soul. They are looking forward to this banquet, but it is the Lord that they are seeking. ‘My soul yearns for you in the night’, presumably meaning not merely that they prayed at night time, but in the night of their affliction, their persecution, they are waiting for the Lord.

My soul yearns for you in the night; my spirit within me earnestly seeks you. For when your judgements are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness. If favour is shown to the wicked, he does not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness he deals corruptly and does not see the majesty of the Lord. (vv. 9–10)

So then they have accepted that this period of training and righteousness has turned the waiting period into a waiting and a desire for God, a seeking for his rule and righteousness all through the night and into the day. For this is how the inhabitants of the earth learn the righteousness of God.

The wicked will not learn righteousness this way (26:10–11)

It is true that the wicked will not learn righteousness. Even though the kindness of God was meant to lead them to repentance, they will persist in their unrighteousness. And yet, as these believing souls wait on God and accept his training in righteousness, it is a means of demonstrating the righteousness of God to the ungodly.

That reminds me, by loose association of thought, of what Paul is saying to the believers in Thessalonica. For that purpose, let’s read 2 Thessalonians 1.

Therefore we ourselves boast about you in the churches of God for your steadfastness and faith in all your persecutions and in the afflictions that you are enduring. This is evidence of the righteous judgement of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering—since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels. (vv. 4–7)

Here is the question of the righteous judgment of God. It will eventually be manifest when God grants relief to the persecuted of his believers, and deals out affliction to those that have persecuted them.

That is, to me, quite a solemn thought. When our Lord comes and executes the judgments of God, he will of course, in the process, grant relief to his persecuted people. When they are granted relief, and God owns them, and he comes to be admired in his saints before the world, it is going to appear before the world that in exalting these people and glorifying them, God is acting justly. It will manifest the righteous judgment of God in giving rest to those that are afflicted, and tribulation to those that persecuted them. And how is that? ‘Well, because,’ Paul says, ‘you suffering the time of affliction now, for the Lord’s sake, is a demonstration to the world that you are worthy of the kingdom to which you are called.’

I picture the scene sometimes. If my university colleagues survive until the Lord’s coming, and they see me coming with Christ, will they be surprised to see me on that side? Will they say, ‘Well, if it had been John Wesley or somebody, we couldn’t be surprised, but Gooding? How is this fair? What about the way he behaved? Now, we admit that we weren’t Christians. I mean, of course, yes, it is fair. We admit we’ve been proved wrong, and now Christ comes and he will judge us. Okay. But on what grounds does he accept Gooding?’

What will God say to that? Here Paul is appealing to the fact that these Thessalonians had, for God’s sake and Christ’s sake, endured persecution and affliction, ‘to the end that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God’ (v. 5 rv), not ‘be made worthy’, but ‘be regarded as worthy’, for the kingdom of God for which they suffered.

If that is anywhere near what this passage is saying, I have to take that seriously to my heart, don’t I? When the Lord comes and takes you home and comes with you to the world to execute the judgments of God, shall it appear that you were worthy of this kingdom because when you were on earth you were prepared to suffer for it? That is a big question, isn’t it?

And here in Isaiah this is the people talking, whoever they are, and thinking of the coming messianic banquet, and saying that they are waiting for the Lord. They are accepting his judgments and his timing. It is producing a righteous character in them. He is leading them in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake. This is going to be a lesson by which the world is taught, whether they actually learn it or not. Isaiah 26:10 remarks,

If favour is shown to the wicked, he does not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness he deals corruptly and does not see the majesty of the Lord.

Here are unrighteous men disregarding the fact that the mercies of God were meant to lead them to repentance.

The wicked will see God’s zeal for his people and be ashamed when his fire consumes them (26:11)

O Lord, your hand is lifted up, but they do not see it. Let them see your zeal for your people, and be ashamed. Let the fire for your adversaries consume them.

If the world does not learn its lesson, and refuses now to take knowledge of what God is doing in the salvation and training of his people, one day they will. So say these people at prayer, ‘fire shall devour your adversaries’ (v. 11 rv). And that again, is what Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 1. He shall be revealed from heaven in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that do not know God, when the righteousness of God is revealed in the coming of Christ to judge (see vv. 7–8). Everyone shall see the results of salvation. Christ will be glorified in his saints, and everyone will acknowledge the righteousness of it.

The righteous remnant reviews their national history (26:13–15)

Then in verse 12 we read, ‘O Lord, you will ordain peace for us, for you have indeed done for us all our works’. Far from boasting of their own effort, they now humbly acknowledge that it is God that works in them, both the willing and the doing, of his good pleasure.

And their prayer and exercise of heart continues. ‘O Lord our God, other lords besides you have ruled over us, but your name alone we bring to remembrance’ (v. 13). It seems to be at this point in their spiritual exercises they are perhaps casting back their mind in history, perhaps to their bondage in Egypt when the Egyptians were their overlords. Perhaps they are also thinking of the bondages that were their own fault, so to speak, in the days of the judges, when they were a nation compromised with idolatry. But they have learned the lesson that God has taught the people in the course of their history: ‘but by you only will we make mention of your name’ (v. 13 rv). They have been cured of the national propensity to idolatry, and own solely the name of the Lord.

They are dead, they will not live; they are shades, they will not arise; to that end you have visited them with destruction and wiped out all remembrance of them. (v. 14)

I presume that refers to their past enemies that have perished. God has destroyed them and obliterated the name of those that have been overlords over his people. And what that will mean to the redeemed people of Israel in that coming day when they look back. Shall they think of Hitler? Shall they think of the Inquisition? Shall they think of King John of England, or the pogroms in Russia? But, here, accepting the chastisement of God on the nation in the course of history, they will have come through it and been taught that fundamental lesson that God had to teach his people—to reject all idolatry and own the unique and sole name of their Lord God creator.

But you have increased the nation, O Lord, you have increased the nation; you are glorified; you have enlarged all the borders of the land. (v. 15)

They bemoan the fact that the pain seems all to have been in vain and ineffectual (26:16–18)

O Lord, in distress they sought you; they poured out a whispered prayer when your discipline was upon them. Like a pregnant woman who writhes and cries out in her pangs when she is near to giving birth, so were we because of you, O Lord; we were pregnant, we writhed, but we have given birth to wind. We have accomplished no deliverance in the earth, and the inhabitants of the world have not fallen. (vv. 16–18)

They bemoan their spiritual ineffectiveness, apparently. Here is the frustration of these dear, believing people. They are trying to witness for the Lord in the time of their oppression, which are as the bitter pains of childbirth, but it has not affected any great result, as far as they can see. They bemoan it before the Lord.

I expect some of us likewise have felt a certain sympathy with them. For all our huffing and puffing, what big changes have we wrought in the world?

God’s reply (26:19–21)

And then God replies to them.

Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise. You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy! For your dew is a dew of light, and the earth will give birth to the dead. (v. 19)

I say it in all reverence, what a pity that God didn’t add a stroke of the pen and say, ‘This refers to the literal resurrection’, or another stroke of the pen, and say, ‘This refers to the rebirth of Israel à la Ezekiel.’

Why didn’t God see fit to explain that? And why did he leave it to us, I wonder? Perhaps you will, in the next question time, tell me what I ought to believe. Is this talking about the resurrection at the coming of Christ? Or, is it talking to Jewish people in Jewish terms about their spiritual rebirth, pictured in the later chapters of Ezekiel, which speak of being cleansed by water, and the dead bones being regenerated by the Spirit of God?

Anyway, it is God’s comforting reply, obviously, to ease their souls that had waited on him in the time of trouble, and waited in all expectation for the coming of the Messiah and the messianic banquet. So, surely they set us an example as we wait for the Lord, and show us what exercise of heart should be ours in preparation for his coming.

Then comes a further reply to these people.

Come, my people, enter your chambers, and shut your doors behind you; hide yourselves for a little while until the fury has passed by. For behold, the Lord is coming out from his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity, and the earth will disclose the blood shed on it, and will no more cover its slain. (vv. 20–21)

It appears to me that God is comforting these Jewish people that, yes, the messianic banquet is coming, but there will be a little time intervening while the indignation shall be poured out on the earth. And he is inviting them into the protection that will be theirs in that day. But what will the indignation of the Lord involve in that day?

Results of the coming of the Lord (27:1–13)

The punishment of the principalities and powers, the serpents and the dragon (27:1)

Here comes another ‘in that day’.

In that day the Lord with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea. (27:1)

This is highly metaphorical, or poetic, language. So, again, what am I to think? Are there two dragons, and one serpent? Is there the swift serpent and the crooked serpent? And, in addition, there is a third one, which is the dragon in the sea. What does this mean? Is this a way of describing, in three different terms, the same old serpent, the dragon of Revelation 12, who is the one that deceived Eve and will try to counter the purposes of God? The judgments of God at the coming of the Lord are also significantly put into this kind of language, are they not?

The re-establishment of Israel as God’s vineyard (27:2–6)

Passing by that, we see the results of the coming of the Lord, including the punishment of the principalities and powers (the serpents and dragon anyway), but also the re-establishment of Israel as God’s vineyard.

Now, if you look again at that little chart I gave you with the contents of chapters 1–35 in three sections, one of those sections contained the song of the vineyard. Do you remember which?

Audience: The first section.

DWG: The first section, yes! Isn’t that good when you come to know a book so well, that when somebody quotes it, you say, ‘Yes, I know where that was, that was there.’ That is coming on, when you know how to place the word of God. Then even in your dreams the old brain can get working on it, shuffling the information.

Now, we have in front of us a big book like Isaiah with sixty-six chapters. Yes, but suppose it only had nine parts, and then you knew logically what belonged to which part. That would simplify life, wouldn’t it? You could even think about it in your car: ‘Now where does that thing come?’ And you will see in front of your mind the nine parts, and each has got two halves. ‘Now where does that song about the vineyard come, because here there is another vineyard? And it is a song sung of the vineyard (27:2). Oh, I wonder if it has got any connection?’ And then you are a long way down the line to seeing the point and purpose and the design, and behind the design, the message of a book.

Anyway, the first song of the vineyard was about what?

Audience: Sour grapes.

DWG: Sour grapes. And God is saying what?

Audience: What more could I do now?

DWG: Yes. ‘What more could I do? I couldn’t do anything more, and because I did everything I possibly could, and all it has produced is sour grapes, I will do . . .’, what?

Audience: Destroy it.

DWG: Yes, ‘I shall lay it waste and destroy it’ (see ch. 5). But look at the triumph of God’s grace here in chapter 27. He’s got the vineyard. What is he going to do with it? ‘I the Lord do . . .’

Audience: Keep it.

DWG: Yes, keep it!

I the Lord do keep it; I will water it every moment: lest any hurt it, I will keep it night and day. Fury is not in me: would that the briers and thorns were against me in battle! (27:3–4 rv)

What a vivid picture God does paint when he gets at writing poetry! I would have been afraid to say anything like it about the living God. He says, ‘I wish those briars would come and start battling with me, because I would show those briars something!’ This is almighty God talking. Fancy that. He’d like to have a go at these briars, if only they would start coming at him. ‘I would march upon them, I would burn them together. Or else . . .’ And now he turns to other adversaries than briars, I suspect.

Or else let him take hold of my strength, that he may make peace with me; yea, let him make peace with me. (v. 5 rv)

He is saying, ‘They must agree never to attack my vineyard again.’ Oh, the inexhaustible triumph of God! For all I know, you have got a sermon there, if the sermon only lasted twenty minutes. You could talk about the first song of the vineyard and God giving up on the vineyard. And lo and behold, before you sent the people home, you could say, ‘But I’ve got another song to sing’ (with my falsetto voice). Then you could sing the second song, of God’s triumph in the cultivating of the vineyard and the positive defiance of any opposition that would spoil it. We serve a marvellous God, you know! He is not going to be defeated.

What a thing of grace that is. That is fit to be put to song, isn’t it? So, if tomorrow morning I hear you singing in your bathroom the song of the vineyard, I shall excuse your enthusiasm.

In days to come shall Jacob take root; Israel shall blossom and bud: and they shall fill the face of the world with fruit. (v. 6 rv)

Marvellous. To change the metaphor, ‘If the breaking off of some of the branches . . .’ (see Rom 11:17). The delicacy of phrasing in Paul is wonderful, isn’t it? Some of the branches were cut off. Oh dear. How many in that ‘some’ were cut off? But if their cutting off was the means of bringing salvation to the Gentiles, what shall their restoration be but veritable life from the dead? (v. 15). That is glorious! Just think of the multi-millions of Gentiles that have been saved in the era when the branches were cut off the natural tree, up until now. Have there been millions? That is marvellous, but it’s nothing like what it’s going to be. Oh, the receiving of them back again shall be veritable life from the dead! God says, ‘I’ll fill the world with their fruit,’ upon which we say ‘Hallelujah!’ (and not necessarily under our breath).

A contrast in God’s chastisement (27:7–11)

Then there is a contrast between God’s chastisement of Israel on the one hand, and his judgment on the ungodly, unbelieving and impenitent world. God is still speaking and asks, ‘Has he struck them as he struck those who struck them?’ (v. 7). That is, has he smitten his people, the nation of Israel and Judah to the same extent as he smote those nations that smote Israel and Judah? No, indeed not. ‘Or have they been slain as their slayers were slain?’ The answer of course is, no. The chastisements upon Israel have been severe, very severe, but God argues that they have been nowhere near as severe as his judgments shall be upon the wicked that smote Israel. Let Hitler be warned, and Stalin, and the Inquisition, and the Assyrian.

Measure by measure, by exile you contended with them; he removed them with his fierce breath in the day of the east wind. (v. 8)

In other words, it has been measured. God’s chastisement of his people has been limited. God is now saying that, yes, he did chastise them when he sent them away and contended with them, and removed them out of the land, and scattered them in the day of the east wind. There was a cold east wind indeed.

Therefore by this the guilt of Jacob will be atoned for, and this will be the full fruit of the removal of his sin: when he makes all the stones of the altars like chalk-stones crushed to pieces, no Asherim or incense altars will remain standing. (v. 9)

God’s discipline of Israel will at last have effect, and they shall be done with idolatry for ever.

For the fortified city is solitary, a habitation deserted and forsaken, like the wilderness; there the calf grazes; there it lies down and strips its branches. When its boughs are dry, they are broken; women come and make a fire of them. For this is a people without discernment; therefore he who made them will not have compassion on them; he who formed them will show them no favour. (vv. 10–11)

The question is over the difference between God’s chastisement of Israel, and the punishment meted out to Israel’s enemies. So, I personally am inclined to take verses 10–11 in contrast to verse 9, which said God disciplined Israel, but in measure. It is different with Israel’s enemies. Though God is their creator too, their deliberate persistence in organized, ignorant hostility, not only to Israel but to Israel’s God, will result in merciless punishment.

The ingathering of Israel and the coming of the Gentiles to worship the Lord (27:12–13)

Now in verse 12 we have the ingathering of the children of Israel and the coming of the saved from among the Gentiles to worship the Lord in the holy mountain at Jerusalem.

In that day from the river Euphrates to the Brook of Egypt the Lord will thresh out the grain, and you will be gleaned one by one, O people of Israel. And in that day a great trumpet will be blown, and those who were lost in the land of Assyria and those who were driven out to the land of Egypt will come and worship the Lord on the holy mountain at Jerusalem. (vv. 12–13)

With that, I take it that Part 3A of the prophet Isaiah comes to its end. In that same way, so many other parts have come to an end, with the prophecy and the promise of the restoration of God’s people from the lands to which, under his discipline, they were scattered.

¹² Horatius Bonar (1808-1889), ‘A Mind at Perfect Peace.’ 

18: The Folly of Rejecting God and His Word

An Overview of Part 3B (28:1–35:10)

We come now to consider what we have called Part 3B of Isaiah, which in your notes I have entitled ‘The Folly of Rejecting God and his Word and Putting One’s Faith in Human Wisdom, Religion and Strength Independent of God’. It currently starts at chapter 28:1 and goes on to the end of chapter 35. It is a long section that is held together initially by a succession of woes. There are six, I believe. Chapter 28 begins with the first of them: ‘Woe to the crown of pride of the drunkards of Ephraim’ (28:1 rv). ¹³

Major themes

As usual, we look for any major themes within these chapters to see if there are some central themes, or whether this part of Isaiah is more like the book of Proverbs that goes from one thing to another in remarkable haste.

The background of Sennacherib’s siege

The background to these chapters is still Sennacherib’s final attempt to take Jerusalem, as you see from sundry references to it. In chapter 29, the woe is addressed to ‘Ariel, the city where David encamped’, and that, of course, is Jerusalem. And God says,

Ah, Ariel, Ariel, the city where David encamped! Add year to year; let the feasts run their round. Yet I will distress Ariel, and there shall be moaning and lamentation, and she shall be to me like an Ariel. And I will encamp against you all round, and will besiege you with towers and I will raise siege works against you. And you will be brought low; from the earth you shall speak, and from the dust your speech will be bowed down; your voice shall come from the ground like the voice of a ghost, and from the dust your speech shall whisper. (vv. 1–4)

God is bringing siege, meaning that he will bring the Assyrians against them, and they will be God’s rod of anger and will besiege Jerusalem. But then in verse 5, God announces the swift action that he will mete out against Assyria.

But the multitude of your foreign foes shall be like small dust, and the multitude of the ruthless like passing chaff. And in an instant, suddenly, you will be visited by the Lord of hosts with thunder and with earthquake and great noise, with whirlwind and tempest, and the flame of a devouring fire. And the multitude of all the nations that fight against Ariel, all that fight against her and her stronghold and distress her, shall be like a dream, a vision of the night. As when a hungry man dreams he is eating and awakes with his hunger not satisfied, or as when a thirsty man dreams he is drinking and awakes faint, with his thirst not quenched, so shall the multitude of all the nations be that fight against Mount Zion. (vv. 5–8)

Here is the first description, and there are others, that refer to the final siege of Jerusalem that will be broken by the Lord himself.

How much of this is meant to describe the historical event when Sennacherib sent his Rabshakeh to Jerusalem and besieged it, and the siege was eventually broken? As far as we are aware, no trumpets were sounded or were heard at that stage in Israel. Nor were there earthquakes, or great noises and whirlwinds and tempests. So, is that just a little bit of poetic hyperbole? Or, is this prophecy of the breaking of the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib’s armies under the Rabshakeh also a prototype of a time when the nations shall come and surround Jerusalem and attack it, and then the Lord shall come and deliver the city? But for the moment, we leave that kind of question.

The folly of going down to Egypt

Emphasis is also laid on another theme at some length, and that is the folly of going down to Egypt for help, when only the Lord can save. In 30:1–18 and then again in 31:1–3 this matter of going down to Egypt for help is stressed. It is one of the noticeable themes.

Of course, when we look at the context surrounding these passages and notice the references to the defeat of Assyria, and also to the Lord’s coming and setting up of his kingdom, we shall have to decide once more whether all the passages in this Part 3 follow each other in chronological order, or in some other thematic order.

The emphasis on rightly understanding Scripture

The thing that we wish to emphasize now is a point that I have recorded at point 5 under ‘Preliminary Remarks’ in the notes for Part 3B. We shall also notice in these chapters a heavy emphasis on the word of God, on the book (that is, the scroll), on teachers and teaching, and on the right and wrong interpretation of Scripture; and on how the rejection of God’s truth leads to judicial blindness and inability to make sense of Scripture.

Considering the context of these observations about Scripture might well raise a question. In the book of Isaiah you are now dealing with the last moments before the besieging of the city by Sennacherib and the coming of the great enemy. In that context, why should this special, heavy emphasis be laid on the teaching and study of Scripture, and on the question of the right interpretation of Scripture, and the wrong interpretation of Scripture? Why should that come here? You could understand it if you found it in an epistle by Paul to Timothy or something, but why here?

It perhaps may help us to judge the importance of this theme in this context if, for the moment, we left Isaiah, and went to Matthew 23, for that chapter records what our Lord Jesus said to the rabbis, lawyers and teachers of Scripture in Jerusalem within a few days of him being rejected and crucified by the nation. And indeed, in Matthew’s Gospel, what he said to them on the topic of the understanding and teaching of Scripture comes in chapter 23 immediately before our Lord’s prophecy of the sack of Jerusalem, of his second coming and the cosmic disturbances that shall accompany that coming, which comes in chapter 24.

Do you see how those two chapters go together? Why this long talk in Matthew 23 by our Lord on the right and wrong use of Scripture, and the right and wrong interpretation of it, and so on, immediately before his message to the disciples about the end of the age and the cataclysmic judgments at the second coming, let alone the up and coming siege of Jerusalem in ad 70? Presumably, there is some inherent connection between the two things. Certainly, Matthew 23 at least emphasizes how important our Lord regarded the proper interpretation of Scripture, if he spent those last hours talking about it before he finally went out of the temple at Jerusalem, never to return.

The right and wrong use of Scripture in Matthew 23

So, let us look briefly at Matthew’s Gospel, chapter 23, and at what our Lord has to say, that we might impress it upon our minds that this is, indeed, a disquisition on the right and wrong use of Scripture.

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat’. (vv. 1–2)

Argument is had as to whether he meant it literally and whether he was referring to that particular bit of stone that in many synagogues stuck out of the wall on one side and was supposed to be the seat where the scribes or the doctors of the law sat to expound the law, and therefore was called Moses’ seat, and whether that is so or isn’t so. We needn’t bother our heads about it. The idea that they sit in Moses’ seat is that they claim to be expounding Moses, and therefore, they claim for their teaching the authority of Moses.

All right, so what? Well, therefore ‘practise and observe whatever they tell you’ (v. 3), because, the apostles were fishermen at the time and not endowed by the Holy Spirit, and they were taught by the experts in the law. Our Lord does not encourage religious antinomianism or riot or rebellion. These experts are handling Moses’ law, so do what they teach you. Doubtless, he would have added the condition, that if they teach you something contrary to the Lord you shouldn’t do it; but the immediate point is, ‘do what they teach from the Bible, but do not after their works’ (see v. 3).

What do you mean?

‘For they say and do not’ (see v. 4). The official teachers expounding the law, and binding it on others, don’t do it themselves.

They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. (v. 4)

That is attitude number one that is false.

They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long. (v. 5)

They do so with an excessive amount of zeal, to carry out to the last centimetre what is in the law about making the word of God and writing it on your hands and on your forehead (Deut 6:6–8). They took it literally and wrote out the law, and put it in a little box. Or, they wrote out the shema, or some commandments for the law in a little box with straps on, and strapped it all round their hands, and used enough straps so you could positively see they have got the straps on. Well, what’s the point of having it on if nobody noticed? And then they had a box with a bit of the law, probably with the shema in the box, with straps around their forehead. You couldn’t help noticing it. And the borders of their garments had, as Numbers 15 said they should, a band of blue on the skirt of their garments (see vv. 37–41); well, they put a band of blue, but I tell you, it was more than a centimetre wide! When they walked down the street in their pomp, with their long old nightdress stuff, and kicking it out, as you have to do if you wear a long nightdress, the blue band stood out for all to see. In this way, they were doing their works to be seen by men.

and they love the place of honour at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the market-places and being called rabbi by others. (vv. 6–7)

This is the pride of office, because they were so-called teachers of the law, and they loved it.

But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. (vv. 8–12)

Come down a little bit to verse 16 to see the kind of exegeses in which these rabbis specialized.

Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? (vv. 16–19)

He is denouncing their rabbinic interpretation of Scripture, their hermeneutical methods. And then he pronounces woe upon them.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. (v. 23)

The Bible commanded them to take tithes, so they went to the extreme. They would take tithes of the tiniest little seeds you could imagine and count them out, to get the right proportion: one in ten. ‘All right,’ says Christ, ‘you ought to have done that, but not to leave the weightier things of the law undone. And the weightier things of the law are judgment, true justice that is, and mercy and faith. Didn’t the law command that as well?’

In another passage earlier in this Gospel, our Lord rebuked them. ‘If you had known what this means,’ quoting their Old Testament, ‘“I desire mercy, and not sacrifice”, you would not have condemned the [innocent]’ (12:7). Such was their readiness to condemn people on their particular interpretation of the laws, into the minutiae, so that they had I don’t know how many hundreds of commandments about the Sabbath, they had overlooked the other weightier matters of the law, such as mercy.

That has a word to us as well, I think. How easily we come to condemn others, because they don’t come up to our particular interpretation of the exactitudes of what we think is a commandment, and become so hard over it that we lose all sense of mercy and compassion. And the danger is, then, that we actually condemn the innocent as the Pharisees did, when they condemned Christ’s disciples. They said the disciples were breaking the Sabbath. They weren’t doing anything of the sort, actually. They were innocent. These men Christ is addressing had an unbalanced interpretation of Scripture.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. (23:25)

Well, the law commanded it should be done, but what was the more important thing, cleaning your plates, or cleaning your inner heart?

I needn’t go further. You will see there our Lord’s condemnation of the experts’ interpretation of the law of Moses on this occasion, serious as it was. This was just before he left the temple for the last time and, as he went out, gave to his disciples the prophecy of the second coming, including the devastation of Jerusalem City by the Romans, and the awesome description of his second coming in power and great glory.

The right and wrong use of Scripture in Matthew 15

Let us just shift back to Matthew 15 to hear another condemnation of the interpretation of Scripture.

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, ‘Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.’ He answered them, ‘And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, “Honour your father and your mother,” and, “Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.” But you say, “If anyone tells his father or his mother, ‘What you would have gained from me is given to God,’ he need not honour his father.” So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.’ (vv. 1–6)

This is a serious matter, for two or three reasons. Here was a plain command of Scripture, but by the intricacies of rabbinic exposition, they had devised an interpretation of Scripture that allowed a man to say to his parents, ‘Yes, I know. Yes, you’re in a bad way, and really, I should support you, but you see, I made a covenant with God in the temple, and my money is given to God, so it is Corban. And because it is given to the temple, I don’t have any immediate control of it, so I can’t give it to you, because it’s already given to God, you see?’ On the other hand, you could come to an arrangement with the priests that they could use it for you for your other requirements. That was very nice wasn’t it? And our Lord, in flaming anger, accused them. ‘You have made void God’s own word because of your tradition of interpretation.’ That is a very solemn thing to do, isn’t it?

If you read Mark’s account of this same incident, you will see that our Lord accuses them of three things. ‘You have added to God’s word. You have then put the tradition in the place of God’s word. And then, by your tradition, you have made void the word of God’ (see Mark 7:9–13).

In Matthew 15, after he had said they had made void the word of God, our Lord quotes Isaiah.

You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: ‘This people honours me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ (Matt 15:7–9)

We are about to read that passage of Isaiah in this final section of Part 3B, which has to do with the interpretation of holy Scripture. And it will be in this context again. Just before the hostile armies besiege Jerusalem, the prophet is given to denounce the people’s attitude to the word of God and to the written Scriptures. Surely, we see the connection between our Lord’s denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees for their wrong interpretation of Scripture in that solemn context when he is talking next about the second coming of the Son of Man, the fall of Jerusalem and so on, and Isaiah being led to accuse the people of his day of their wrong interpretation of Scripture and their wrong attitude to Scripture, in these final moments before the army of Sennacherib surrounded Jerusalem.

According to Isaiah, then, our attitude to Scripture and the right interpretation of it is an exceedingly important matter, of such proportion that it merits being talked of at length in this particular context. We think of what our Lord said, as we read earlier in John 12. Having finished his ministry to the world at large, he went away and hid himself. We quoted it because, in that chapter, John quotes Isaiah 6 and the question of making the people’s heart heavy, because they had rejected the light of the gospel through Christ.

It is the charge of the New Testament against the leaders of Jerusalem that, because they rejected Christ, they suffered the judicial blindness of God thereafter. The Scripture has become a closed book to many of the orthodox rabbis. They don’t understand Isaiah 53, do they? They don’t want to read it, anyway. They refuse to recognize what it is talking about, and in so doing, much of the Old Testament prophets become a closed book. That is serious.

Well, if that is so, then we move on to begin to consider the contents of this sizeable part of Isaiah with the woes, first of all.

The first woe (28:1–29)

Concerning Ephraim (28:1–13)

The woe is first of all directed against Ephraim in verses 1–13.

Woe to the crown of pride of the drunkards of Ephraim, and to the fading flower of his glorious beauty, which is on the head of the fat valley of them that are overcome with wine! (v. 1 rv)

A gory picture is painted of Ephraim. Surely their city of Samaria did have a beautiful setting, and its beauty might be called the flower of his glorious beauty; but in the applied sense of the metaphor, the boasting of Ephraim and what they boasted in was fast fading. They were soon coming to the day when the Assyrians would attack them and deport the lot of them and, at this time, our Lord warned them.

Behold, the Lord has one who is mighty and strong; like a storm of hail, a destroying tempest, like a storm of mighty, overflowing waters, he casts down to the earth with his hand. The proud crown of the drunkards of Ephraim will be trodden underfoot; and the fading flower of its glorious beauty, which is on the head of the rich valley, will be like a first-ripe fig before the summer: when someone sees it, he swallows it as soon as it is in his hand. (vv. 2–4)

It will be as quick as that, he says, when the Assyrians come down to your part of the country.

In that day the Lord of hosts will be a crown of glory, and a diadem of beauty, to the remnant of his people, and a spirit of justice to him who sits in judgement, and strength to those who turn back the battle at the gate. (vv. 5–6)

The remnant will be given a spirit of true judgment and courage to face the battle.

These also reel with wine and stagger with strong drink; the priest and the prophet reel with strong drink, they are swallowed by wine, they stagger with strong drink, they reel in vision, they stumble in giving judgement. For all tables are full of filthy vomit, with no space left. (vv. 7–8)

Thus far, the denunciation.

As to the next words, I follow Alec Motyer. The portion in his commentary on this point is well worth reading. ¹⁴ He argues, and I think correctly, that now verse 9 begins the reply of these drunkards in Ephraim. Their drunkenness, perhaps, has softened their brains somewhat, but when Isaiah rebukes them as he does and tries to teach them, they reply, if I might paraphrase their language, ‘Who does he think he’s teaching, and whom is he going to make understand the message? This is kindergarten stuff! He thinks he’s teaching people that are just weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breast! Who does he think he’s talking to, and trying to teach? We are not kids. We are not Sunday school children. Who does he suppose he’s talking to about, “Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little”?’ (see vv. 9–10).

And there Motyer will point out to you what the Hebrew is. I would not attempt to pronounce it, but it is a deliberate mockery, as though it were being reduced to the kind of rhythm that you might use to teach infants in the school the times table: ‘Once two is two. Twice twos are four. Three twos are six.’ And they are mocking the prophet saying, ‘He’s teaching kindergarten stuff to us!’ The response to the word of God through the prophet by these chaps is to dismiss it as stuff to teach their kids. ‘Don’t try and teach us grown-ups. We are a sophisticated lot! And we can carry our drink anyway.’

What will be the response of God to that outburst by the drunkards of Ephraim, as they mock the teaching of the word of God as kindergarten stuff? ‘All right,’ says God.

For by people of strange lips and with a foreign tongue the Lord will speak to this people, to whom he has said, ‘This is rest; give rest to the weary; and this is repose’; yet they would not hear. (vv. 11–12)

He will teach them with men of strange tongues. It would be a strange tongue when they heard the Assyrians talking outside their walls. Then the Assyrians took them off to deport them, and they heard the Assyrian language, which to them would be gibberish sounds. God would have to teach them by letting them be taken captive and be spoken to by Assyrians. More than that, God was offering them rest, and they would not hear. So then they will have judgment.

I don’t know about you, but I have a fanciful mind, and it flits like a butterfly. You will have to forgive me. I am thinking of Matthew once again, and chapter 11 in particular. When the Son of God incarnate stood before them, he said,

Come to me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. (vv. 28–30)

They wouldn’t listen! The Jewish nation came to disaster. And in the very next chapter the Pharisees were accusing Christ’s disciples, and therefore Christ, of breaking the Sabbath, if you please, according to their interpretation of the law. This was their biblical interpretation, against God incarnate offering them rest, and to come and learn of him that they might find rest for their souls.

To see what happened because the people of Isaiah’s day refused God’s word, now notice the next bit of the judgment.

Therefore shall the word of the Lord be unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, there a little; that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. (v. 13 rv)

Do you know, when I was a young man (it was a long time ago) my elders exhorted me in these terms. They said, ‘This is the way to learn the Bible, and not to learn it all at once, young man. I hope you are not dissatisfied with our Bible reading. You didn’t get much out of it? Well, never mind, because it’s line upon line, you know. And precept upon precept, and that’s how you have to learn it. Don’t try to learn it too quickly.’

They forgot to quote the rest of the verse: ‘line upon line; here a little, there a little; that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken’. This is not a recipe to be recommended for studying Scripture and learning it! If we are going to learn Scripture, we must give all of our powers, all that we can give, to the topic. Why do you suppose that we give ourselves to our physics, chemistry and engineering, and all the rest of the things with the vigour of our manhood, and think we can get by, by studying Scripture like Sunday school children? I’ve no wonder that sometimes Christian communities lose their young people. They tell me, ‘But the young people can’t take it’. And when they go to school, they are taught computers from the age of about two, and they learn such complicated matters that they could stand me on my head. And they come to the church, and there they are taught like Sunday school kids, and Little Red Riding Hood stories. They despise it with all their hearts! Their impression of Scripture is that it’s a little fairy story for kids, and it’s not as serious as physics.

What is our attitude to God’s word and the learning of it? What status would you give it in a person’s life? Granted that not everybody is free to devote hours of study every day to Scripture; I know that. I’m talking of the status we give it, what we expect the church to learn by our teaching programmes and whether we make it clear to our young folks that this is as vital and important as their physics, and more so! How shall we face this world in its increasing ungodliness, if we are content just to teach young people pleasing little stories, and don’t make them think hard about God’s word?

In this context of the coming of the Assyrian with his ungodly, anti-God threats to Jerusalem’s basic beliefs, Ephraim’s and Jerusalem’s sad, inadequate and false exposition of God’s word at the time was treachery to the people of God. See, therefore, God’s judicial judgment. If these drunkards of Ephraim mock the teaching of the prophet as though it were kindergarten stuff, then they shall find that when it comes to Scripture, it seems to be kindergarten stuff, and they make nothing of it, and they go backward and fall to the ground.

Concerning the people of Jerusalem (28:14–29)

So now at verse 14, the prophet turns from denouncing Ephraim to denouncing the scornful men that ruled ‘this people in Jerusalem’.

Therefore hear the word of the Lord, you scoffers, who rule this people in Jerusalem! Because you have said, ‘We have made a covenant with death, and with Sheol we have an agreement, when the overwhelming whip passes through it will not come to us, for we have made lies our refuge, and in falsehood we have taken shelter’; therefore thus says the Lord God, ‘Behold, I am the one who has laid as a foundation in Zion, a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation: “Whoever believes will not be in haste.”’ (vv. 14–16)

(That is, ‘they shall not be disturbed and all in a bother’; that is what it means.)

And I will make justice the line, and righteousness the plumb line; and hail will sweep away the refuge of lies, and waters will overwhelm the shelter.’ Then your covenant with death will be annulled, and your agreement with Sheol will not stand; when the overwhelming scourge passes through, you will be beaten down by it. As often as it passes through it will take you; for morning by morning it will pass through, by day and by night; and it will be sheer terror to understand the message. For the bed is too short to stretch oneself on, and the covering too narrow to wrap oneself in. For the Lord will rise up as on Mount Perazim; as in the Valley of Gibeon he will be roused; to do his deed—strange is his deed! and to work his work—alien is his work! Now therefore do not scoff, lest your bonds be made strong; for I have heard a decree of destruction from the Lord God of hosts against the whole land. (vv. 17–22)

The scorners in Jerusalem scorned Isaiah’s message. They did not just reject it, they scorned it. And what was that message? Well, put simply, it was that they were called to trust in the Lord, and not to call in Assyria. They were to trust in the Lord, and not go down to Egypt for help. And Isaiah was scorned for preaching such a policy. ‘Oh, that’s stupid; that’s simplistic. That isn’t grown up reality. You live in the world, you know. You’ve got to take it seriously. You don’t know anything about diplomacy. Well, of course, all right, you simple believer, you trust in the Lord, my brother; but in actual fact, if you’re going to save Jerusalem, you’d better engage in some hard headed politics. That’s what you have to do.’

The pact with death and hell

What is this covenant they made with death and hell? And a lot of pack of lies it was. Different people have different ideas. It seems to me that it well might be the famous (and infamous) covenant that Hezekiah tried to make with the king of Assyria (2 Kgs 18:13–16). He made a covenant by robbing the temple of its riches and paying the king of Assyria with it. Coming back, as we heard in the previous section, he found Jerusalem all agog with joy and everyone was shouting from the housetops and dancing for joy, and having some festival parties and getting drunk. They were celebrating because of this marvellous guarantee that they had from Assyria, that Assyria wouldn’t attack them. The reason they said ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die’ (22:13) and celebrated this covenant with death was that they were initially full of joy and pleasure that there would be ‘peace in our time’, like Master Chamberlain said prior to the second world war. They were saying, in effect, ‘You needn’t bother more about that, because, when the worst comes to the worst, you’re going to die anyway, so enjoy yourself while you can.’ They had bought time from the king of Assyria, and they were going to enjoy themselves.

They felt vindicated for their smart diplomacy, for the way they had faced up to the difficulty of the situation and engaged in hard headed politics. It was a question of political survival and doing what was expedient, ‘for the good of the nation’, as they might have put it.

The approach they adopted was not dissimilar from that adopted by a later generation of leaders in Jerusalem, which we read about in John 11. For when Christ had done a notable miracle that could not be denied, and raised up Lazarus from the dead, the chief priests and the Sanhedrin felt that they must act and not allow things to continue as they were. ‘You see,’ they said, ‘if we don’t execute this Jesus, the Romans will come and take away our temple and our nation. It’s not a question of justice. It is expedient that one man die for the people and the whole nation not perish. If you’re going to survive in this political world, you mustn’t allow this Jesus to keep inflaming the mob with his teaching, or else it will upset the Romans. And we want to keep the temple, don’t we? We want to keep our city. We can’t have this man talking like he’s talking. He’ll have to go’ (see vv. 45–50).

That’s hard politics, that is. These were men who didn’t believe in the resurrection. Their only world was this world. You had to be careful not to upset the Romans, then, whatever your religious beliefs; and if it upset the Romans to have Jesus around about the place, as they thought it would, they were prepared to murder him in order to keep their position.

The high priest in Jerusalem at the time, you will remember, was appointed by the Romans. The Romans kept the high priest robes in the Castle of Antonia. The high priest was installed, not because he was the son of the right line of Aaron. He was installed as high priest when the Romans unlocked the cupboard in which the robes were kept in their castle, and allowed the high priest to go through the ceremonies of induction with those robes on. They held his robes, and the high priest didn’t want anybody upsetting the Romans.

When, after the resurrection, the apostles started to preach in the name of Jesus, and preached the resurrection, of all things, the Sadducees got on their high horse. That they should be preaching the resurrection, and virtually accusing the high priest of judicial murder of Jesus, was alarming stuff to the rulers; and they put the apostles in prison, of course, or tried to.

In might be that those in Isaiah’s time would not have described this covenant as a covenant with death and hell. They would have described it as wise political diplomacy that grown-ups have to engage in. It is Isaiah that is characterizing it as a covenant with death and hell, and as a pack of lies. They will find it won’t cover them, and when the actual truth breaks on them, it shall be nothing but terror to see. It seems to me this might well be describing the brief respite they got by Hezekiah trying to do a deal with the king of Assyria and paying him all this money. But alas! It didn’t last, did it? It turned out to be a pack of lies.

Then God warns them that he is going to deliver his people like he did in the day of Perazim and in the Valley of Gibeon. The Valley of Gibeon is a reference to the time when the southern confederacy of kings came against the Gibeonites, as recorded in the book of Joshua. The Gibeonites had come over to the side of the Israelites and got a guarantee that they would never be destroyed. When the southern kings heard that the Gibeonites had left them and gone over to Israel, they regarded it as treachery; and they came up to attack the Gibeonites. God, in response, sent Joshua on a forced march overnight to come and fight for the Gibeonites. And, not content with that, God fought on the side of the Gibeonites, and rained down stones from heaven on the southern confederacy as they tried to flee and escape. So, on this occasion God was raining down stones on the attackers (Josh 9:1–10:15).

The implied question in Isaiah 28 is, ‘When God arises to attack the Assyrians, are you going to be found on their side, gentlemen, in league with the Assyrians?’ That will be a strange thing then, if God comes and destroys the enemy, and you are on his side in league with the enemy.

There are those who say that this passage is, in its way, a prototype of coming things when Israel of the future will be tempted to make a covenant with the antichrist himself, or with the beast himself. They would do so only to find that when the Lord comes in power and great glory to destroy the antichrist, the Jews who have made the pact with antichrist are found to be on the wrong side. This is solemn stuff, isn’t it? God warns of the coming danger, therefore.

Now look at verse 16 once more.

Behold, I am the one who has laid as a foundation in Zion, a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation: ‘Whoever believes will not . . .’

To use common language, ‘he will not get all excited and panic struck’. He will have the confidence that he has a sure foundation under him, instead of a covenant that is a pack of lies that you can’t really trust. Presumably, that stone is, in the first place, trust in God himself, and in the word of God. But you will recognize the phraseology because you have read it in the New Testament, in 1 Peter. ‘I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious’ (2:6). ‘Unto you, therefore, which believe he is precious’ (see v. 7), but to those who don’t believe, what now? What about them?

Audience: He becomes a ‘stumbling block’.

DWG: Yes, a stumbling block (see v. 8). Our Lord used the imagery when talking to the priests and the Pharisees. In the last days of the week before he was crucified, he talked about himself as the stone, the sure foundation. He warned that those who stumbled would be broken. He added that at his second coming it would be like the dream of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2. Daniel saw the stone cut out without hands, and it came and fell upon the image and smashed it to smithereens. ‘So,’ said our Lord, ‘he that stumbles on the stone shall be broken, but on whomsoever the stone falls, it will grind him to powder’ (see Matt 21:41–44). He is himself the sure stone. But, in Isaiah’s time, the reference must be to God and his word, surely.

Audience: What about the Davidic covenant?

DWG: Well yes, you may speak of it as the Davidic covenant, if you like. And it comes down to God and his faithful covenant and word, and trusting the covenant of God, rather than this covenant made with the anti-God king.

His oath, His covenant, His blood,

Support me in the whelming flood;

When all around my soul gives way,

He then is all my hope and stay.

On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand;

All other ground is sinking sand. ¹⁵

A parable from agriculture (28:23–29)

Finally, let’s consider verses 23–29, which at first sight might seem to be incongruous in this solemn context. At first sight, it appears to be a lesson in farming and agriculture. Let’s read it anyway to get the facts.

Give ear, and hear my voice; give attention, and hear my speech. Does he who ploughs for sowing plough continually? Does he continually open and harrow his ground? (vv. 23–24)

Of course he doesn’t. He ploughs until he’s done a good job, but he doesn’t go on ploughing forever when he has properly ploughed.

When he has levelled its surface, does he not scatter dill, sow cumin, and put in wheat in rows and barley in its proper place, and emmer as the border? (v. 25)

Yes, he does, for the man has certain instincts that God himself put in him to know how to order his farm, and what operations to do when and at what time and for how long, and to do all things in their due order. You can’t sow if you haven’t ploughed, but you don’t go on ploughing for the sake of ploughing. You plough until the ground is ready and you have harrowed it down to a nice tilth, and then you sow. You sow the different seeds in different orders and in different thicknesses, and with different spaces. And all that knowhow is put in a man’s heart by God, his creator, ‘For he is rightly instructed; his God teaches him’ (v. 26). And then also when it comes to the reaping and the threshing.

Dill is not threshed with a threshing sledge, nor is a cart wheel rolled over cumin, but dill is beaten out with a stick, and cumin with a rod. (v. 27)

Why so? Because they are very delicate seeds. You wouldn’t put a big, heavy cart over them to thresh them. You might do it with wheat or barley, but not with these little seeds. I’ve done it myself, of course. When you get delicate seed like clover seeds, and you want to thresh it, you can use a flail. To do it with a hinged rod and knock out the delicate seed, well, if you used that sort of heavier instrument you would eventually lose a lot of expensive seed.

Does one crush grain for bread? No, he does not thresh it for ever; when he drives his cart wheel over it with his horses, he does not crush it. (v. 28)

That means when he threshes it he has got to be careful not to destroy the seed. In some agricultural systems, they used a sleigh. Until quite recent years, you could see it done in Spain. They took planks of wood that were put together, and flints or bits of iron or steel put in underneath, and then you put that down on the straw with the ears of the corn on the cob. So you’ve got a heap of this stuff on the threshing floor, and you hitched up the old wooden sleigh to an ox. The farmer stood on the sleigh on top, to keep it down, and the ox went round and round and round; and with these flints and whatnot, it cut up the stalk of the wheat of the barley, and it knocked out the seed. But you had to be careful. If you did that too much and kept on threshing when the seed was knocked out, you’d grind the seed up to powder.

That would be daft. You don’t do that with a threshing machine or a threshing sleigh. You have to know when to stop. Having used the right threshing instrument suitable for the corn, you have to know how long you have to carry on the operation, and then stop and collect up the corn and mill it in the proper fashion, so that you can then turn it into bread. That is sensible agriculture, and the knowhow to do it is put in a farmer’s heart, says God. It is put into man’s heart by the creator.

This also comes from the Lord of hosts; he is wonderful in counsel and excellent in wisdom. (v. 29)

What is the relevance of that? Let that be my last question to you tonight. What is that lesson in agriculture meant to teach us in this particular context?

Audience: Perhaps it is that common sense comes from God also, but they weren’t using common sense.

DWG: It could be that, couldn’t it?

Audience: How about it being the exposition of that little phrase ‘in measure’ from 27:8?

DWG: Yes.

Audience: Well, even in the judgment, God is going to have a gleaning.

DWG: Yes, and even in the judgment, God knows how to measure it. This is the God that gives the wisdom to the farmer to know how to use the right operation, and to use the right instrument, and to get the corn but not to crush it. That God, when he starts to chastise his people, will know how to limit it and how long to keep the operation on for the results he is achieving. He knows how to treat one lot of people somewhat different from another lot of people, because he knows the amount of chastisement that is suitable to each. And we can see his purposes with men of the world and with his people. I take it that here we are talking about God’s treatment of his people, his discipline of them, and also his discipline and treatment of the world. It could be, couldn’t it?

Audience: It is a wonderful counsel of excellent guidance.

DWG: That’s right. And that God deserved to be trusted by the people of Jerusalem.

Audience: In chapter 21, we read, ‘Oh, my threshing and the grain of my floor!’ (see v. 10). It shows that he cares.

DWG: Yes, he does indeed. Jerusalem was built on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. And you remember why David decided to build it there. It was because David himself had made an exceedingly serious mistake in the pride of his heart, and had numbered the people. And even Joab, who wasn’t known for his godliness (at least he didn’t have a big reputation in that regard), suggested to David he shouldn’t number the people. ‘Why must the king know the number?’ (see 2 Sam 24:3). Why? Well, pride, I imagine. As a result of it, God’s discipline fell upon the city, did it not?

And God said to David, ‘Choose which judgment you’ll have. This, or that or the other?’ And he said ‘I cast myself on the mercy of God’ (see vv. 12–14). And the Angel of the Lord appeared with a sword outstretched over Jerusalem, and David went out in front of the people and said, ‘It’s I only that have sinned’ (see v. 17). The sword of the angel was stopped there, and the plague was finished. And then, in gratitude to God for his mercy in limiting his discipline, and forgiving his people, David went up to Araunah the Jebusite where the plague was stopped. He bought the place and built an altar there, and made the decree that it was at this place that the temple should be built. Here is David, building a temple on the threshing floor, where God’s discipline of his people and their mistake was brought to its end.

God knows how to treat his people. He will know how to use the Assyrian to discipline his people without absolutely destroying Jerusalem completely. Yes, God knows how.

Audience: You said yourself that it was aimed at getting the maximum result.

DWG: Yes, that’s right. And it’s a long jump from there to here, but when God disciplines us, he is looking for results, and he knows how, and in what measure, to discipline. And, ‘He will not always chide,’ says the psalmist (103:9); ‘for if I do, the spirit of man should fail before me’ (see Isa 57:16). He knows how to measure and to bring us through, that he might achieve the maximum result of fruitfulness in our lives. And upon that note, perhaps, we ought to end our session.

¹³ The full size version of this chart can be found in the Appendices.

¹⁴ Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah (pp. 231-2), IVP (1993).

¹⁵ Edward Mote (1797-1874), ‘My Hope is Built on Nothing Less’ (1834). 

19: The Second Woe

Part 3B (28:1–35:10) Continued

This last part of the third section if Isaiah is very closely reasoned, and is full of detail. That makes it, perhaps, one of the more difficult parts of the book to comprehend, and to grasp what exactly are the main issues at stake, seeing as there appears to be so much repetition. For that reason, I have made fairly extensive notes. They are little more than a survey of the material. I hope you will find them of some help as we go through these last chapters. ¹⁶ From chapter 28 onward, we have a succession of woes, and we have considered the first one in chapter 28, and now we come to the second in 29:1–24.

The second woe (29:1–24)

God’s announcement of his chastisement and then of his deliverance (29:1–8)

This is a long woe and has a number of subsections. It is addressed to Jerusalem. We see that from verse 1, which speaks of ‘the city where David encamped’. In calling the city so, it takes us back to the time when David had recently been joined by the ten tribes of Israel, and now, with the whole nation united, his first act was to take the united armies of Israel and Judah and go to Jebus, encamp against it and take it. So the reference is, presumably, to the foundation of Jerusalem city by David in those far-off days (2 Sam 5:6–10).

The idea of David encamping against Jebus and taking it recurs in verse 3, where God says, ‘I will encamp against you all round’, meaning that he will bring the Assyrians to besiege the city. This, therefore, is a dramatic setting, is it not? We are contemplating, on the one hand, the original taking of the city by David, as he encamped against Jebus, and now the armies of Assyria brought up by God to encamp around the city as though this were going to be the extinguishing of the city of Jerusalem by the anti-God forces.

It is called, however, not Jerusalem but, as you see, Ariel. Perhaps the best translation, according to the experts, is the ‘altar hearth’. The word ariel is used in Ezekiel 43:16 in that sense. So, this is the altar hearth, that is, it indicates not only the temple at Jerusalem, but the altar and its hearth, where, according to the instructions of Leviticus, the fire was never to go out. We shall come across the phrase eventually, ‘Who among us shall dwell amidst the eternal burnings?’ (see 33:14). This is the fire of devotion to God consuming the daily burnt offering, but the fire is indicative of God’s holiness, ever to be satisfied by the sacrifice.

The city where the fire of God’s holiness ever burned is seriously compromised by the behaviour of the Jerusalemites of the time, and hence the discipline of God by bringing up the anti-God forces against the city to encamp against it. So many in the city are sold out to paganism that it has made a nonsense of what the city stood for, and it seriously involved the testimony of the holy God. Hence the extreme discipline that God now brings up against the city. You reap what you sow.

The interesting story, therefore, is how God will deliver; but we now must expect in these last chapters a very severe diagnosis of the failure and the sin of Jerusalem City, not least, as we saw yesterday, in their misinterpretation, violation and rejection of the word of God, both spoken by the prophet and written in the law. So now God announces against Ariel, the city of David, that he will distress the city.

Yet I will distress Ariel, and there shall be moaning and lamentation, and she shall be to me like an Ariel. (29:2)

Ariel here speaks of the hearth where the fire of God’s holiness burnt and consumed their iniquity. He will distress the city, as I say, by bringing the Assyrians against it.

And you shall be brought down, and shall speak out of the ground, and your speech shall be low out of the dust; and your voice shall be as of one that has a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and your speech shall whisper out of the dust. (v. 4 rv)

We understand the idea of someone that had a familiar spirit from some of the words that are used in the ancient language to describe it, from which we get our modern word ventriloquist. A ventriloquist is somebody that speaks through the stomach. I don’t know if you’ve ever tried it; I haven’t, so I can’t say what it’s like. It indicates that curious false voice of people who are in some kind of a trance, or are even demon possessed, where the voice seems to come from the lower regions, rather than from the vocal cords. And here it is used as a metaphor: Jerusalem’s voice will be brought low; they shall speak out of the dust.

What a description that is of Jerusalem. Earlier in Isaiah we read, ‘For out of Zion shall go the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem’ (2:3). They ought to have been the centre from which the word of the Lord went through all the earth. Because of Jerusalem’s compromising: its rejection of the prophetic word, its misinterpretation of the written word, its compromise with idolatry and its going down to Egypt for help, Jerusalem’s voice is brought to a scarcely audible whisper. That is sad, isn’t it? And if you would ask the Israelis at this present time, ‘What does Jerusalem have to say to the world?’ I wonder what the Jerusalemites would answer. What message would they have?

Of course, it is okay for us, I suppose, thus to judge Israel; but what would we say if we were to ask, ‘What voice has Christendom for the world? With all of its compromises, with unbelief and modernism and lax morality, and its compromise with pagan religions, what voice has it got?’

God will bring the Assyrians upon them, and Jerusalem’s voice will be as though it is a mutter out of the dust. We shall see the connection of thought, therefore, with Jerusalem’s voice bought low as we are about to read, once again, the allegation of their mistreatment of the written word of God and the voice of God through the oral ministry of the prophets. We shall then have occasion to look, again, at what we observed yesterday, namely, our Lord’s critique of his contemporaries (the scribes, Pharisees and the teachers of the law) and their attitude to Scripture. If we do not believe Scripture, if we abandon faith in God’s inspired word, we have no message for the people.

Having brought the Assyrians against the city, he thus taught the Jerusalemites a very necessary lesson, we hope, at least for the time being, which was to get back to daring to trust the word of God. For that was the issue, eventually, as chapters 36 and 37 will show. Hezekiah, after having compromised with the Assyrians and trying to buy them off, found how treacherous they were. They came and besieged the city. And now what hope had Hezekiah but to be cast on God to enquire of Isaiah the prophet what God said? Therefore, he was put to it whether, with the armies already round the city and breathing down his neck, he would believe the living word of God and dare to risk and stake everything on the reliability of the word of God through the prophet. That is the issue. God besieged the city until the people learned their basic lesson: whether they would believe God or not.

But then God would relieve the siege all of a sudden (29:5–8). The besieging armies would not just be overcome little by little. Hezekiah went into the house of the Lord and spread the letter from the Assyrian before the Lord. ‘That’s what he says, Lord. Now, what do you say?’ And when Hezekiah decided to believe God and not yield to the Assyrian demand, then God dissipated the Assyrian armies just like that, like a dream dies at the opening of the day, so to speak. It showed what the issue was. The Assyrian was not overcome by Judah’s military might. God dismissed them.

God and Jerusalem’s blindness (29:9–14)

Look at the following verses therefore. They show that we are on the right track, for it is saying that the issue is the word of God.

Astonish yourselves and be astonished; blind yourselves and be blind! Be drunk, but not with wine; stagger, but not with strong drink! For the Lord has poured out upon you a spirit of deep sleep, and has closed your eyes (the prophets), and covered your heads (the seers). And the vision of all this has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed. When men give it to one who can read, saying, ‘Read this,’ he says, ‘I cannot, for it is sealed.’ And when they give the book to one who cannot read, saying, ‘Read this,’ he says, ‘I cannot read.’ (vv. 9–12)

So, if you are illiterate and uneducated, you can’t read it; but the expert can’t read it either! He cannot make head nor tail of it.

I remember an occasion in my youth. It was early in the war, and I was in the senior classics form of the school, so pre-university Greek and Latin, and the only student. My teacher of classics used to read Plato’s philosophy along with me, and he knew I was a Christian. He told me that if he had his way, he would put me up against the wall and shoot me for my stance during the war; but that is a long story I won’t go into here. ¹⁷ I remember him saying to me, ‘Well, I think I know what Plato was talking about, but when it comes to St Paul, I take my hat off to him. I can’t understand a word of it.’

It is true that it is not just intelligence that is the key to understanding the word of God, because it is the word of God. If we reject the Lord, and we reject his Son, and we reject his Spirit, it will be double Dutch, whether you are ignorant, or whether you are learned.

Please do remember that most of the heresies that ever have invaded the church have not come from the ordinary people that sit in the pew. The churches more often had to be delivered from the professors of theology. I am not against learning, far from it; nor against expert knowledge of language and thought, but if, in independence of God, we come to his word and reject God’s voice and inspiration, and treat it as though it were a book made up by men, it will be double Dutch.

Thus did our Lord reproach, not the people of his day, but the expert interpreters of the law. How many times have you read in your Gospels that the ‘teachers of the law’, the nomodidaskaloi, were present? And right from the basic doctrine of forgiveness—that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins, to the conduct of life, he exposed the teachers of the law as being false in their interpretations. The seriousness of it was, of course, that it brought Israel to the moment when officially, through their leaders, they crucified Christ, and eventually brought on themselves the sack of the city by the Romans and Israel’s scattering among the nations.

One cannot emphasize too strongly this matter of our attitude to the revealed word of God, whether written, as by Isaiah’s time the law of Moses (and perhaps more) would have been written; or whether orally through the inspired prophets and, with us, the apostles. So, he says, he has closed the people’s eyes—their prophets; he has covered the people’s heads—the seers (v. 10). And we have already thought about the sentence of God in Isaiah 6: ‘Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy’ (v. 10), because they have rejected God’s earlier word. And Paul quotes it to the leaders of the synagogues in Rome, when they came to him (Acts 28:25–28).

Hearts cleansed by faith

Let us then notice God’s reaction.

And the Lord said: ‘Because this people draw near with their mouth and honour me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men, therefore, behold, I will again do wonderful things with this people, with wonder upon wonder; and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hidden.’ (vv. 13–14)

We have now to decide what God is talking about here. Verse 13 is easily understood, because our Lord quotes it when the Pharisees accused him of allowing his disciples to eat with unwashed hands (see Mark 7 and Matt 15). It was not, of course, a matter of hygiene. They were not saying, ‘Please wash your hands before you touch the food.’ It was a question of observing the laws of ceremonial purity, based on Leviticus. And they had taken them to extremes so that they had to wash them thoroughly, and they said how far up the arm you had to wash them. The idea was that if you had been down in the marketplace, or shaking hands with a Gentile (or, even worse, with a Samaritan) you were, by definition, defiled. You must wash, therefore, in case you had contracted this religious defilement. Our Lord’s comment upon it, among other things, was how empty this was. It is not what goes into a man that defiles him; it is what comes out that defiles him.

Of course, it is possible to defile yourself by, say, drinking sulphuric acid, and that would do a lot of harm to your insides; we know that. Our Lord is talking in Hebrew idiom: ‘It’s not so much this; the main thing is that’, which a Hebrew would express by using an absolute negative in the first clause, so ‘that which goes in does not defile you’. That is not meant to be an absolute statement; that is a comparative statement.

If it comes to impurity, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them; that is the main concern, for out of the heart proceed the things that defile. The trouble with ritual is that it gets people so concentrated on the external thing that, in the end, the external thing becomes everything; and what the external thing is meant to symbolize is lost.

You see it in the so-called ceremony of christening. Chrism, if you don’t know what it is, is the oil that has to be put on the infant’s head. There was one woman, I think it was in Spain, who said that her child was not well. She always told the priest that it was because the chrism he used at the child’s baptism was too hard, and wasn’t soft enough, and wasn’t in good condition! That is superstition run wild, but how many millions of people have been led to concentrate on the supposed miracle of the water, and the child that is baptized hasn’t the beginnings of a notion what the thing is meant to symbolize in the first place.

This is our Lord talking, and he says, ‘You have so emphasized the ritual, and you have displaced the positive commandments of God with your tradition.’ The real question then is moral and spiritual uncleanliness. And I am tempted, though the time be scarce, to refer you specifically to Matthew 15. While you are finding the place, let me now observe God’s response in Isaiah once more. God said he was going to do a marvellous work and a wonder that would annihilate the so-called wisdom and understanding of their wise men (29:14). So, we shall be forced to face the question. What was this marvellous work that God promised to do, that would confound the wisdom of their so-called wise men? You will have doubtless many suggestions to make, as to what work that was. But while you are thinking about that, allow me to draw some attention to the context of Matthew 15.

Matthew 15 and the need to recognize uncleanness in order to deal with it

Here are the scribes and Pharisees and teachers of the law concentrating on this external ritual, which had become a spiritual nonsense, instead of dealing with real uncleanliness. We read that our Lord went from that place.

And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, ‘Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.’ But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, ‘Send her away, for she is crying out after us.’ He answered, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’ But she came and knelt before him, saying, ‘Lord, help me.’ And he answered, ‘It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.’ She said, ‘Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.’ Then Jesus answered her, ‘O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.’ And her daughter was healed instantly. (vv. 21–28)

Leaving the scribes and teachers of the law of Judaism, who would have held that Gentiles were all unclean by definition, our Lord goes to this region. It is the region of Tyre and Sidon, if you please. We thought of Tyre yesterday. Spiritually speaking, it wasn’t all that clean, was it? And here comes a Canaanite woman. She’ll be unclean by definition, won’t she? And, what is worse, her daughter has an evil spirit. Mark says an ‘unclean’ evil spirit (7:25). Here was real uncleanness, devilish uncleanness.

What would our Lord do with a woman thus unclean? A few washings of the hands from the wrists up to the elbows wouldn’t have helped remarkably, would it? What will he do, and how will he cleanse the dear lady, and her daughter? She came and besought him saying, ‘O Lord, Son of David’. He didn’t reply. Wasn’t she a Gentile? The apostles came, disturbed that the woman was still crying out after them and making a public scene, and urged him to send the woman away. But he didn’t. So, she came and bowed down to him, saying, ‘Lord, help me.’ And he said, ‘It is not right to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs.’ Now, you can soften that if you want to, and say that he said ‘the little puppy dogs’, but puppy dogs, to an Israelite, were no more clean than their parents! To call anybody ‘a dog’ was to accuse them of uncleanness, whether they be puppies or grown-up. Our Lord is making her face the fact that she was unclean, not simply because she was a Gentile, but for her manner of life as a Canaanite, and her daughter indwelt by an unclean spirit. He will make her face it.

What does she say in reply? ‘You don’t stand there and call me a dog, you narrow-minded Jew!’ No. Something is going on here. She says, ‘That is absolutely correct, Lord.’ So, she was admitting she was a dog, was she? She wasn’t a puppy, even if her daughter was. ‘But,’ she said, ‘you know, in a rich man’s house, even the dogs get some of the bits and pieces that fall off the table, or are thrown down. You see, in a rich man’s house, he has so much food that the children are fed, but there are crumbs left over and the dogs eat them.’ Oh, what a grip on the Saviour’s heart! It is as though she were saying, ‘God, your God, has a table so bountiful. Yes, let the children be filled, but if your God is God like you say he is, there will be a few crumbs for us Gentiles.’

And the Lord, of course, discerned her faith. That’s what he was doing anyway, first to bring her to repentance and to own her uncleanliness, and then to provoke her faith in God. He said, ‘Great is your faith, be it done to as you have asked.’ And the unclean spirit departed that moment. He purified her heart by faith.

Gentile hearts purified by faith

Put your finger in that place and turn to Acts 15 with me, please. This is the story of the dispute that began in Antioch, when certain chaps came down from Jerusalem and taught the disciples that you cannot be justified, you cannot be saved, except you be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. And Paul and Barnabas said, ‘Not on your life,’ and opposed them. And the delegation went up to Jerusalem, not to find out what the gospel was, but to get a statement from all the apostles gathered together that they all agreed, and that they agreed with what Paul taught, and that they agreed that this doctrine, that you cannot be saved unless you are circumcised and keep the law of Moses, was false and was not what the apostles taught.

Paul and Barnabas declared what God had been doing amongst the Gentiles, and the debate continued. At last, Peter got up and pointed out that he was the one, anyway, that God had chosen to take the gospel to the Gentiles, notably on the occasion of the conversion of Cornelius. Then he added,

And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us. (Acts 15:8)

Peter is recalling what happened in Cornelius’s house (Acts 10). He preached the word after he was directed by the vision of the sheet let down from heaven with all those creepy crawly things he was commanded to eat. Do you remember that? He had learned the lesson not to call any man unclean by definition. And, secondly, it was all right to go and drink coffee with a Gentile. That was an enormous step forward in the evangelization of the world. Up until then, Peter would not have felt free to go into a Gentile house and drink coffee or eat food, because they were defiled. It was marvellously difficult to preach the gospel to a Gentile if you couldn’t drink a cup of coffee with them, but then that was Peter’s concept of holiness.

It is remarkable to reflect, isn’t it, that of all the barriers to the spread of the gospel in the Acts of the Apostles, one of them was the early disciples’ concept of holiness, which had to be considerably altered now, if the gospel was going out to the Gentiles. So, after being taught, Peter comes to the Gentile house and comes inside; and there are the people gathered together; and he preaches the gospel. And as he preached, the Holy Spirit fell on them. When he got home Peter was criticized by the brethren, and they said, ‘Look here, Peter, we want to have words with you, if you’ll stay behind after the meeting. We hear you went into a Gentile’s house, and you ate with them. Is that true?’

‘Yes,’ he said, ‘that is true.’

‘Well, whatever next, Peter? That was never done before.’

‘Well, brethren,’ he said, and he got a bit nervous (Peter always did get nervous under attack), ‘I couldn’t help it, actually. You see, I had this vision, and I had to go, and really it wasn’t my fault. All I did was to preach the gospel to them, and then God gave them his Holy Spirit. Who was I? I couldn’t stop God doing it.’

Marvellous argument, isn’t it? And that is what he is talking about here in Acts 15. God, who knew their hearts, bore the Gentiles witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as he did unto us. He made no distinction between us and them. He gave us believing Jews the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and here in Cornelius’s house he has given the Gentiles the Holy Spirit as well, making no distinction (see 15:8).

But weren’t they unclean? How could God put his Holy Spirit in hearts that were not clean? Well, Peter explains. ‘He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith’ (see v. 8). Yes, and that was what our Lord Jesus was doing to the Canaanite woman, bringing her to face the fact that she was unclean, as a Gentile, and admitting it, and then bringing out her faith in the superabundant provision and grace of God, and so cleansing her heart by faith.

Would you like to hear another story to go along with that?

Audience: Can I just ask a technical question?

DWG: Sir.

Audience: In Acts 10, Peter says ‘You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation’ (v. 28). Was that his concept, or is there a Scripture that says that is so? I have yet to be able to find a Scripture that says that is unlawful.

DWG: Well, that is so, but you see, the Jews had a habit, and it marks a certain frame of mind with religious people. You must not do what the law forbids, and so as not to be in any danger of doing what the law forbids, you forbid a lot of other things as well, just in case you get anywhere near to breaking the law. We should, however, note the substantive point. When God let down that sheet from heaven and said, ‘Rise, Peter, kill and eat,’ and Peter said, ‘Not so, nothing unclean has ever entered my lips,’ God didn’t say, ‘Oh, come off it, Peter; that old-fashioned stuff is stupid. Don’t be so narrow-minded.’ Of course he didn’t say that. It was God himself who had laid down the physical laws of levels of cleanliness as regards food, wasn’t it?

So, yes, God had given the rules in Leviticus. Certainly, the rabbis of Peter’s day had extended them enormously, but originally the rules were given by God for a very good reason. In those centuries before the Holy Spirit was given, God treated Israel like a child, as Paul says in Galatians 4, and therefore had to put a hedge around them. One of the means of doing so was the giving of the food laws, which made it very difficult for Jews to have social fellowship with Gentiles. For the Gentile world was a morally filthy place; and religiously and spiritually, it was filthy with its idolatry. And when Israel was a child, before the Holy Spirit was given to them, then they needed strong fences to be built around them, and God built them around. But now a marvellous thing has happened: the Holy Spirit has come. Our Lord, therefore, cancelled the food laws in Mark 7, thus declaring all foods to be clean (see v. 19). God, in Acts 10, is now cancelling those ritualistic food laws, because now there is a different power. It is not so much an artificial fence around people that keeps them clean; they have the Holy Spirit within them, and now it is safe for them to mix among Gentiles. That, as I understand it, is what is happening.

You see, if you had a girl of twelve, there are certain places in the cities of your country, and in Paris, and in Thailand, where you wouldn’t allow her to go, and to mix with that kind of company. She is still a child, so you put fences around her. But as a grown-up person, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, you would on occasion, just as our Lord did, go and eat with prostitutes and sinners, wouldn’t you? Well, you have a different power. You are grown-up anyway. God now is treating believers as grown-up people, says Paul in Galatians. You have the Spirit of his Son.

Contrasting the stories of Matthew 14 and 15

I was going to tell another story. It’s one I got from Matthew, not far off from where we have been in this Gospel, actually, for this comes in chapter 14, while the Canaanite woman comes in chapter 15.

In chapter 14, there is a story of the king, and a woman and her daughter. The king, Herod, had a birthday. He had shut up John in prison so as not to hear the word of God too frequently. And on his birthday, when he was half drunk, he called in his wife (well, she wasn’t his wife, but we’ll call her that for the time being), and her daughter came in and danced. I leave it to your imagination to know what kind of dance it would have been. And Herod was so excited that, on oath, if you please, because he was half tipsy, he promised to give her anything she should ask, up to half of his kingdom.

Now, Herod had put John in prison, but he had not intended to kill him, for he was afraid of the people. He intended to keep him alive, but Herodias, his wife, had other thoughts. She sent in her daughter, Salome, who danced, and Herod promised to give her whatever she asked. Salome consulted her mother, and her mother said, ‘I want the head of John the Baptist on a plate.’

We see a mother and her daughter forcing the king to do something he didn’t want to do, appealing to his impurity, pandering to it, and then forcing him to execute the prophet of God. A king, and a mother and her daughter, appealing to his impurity to override his decision. That is chapter 14, isn’t it?

In chapter 15 we have the King, and a mother and her daughter. And is the woman appealing to the King to get him to override and overlook their uncleanness? No, indeed not; the opposite is true. He brings that dear lady to acknowledge her impurity, to repent of it, and provokes in her a faith that purifies her heart; and her daughter is healed.

It is a nice couple of stories, isn’t it? But then I’ve wandered from the passage. Forgive me. Where were we?

The wonderful work of God

We come back to Isaiah 29. Against religion and the teaching of rules that are but the mere commandments of men as, distinct from the commandments of God, God promises to do this marvellous work among the people.

therefore, behold, I will again do wonderful things with this people, with wonder upon wonder; and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hidden. (v. 14)

God is going to make a nonsense of their pretended wisdom by this marvellous work. So, what contributions can I now receive? What work was this?

Audience: The cross.

DWG: Expound that a little bit for us.

Audience: I’m thinking of 1 Corinthians 1, where they preach the word of the cross, which exposed the foolishness of man, and brought to nothing the wisdom of the prudent. And as you get to 1 Corinthians 2:8, he will claim that the princes of this world, in ignorance, crucified the Lord of glory, exposing the best this world had to offer. When they came face to face with the Lord of glory, they could not recognize him. He exposed their ignorance, and they assigned him to a criminal’s death, and so exposed the wisdom of man as nothing.

Audience: It reached the heart of man; it got to the heart. You were speaking of the externals, and the danger of the external is such that it obscures the deeper reality of the defilement of the heart. It obscures what the external was meant to represent. The cross, therefore, pierces all that, which is what the Lord did with the Canaanite women; he discerned the heart. ‘Am I a dog? Am I guilty?’ The cross, therefore, reaches the heart of man. And to those who, intellectually, with their reason, will not hear the message of what the cross says to their heart, to them, that message is foolish, and they perish. Yet to those who allow the heart to be discerned, to them, it is the power of God to salvation.

DWG: Yes. Surely, as Christians particularly, we are going to see this prophecy fulfilled at one level, in the basic message of the cross. We have 1 Corinthians 1–2, as you say, that expounds that message. As you rightly say, Paul says that to the intellectual but unbelieving, the cross sounds like foolishness. Yet it is the wisdom of God. To the Jew, it was a positive scandal. They tripped over it. So the cross has a double concern: to the so-called intellectual, and then on the other side to the religious. The preached message of the cross is to the Jew a scandal, and to the Greek it is absolute folly.

Imagine a Greek hearing for the first time that the answer to man’s difficulties is to be found in a crucified carpenter. It was an absolute folly. But the answer is, says Paul, ‘Christ, the wisdom of God, and the power of God’ (see 1:24). It is apparent folly, but it is in actual fact both wisdom and power, for it works. For the trouble with mankind is not lack of intellect; it is the heart, of course. That’s where the trouble is; and the cross comes right to the heart.

I would want to say, also, following on this suggestion, that this is what Paul is saying in the Acts of the Apostles, at such places as Antioch in Pisidia (13:13–51). The Jews can’t see the gospel. The wonderful work is that here come the Gentiles! They are rejoicing in the gospel, and they have understanding. They are not great theologians, but they begin to understand God. And look at the Epistles. The Gentiles begin to understand the Old Testament as well. Let’s not underrate what God has done.

I had a Jewish friend at one time. He escaped Hitler’s death chambers by a fraction, and got to Ireland eventually (I might say unintentionally, but he got there anyway). In his retirement, and now partly paralyzed, he came to some lectures I gave at the university and discovered the New Testament was a Jewish book. That was news to him. And he used to come and have dinner with me. He would say to me, ‘Oh, but you Christians, that’s what the problem is. You Christians taught your Sunday school children it was the wicked Jews who crucified Jesus; and the result was the Holocaust.’

Poor old boy. And the tears would run down his face. And when I got a chance, I would say, ‘Otto, do you know who killed Jesus?’

‘No,’ he said, ‘what do you mean?’

‘I did.’

‘What do you mean, you did?’

I said, ‘What Christians really believe is that, whereas the Jews were the agents, so to speak, in the crucifixion of Christ, the reason why Christ died is that he had to die for my sins. That’s what crucified him. And for your sins likewise, Otto. I should never blame you for killing Christ, in any other sense than that my sins were the reason for his death.’

Then I used to say, ‘Otto, tell me, do you Jews pray for the dead?’

‘Well, not really.’

‘Oh, come off it, Otto. What about your prayer book, every Sabbath? You do pray for the dead, don’t you?’

‘Well, yes, we do.’

‘What do you pray for them for?’

‘Well,’ he would say, ‘it’s a nice way to remember your past friends who are gone.’

‘You do more than that, don’t you?’

‘Well, yes, we do, you know. We pray so that God will let them out of the bad place.’

‘Yes, Otto, my boy. You know, I don’t understand you. You see, take that lovely psalm of yours, “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.” I’m an old Gentile, you know. I know what that means, and particularly the last verse, “Goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord.” I know what that means, Otto. What about you, have you got that hope? How is it that I, a Gentile, understand it, and as a Jew, you don’t?’

Yes, this is the wonder, the wonder of the spread of the gospel from, not just the Jew, but the worldwide testimony of God’s marvellous work, that Gentiles of all kinds, both intellectual and illiterate, have understood the gospel and have been saved in their millions. What a work to cause Judaism, if it opened its eyes, to marvel. And Paul quotes a similar passage, doesn’t he, in the aforesaid Antioch of Pisidia. This is Acts 13, as he ends his first address.

Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses. Beware, therefore, lest what is said in the Prophets should come about: ‘Look, you scoffers, be astounded and perish; for I am doing a work in your days, a work that you will not believe, even if one tells it to you.’ (vv. 38–41)

Yes, this is God’s judgment on Israel for the rejection of Christ at Calvary, but also for the rejection of the message that the Holy Spirit brought: the offer to the murderers of Christ of pardon, peace, forgiveness and salvation. ‘If you despise it’, says Paul, ‘God is saying, “I’ll work a work in your day that you will have to be obliged to see: the light of the gospel beginning to spread around the Roman Empire”.’ This is God’s answer then.

So, yes, I agree with what both of you said there. One fulfilment has been the gospel. But now others have got comments to make.

Audience: I was going to ask you if the passage in Habakkuk 1 parallels this passage in Isaiah 29?

DWG: Yes, surely, it does.

Audience: In the context here, where Isaiah is speaking, the wondrous work will be the blowing away of the Assyrian siege. So, that will be, in a sense, salvation by faith without works, which none of their wise men could have foretold or seen. Only through reading Isaiah would they have known it.

DWG: That is right. And, it is the answer to that mockery that we thought about yesterday. ‘That’s kindergarten stuff’, they said when Isaiah preached to them. And yes, the first interpretation therefore, must surely be that God was going to do a work with the Assyrian in answer to Hezekiah’s faith, but the wise men would not believe when Isaiah told them. And you will find him complaining throughout this passage that, far from believing what God said through Isaiah that they should trust God, they would go off down to Egypt. They thought they were being very clever to get the support of Egypt to conquer the Assyrian. It all came to nothing. When they were driven to extremity, and the Assyrian armies were right round Jerusalem, right up to the neck, then God did a work in their day that vindicated his word through Isaiah.

Levels of fulfilment of God’s wonderful work

So that was only the first fulfilment. We Christians naturally put a big emphasis, and rightly so, on the fulfilment of the outbreak of Christianity. Has anybody else got a fulfilment to add?

Audience: Were you looking for a different level of interpretation than the cross?

DWG: Oh, well, we have concentrated on the promise of God that he would do a work and confound the wisdom of the so-called wise of Jerusalem. And the first fulfilment that people chose to mention was the cross of our Lord, and the gospel—the word of the cross, which to the Greek was foolishness, and to the Jew a stumbling block, which has proved to be the wisdom and the power of God. And it remains as a sign to the Jew, of course, whether they like it or not, that multi-millions have been brought to faith in God through the preaching of the cross.

I like to tell my Jewish friends that I don’t believe in just any old god. Pagan Gentile though I am (according to them), I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And I say, ‘Tell me some other Jewish prophet that has brought multi-millions of Gentiles to believe in your God. Just show me. Tell me his name.’ What a marvellous work it is, but confounding the wisdom of the wise.

We should put this in its context. Paul is talking about the basic gospel, the gospel of the cross of our Lord. In Judaism, the rabbis actually despised the ordinary people, the am ha-aretz as they called them, ‘the people of the land’. As you see at the end of John 7, the high priest in the council said, ‘This people that knows not the law are accursed. Here they are all going after this so-called prophet from Nazareth, and they don’t even know that, according to the Bible, the Messiah doesn’t come out of Nazareth. Can any good thing come out of Galilee?’ (see vv. 47–52). They thought they were so superior. They had such an involved interpretation of the Old Testament, and the endless arguments in rabbinic circles, and according to them this was the only way to know God. Well, the gospel showed up the folly of it, and multitudes got converted, both of Jews and Greeks and other Gentiles.

When we are talking about this, we are not talking about understanding of abstruse details in Ezekiel, or something or other, we are talking about knowing God through the gospel, and the Scriptures making sense. The fact is that Judaism has gone on in its blindness. The rabbis still have endless debates about Scripture, behind the scenes, but when it comes to understanding Isaiah 53, peace with God, and understanding justification, they haven’t a clue. And what it means that Abraham ‘believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness’ (see Gen 15:6) they just don’t know; and they have no sure hope of heaven. The marvel that God has done to a Judaism that rejected his word and his Son is to explain the gospel so that ordinary people, both illiterate people as well as intellectually wise people the world round, have come to understand it. And it’s been done through the preaching of the cross.

That was the number one choice, though there was a suggestion that the first fulfilment was the banishing of the Assyrians by God’s intervention, which demonstrated the truth of the message of Isaiah and his disciples. It seemed to his contemporaries to be absolute nonsense and kindergarten stuff, and they mocked him for it and rejected it and said, ‘Oh, faith in God, yes, but we have to do diplomatic negotiations.’ And they put their trust, first, in buying off Assyria. Then they put their trust, as we presently shall see, in Egypt, and thought this was very clever. And of course, Egypt let them down, and they would have perished under Assyria, and were shut up to that childlike faith in God, when they had no other option, because the Assyrian armies had closed them in. Now, if simple, direct faith in God didn’t work, they were finished. And God demonstrated, through what he did to the Assyrians, the truth of his word through the prophet Isaiah, and made the wisdom of the wise of that day look stupid.

So, that was the first level of interpretation; and we talked about the Christian level. I suspect myself there will be another level of interpretation, when the godly remnant of Israel in the coming day will still preach that Israel’s only hope is in God, as distinct from the majority of the nation, already a large percentage of whom in Israel are atheists anyway. And the Orthodox won’t accept Jesus as the Christ who is coming again, though they look for a coming Messiah. Some will take their stand against world religion, and against the beast in particular, as distinct from Judaism that will make its deals with the great superpowers. When they make such deals they shall be confounded, for without God there is no hope against the man of sin. Those who put their trust in God shall be vindicated in that day, because, as this passage goes on to say, God will destroy him with the breath of his mouth (see 30:27–28), as we also find in 2 Thessalonians 2:8.

Foreshadowings of a greater enemy

I may have given you the wrong impression, so let me say it now. We should remember that the attack of the Assyrians in Isaiah’s day was a real one and taught Israel basic lessons. The Assyrian becomes a foreshadowing of the great anti-God forces at the end of this age. Having said that, we ought to notice that he is only one foreshadowing of those times. In Sennacherib’s day, the anti-God forces did not take Jerusalem. If you suppose that since he is a foreshadowing of the anti-God dictator at the end of the age, and that dictator won’t take Jerusalem, then you could be a bit mistaken, couldn’t you?

We have to remember, then, that the Assyrian was only one foreshadowing; there are a whole series of them. Some of them recorded in other prophets, but each of them is a foreshadowing of the great God-defying dictator at the end of the age. You can take Assyria as one picture. Or, you can take Babylon, and Nebuchadnezzar did take Jerusalem. Or, you could take Antiochus Epiphanes, a third of the way through the second century BC. Antiochus Epiphanes was emperor of the Seleucid empire. He had the distinction that none other had of the putting up the abomination of desolation in the holy place. It is that to which our Lord referred (Matt 24:15). And then, of course, there came the Roman emperors, the first great persecuting emperors such as Nero, and others. All these are foreshadowings of the future. We mustn’t suppose that means that in the future, at the end of this age, there will be a whole succession of anti-God people, one representing Pharaoh, another representing the Assyrians, another representing the Babylonians, another representing the Seleucids, and another representing the Romans. No, these are, after all, just foreshadowings.

I often use the analogy that if you put a picture of Pharaoh on an acetate on the overhead projector, and shone a light through it, you would see a faint foreshadowing of the future. If you were to get a picture of old Sennacherib and the Assyrians, and put that on top of the first one, you would get a bit more of a complicated picture. Then if you took Nebuchadnezzar and Antiochus Epiphanes and the Roman Nero and so on, and put the whole lot on top, you would begin to get a complicated picture of what the eventual man will be. He will be a man in his own right, so to speak, but when he is depicted in the symbolism of the Revelation as a beast, he is an amalgam beast, as you have noticed from his description. And the fourth beast of Daniel is an amalgam of different kinds of animals.

So, there we have to be careful. Some of the older commentators would discuss, learnedly, who the Assyrian is going to be in the future. Perhaps that kind of thing is a little bit misguided. You might as well ask, who is going to be the Pharaoh of the future, and who is going to be the Antiochus Epiphanes of the future? They are but foreshadowings, and that is how we can treat them. They each foreshadow a different feature; for the man of sin at the end will be one in his own right, of course, but an amalgam of many ideas.

¹⁶ See the notes for Part 3B in the Appendix.

¹⁷ David Gooding was a conscientious objector during World War II and so after finishing school he was assigned by the government of the day to work as a farm labourer for four years as a part of the United Kingdom’s war effort. He took up his place in Trinity College, Cambridge after those years. 

20: The Third and Fourth Woes

Part 3B (28:1–35:10) Continued

The third woe (29:15–24)

The nonsense of virtual atheism (29:15–16)

As you see in your notes I have entitled the third woe ‘The nonsense of virtual atheism’.

[Woe to] you who hide deep from the Lord your counsel, whose deeds are in the dark, and who say, ‘Who sees us? Who knows us?’ (v. 15)

This is living and planning as though there were no God, and taking the view that, ‘Well, if there is a God, he can’t see what we’re doing.’

You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, ‘He did not make me’; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, ‘He has no understanding’? (v. 16)

This is the nonsense of virtual atheism. It turns the facts upside down. ‘Shall the potter be regarded as clay?’ Paul argued the same argument to the Stoics and Epicureans on Mars Hill (Acts 17). Having surveyed the pagan idols around about the place, and of course, dissociating himself from them (that would please the Epicureans, and the Stoics as well in a way), he says, ‘Gentlemen, you know we ought not to consider that God is like unto wood or stone made by man’s device.’

Why shouldn’t we consider that?

‘Well, seeing “we are also his offspring”, as one of your poets has said.’ That was Aratus. Paul wasn’t averse to quoting Greek poets to the Greeks. It made a point of contact. It meant he had to know some Greek poetry, but that’s another story. ‘We are also his offspring’, not in the sense of a new birth but that God made us. ‘Now, gentlemen,’ he said, ‘we are intelligent persons. We are personal, aren’t we? And we instinctively know the difference between a person, and a non-personal thing.’

We do, don’t we? Limited as our brains are, and mine in particular, I pride myself that my brain is far superior to the sun up in the sky, because it’s only a lot of old gas, and I am personal. I can be impressed by volcanoes, and if I’m not careful, they will destroy me, but I am superior to a volcano belching out a lot of sulphurous gas and rocks and stuff. I am a person. And instinctively I know the difference. And if the galaxies are as they say they are, and just repetitions of our suns, and such like things, my brain is more significant than the whole of the universe put together. And if I am a person, then to suppose that I have been made by something that is impersonal, is nonsense. And, of course, it leads to absolute intellectual nonsense. You then have to admit that, somehow, your rational mind has been produced by irrational ‘stuff’ without any plan. That is a woeful message for your supposed intellect. You then have to agree that, one of these days, this irrational, mindless, impersonal stuff will destroy your intelligence, and won’t know it’s done it. That means that our intellect is a prisoner in a material universe. That is to reduce intellect and personality to a nonsense.

‘Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, “He did not make me”.’ Well, okay. If you ask the atheist, then of course he doesn’t believe in God. Well, ask him, ‘Did you make yourself? If God didn’t make you, did you make yourself?’ Well, of course not. Romans says that one of the basic sins of humanity is that we are not thankful (1:21). If we are made, and in spite of all our tribulations, we enjoy actually being, then we have a duty of gratitude, which springs natural in the human heart, to the one who made us. But if God didn’t make us, we didn’t make ourselves. We came from a primeval bit of slime or something, and it is marvellously difficult to be grateful to a bit of slime.

They say of him that formed them, ‘He has no understanding.’ Well, if he didn’t have understanding, then what is your understanding worth? Now, there is the nonsense of virtual atheism. The Jews of Jerusalem would not necessarily have said they were atheists, but they behaved as if they were, as many people still do today.

And so God responds to it.

God’s response is to cite counter-evidence (29:17–21)

The fact that the spiritually deaf shall hear and understand Scripture, and the blind see after years of darkness (29:18)

Is it not yet a very little while until Lebanon shall be turned into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field shall be regarded as a forest? In that day the deaf shall hear the words of a book, and out of their gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind shall see. (vv. 17–18)

God cites as counter-evidence the soon coming transformation and glorification of nature. Is that not what verse 17 is about? Then he cites the fact that the spiritually deaf shall hear and understand Scripture, and the blind see after years of darkness (v. 18). And here we are back at the great theme of God’s revelation through his word, that those who were deaf now hear the words of the book and come to understand God’s written revelation.

Let us never underestimate the marvel of it; that the transcendent Lord God of heaven can communicate with the humblest of his creatures. Not every believer has understood every letter, comma and full stop between Genesis 1 and the end of the Revelation, but God’s people, taking his word in their hand, hear God speaking to them, and they know the Lord, don’t they? They have that basic understanding.

The meek and poor will find their joy in the holy one of Israel increase (29:19)

The meek shall obtain fresh joy in the Lord, and the poor among mankind shall exult in the Holy One of Israel. (v. 19)

God is not exaggerating. We are not singing, ‘Hip, hip, hooray,’ every moment of the day, but we do have that basic joy, don’t we? Listen to the gospel being preached.

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance. (Rom 5:1–2)

Justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, and we joy, we rejoice, in hope. That is our joyous confidence, ‘in hope of the glory of God’, a confidence that we shall be conformed to his image. And not only so, we rejoice in tribulation also. That is not singing happy, happy, happy stuff rejoicing; the Greek word means ‘to exult’. It has a note of boasting about it, of defiance. We rejoice in the face of tribulation, not that we enjoy the tribulation, but we know the fact that tribulation works endurance, and endurance gives rise to character. We see the difference God has made in our lives. We don’t boast in it, but we know it is real. And, finally, we joy in God through our Lord Jesus, not with some artificial excitement.

That is true of the poorest; it is true of the illiterate, anyway, who come to know the Saviour. It is true that even through his book they know the author, and therefore they understand, each in his own degree, what the author is saying.

The reason for this: evil, arrogant, tyrannical, corrupt men, who have perverted justice in the legal system in order to oppress true believers will be cut off (29:20–21)

For the ruthless shall come to nothing and the scoffer cease, and all who watch to do evil shall be cut off, who by a word make a man out to be an offender, and lay a snare for him who reproves in the gate, and with an empty plea turn aside him who is in the right. (vv. 20–21)

We are back, of course, in Judaism at the first level of interpretation. Those people to whom these verses refer were the lawyers of the day, and in the courts they had used their position to oppress and cheat the poor.

Now, let me not give the impression that I am against all lawyers. I have known some Christian ones in my time, but that’s not the point. The point is that, in Israel, the lawyers were expounders of Scripture. The elders were supposedly putting Deuteronomy into action and interpreting the law, because in the state of Israel in those far-off days, it was a sacral state, that is, religion and politics were one and the same thing. But the law division in the country was the exposition of the law of Scripture. That was their law. So, in the time of our Lord, the Sanhedrin, under the Romans, was the chief exponent of the law of the land. Their power was limited by the Romans, and they couldn’t use the death penalty, except when they did it surreptitiously and executed Stephen, for instance, and stoned him before the Romans had a chance to intervene (see Acts 7). As they said to Pilate, ‘We are not allowed to put anybody to death’ (see John 18:31). But within their limits, the high priest was not only the chief of religion, he was the chief of the law; and people like Paul could be imprisoned by the Sanhedrin, and beaten (as he was more than once) with forty stripes except one, under the penalty of the Jewish lawyers interpreting Scripture (2 Cor 11:24).

And there was a great scandal when corrupt men used God’s word to condemn innocent people. You remember one notable occasion when Ahab (not our Ahaz, but Ahab) took to gardening at one stage. Royal people have to have something to do, and when they get tired of cruising in their yachts, well, they can take up anything. Ahab took up gardening and wanted to increase his vineyard somewhat, and Naboth’s inheritance stood in the way. He offered the man a good price for it, and the man wouldn’t take it on the religious grounds that it was the inheritance of his family. Ahab was very sad and sorry, and Jezebel intervened and said, ‘You know nothing, my boy.’ She organized the courts, didn’t she? She trumped up false witnesses to say he blasphemed God and the king. Oh, wasn’t it holy, this court? She got Naboth condemned to death in the name of God.

That is the kind of thing Isaiah is talking about: the misuse of God’s word in the legal courts of Judaism, let alone the religious people like the Sadducees, lawyers and people that bound burdens on the backs of people but wouldn’t move them with their fingers (Matt 23:4). Now, God is going to suppress that; he’s going to do a new work.

The result (29:22–24)

Therefore thus says the Lord, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob: ‘Jacob shall no more be ashamed, no more shall his face grow pale. For when he sees his children, the work of my hands, in his midst, they will sanctify my name; they will sanctify the Holy One of Jacob and will stand in awe of the God of Israel. And those who go astray in spirit will come to understanding, and those who murmur will accept instruction.’ (vv. 22–24)

Oh, this tremendous emphasis on God’s word, and God’s teaching! It is a nice sort of dramatic insight when it speaks of Jacob not being ashamed when he sees his children. You must imagine the old patriarch, Jacob. He had a history himself, of course; but when he came back from Paddan Aram and got into the country, two of his sons committed a vile atrocity at a place called Shechem, and they did it in the name of religion. Jacob said, ‘You have made my name to stink before the Canaanites!’ (see Gen 34:30). I fancy that when poor old Jacob heard what his progeny had done, his face grew pale. On his dying bed, he cursed their anger, for it was cruel (49:5–7). Jacob might well have been ashamed and grown pale to see some of his progeny down the centuries. One day, when he sees his children, ‘the work of my hands,’ says God, he shall no more be ashamed. It is a lovely expression, isn’t it?

You know, we Christians are greedy, and we pounce on anything that reminds us of our Christian gospel, don’t we? Shall I ask the question whether if Jacob saw you, he would be ashamed of you? Would his face grow pale?

‘Ah,’ you say, ‘but, you see, no, because “we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works”’ (Eph 2:10).

Questions and discussion

Audience: This has to be a lot of the picture of the Lord Jesus Christ, especially in Luke 7 where he talks about John the Baptist. There the disciples have come down from John with that question, ‘Are you the Messiah? Do we look for another?’ He says, ‘You go back and tell John that the deaf hear, the lame are healed, the blind see.’ And this answers right to that section, and says what the Lord is doing to us. We now see, we now hear, we now understand, and we now have a walk with the Lord.

DWG: Oh, surely. In the beginning it was, as you rightly point out, the physical evidence. It was the physically blind and physically lame being healed, but of course it goes beyond that as the Gospels themselves interpret those miracles, and make them parables of the healing at the level of spiritual hearing, and the spiritual power to walk.

As I talk about Jacob not being ashamed, I can’t help my grasshopper mind jumping and taking leaps and landing in the wrong places. What about the phrase that says, ‘He is not ashamed to call us . . .’ what?

Audience: ‘Brothers.’

DWG: Oh dear. You will have to tell me, one of these days, how it could possibly be that the Lord of glory could look upon us, and not be ashamed to own us as his brothers (Heb 2:11).

The fourth woe (30:1–33)

We come to this fourth woe, and it is a very long one. First of all, it concerns itself with the embassy to Egypt.

The embassy to Egypt (30:1–17)

‘[Woe to the] stubborn children,’ declares the Lord, ‘who carry out a plan, but not mine, and who make an alliance, but not of my Spirit, that they may add sin to sin; who set out to go down to Egypt, without asking for my direction, to take refuge in the protection of Pharaoh and to seek shelter in the shadow of Egypt! Therefore shall the protection of Pharaoh turn to your shame, and the shelter in the shadow of Egypt to your humiliation.’ (30:1–3)

They were seeking cover and protection from the advancing Assyrian force, without consulting God or even waiting for God to show them. They did so in deliberate independence. They weren’t going to take that route; they didn’t believe it anyway. Common sense said it was no good having prayer meetings at a time like this. You want to get on with the business and go down to Egypt. Their deliberate determination to go to Egypt without first consulting God, to gain strength from Egypt, to trust in Egypt’s protecting shadow, was an addition to their sinning. Not only had they sinned in the past and got themselves into trouble, but their method to cure it was deliberate sinning. It was all in vain, of course, because Egypt would not be able to help. It was the fact that Egypt was powerless at this instance with Sennacherib. Later on, Esarhaddon conquered about a half of Egypt, before the Assyrian Empire fell.

An oracle (or, burden) of the donkeys

Now, in verse 6, you will see there is a ‘burden’. One doesn’t know whether to take it as, well, not comical, but satirical. It is not a woe, but a burden. That is a phrase we’ve met before about the oracles. This is the oracle about the pack animals, the donkeys!

An oracle on the beasts of the Negeb. Through a land of trouble and anguish, from where come the lioness and the lion, the adder and the flying fiery serpent, they carry their riches on the backs of donkeys, and their treasures on the humps of camels, to a people that cannot profit them. (v. 6)

It conjures up a picture of these poor old donkeys treading their way down through the Negev with all its hardships and difficulties, and not much grass to eat, if any, and loaded up to the top with all these treasures. These are the wealthy gifts these poor donkeys are carrying down to Egypt to secure the help of Pharaoh. ‘Poor old donkeys,’ says God.

Of course, it’s satirical, isn’t it? God has a sense of humour sometimes. It was all in vain for these poor asses, but the worst asses were the boys at Jerusalem that had thought up the scheme, with all of that expensive treasure being wasted, and energy spent all in vain:

Egypt’s help is worthless and empty; therefore I have called her ‘Rahab who sits still.’ (v. 7)

A lesson to be inscribed in a book for the profit of all generations to come (30:8–17)

And now, go, write it before them on a tablet and inscribe it in a book, that it may be for the time to come as a witness for ever. (v. 8)

You won’t escape the emphasis on the written word, not in this part of Isaiah. ‘Write it down that I told you this, and write it that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever’, God says, and we are reading it now in 2001, because God had it recorded what he said about those donkeys. ‘Write it down how absolutely wasteful and useless was that expensive energy, and so-called diplomatic wisdom, and the treasures that they spend. Write it down!’

Why? Because in the end it proved futile. Egypt couldn’t help them, and didn’t. That much is a fact of history. It isn’t a prophecy that they won’t help; it was fulfilled. They didn’t help. It was proved useless. Whereas they who waited in Jerusalem, being mocked by these wise guys, proved that God was real, and God dispersed the Assyrians. That much is history. They were historically vindicated. ‘Write it in a book.’ Well, he did, and we have it.

For they are a rebellious people, lying children, children unwilling to hear the instruction of the Lord; who say to the seers, ‘Do not see’, and to the prophets, ‘Do not prophesy to us what is right; speak to us smooth things, prophesy illusions’. (vv. 9–10)

Of course, they didn’t say that, but that was what was implied. They probably said, ‘Now all this Bible, it’s too much. People can’t understand it. You’ll have to be much more user-friendly.’ Oh well. Then, worse still, they said,

‘Leave the way, turn aside from the path, let us hear no more about the Holy One of Israel.’ Therefore thus says the Holy One of Israel, ‘Because you despise this word and trust in oppression and perverseness and rely on them, therefore this iniquity shall be to you like a breach in a high wall, bulging out, and about to collapse, whose breaking comes suddenly, in an instant; and its breaking is like that of a potter’s vessel that is smashed so ruthlessly that among its fragments not a shard is found with which to take fire from the hearth, or to dip up water out of the cistern.’ (vv. 11–14)

Marvellous poetry, isn’t it? You see a wall, and one day you notice it beginning to bulge, and you shall have to do something about it, because next week, oh, there’s a bit more bulge. And you say, ‘Yes, I must do something about that.’ And perhaps for three or four weeks it’s bulging, and then one day, ‘Bang!’ And it has collapsed. That’s how it was with the men of Jerusalem.

For thus said the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, ‘In returning and rest you shall be saved; in quietness and in trust shall be your strength.’ But you were unwilling. (v. 15)

Belief in God would have saved them all that worry and that energy. They would have found rest in being able to abide in Jerusalem and in trusting God, that God was going to defeat the Assyrians. That is the message. And, of course, being a Christian I can’t help but think of our Lord’s words that we thought of yesterday. Let’s say them again:

Come to me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. (Matt 11:28–30)

‘O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,’ he said, ‘the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!’ He is speaking of these kinds of men in Isaiah’s day. ‘How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!’ (see 23:37). He would have given them security, but they wouldn’t accept it from him. Their house would be left to them desolate. Speaking of the temple, he said, ‘Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down’ (24:2).

We then read in Isaiah 30,

Therefore the Lord waits to be gracious to you, and therefore he exalts himself to show mercy to you. For the Lord is a God of justice; blessed are all those who wait for him. (v. 18)

Here is part of the answer to the question: why doesn’t God convert them immediately? Well, how on earth will you convert them? You tell me how to do it. If they won’t have the word of God, how are you going to convert them? For the Lord is, I nearly said ‘obliged’ to wait, so that he may have mercy on them. It may strain our understanding that, as far as Judaism is concerned, he has waited nearly two thousand years. But how will you bring them to repentance and to faith in God, rather than in their own works, or in the diplomacy of their atheists?

God’s plan for the blessing, deliverance and healing of his people (30:19–26)

For a people shall dwell in Zion, in Jerusalem; you shall weep no more. He will surely be gracious to you at the sound of your cry. As soon as he hears it, he answers you. And though the Lord give you the bread of adversity and the water of affliction, yet your Teacher will not hide himself any more, but your eyes shall see your Teacher. And your ears shall hear a word behind you, saying, ‘This is the way, walk in it’, when you turn to the right or when you turn to the left. Then you will defile your carved idols overlaid with silver and your gold-plated metal images. You will scatter them as unclean things. You will say to them, ‘Be gone!’ (vv. 19–22)

This is in contrast to what the proud said to the prophet: ‘Get out of the way, and get the Holy One of Israel out of our way’ (see v. 11). Now see what conversion does. Though the godly go through their tribulations, the marvellous thing will be that even through the tribulation, their ‘teachers’ (v. 20 rv) shall not be hidden. They shall understand God’s word, and it will be a comfort and a direction to them in their time of waiting for God.

Then of course, eventually, it shall lead to the prosperity that they seek, for eventually the Lord, who has waited that he might be gracious to the nation, acts. Look at the end of verse 25: ‘in the day of the great slaughter, when the towers fall.’ That is, when God executes his judgment.

Moreover, the light of the moon will be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun will be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day when the Lord binds up the brokenness of his people, and heals the wounds inflicted by his blow. (v. 26)

It speaks of the eventual blessing that shall come at the Lord’s coming eventually, though here it speaks of it in terms of relief from the Assyrian oppression.

The means God will use to deal with the Assyrian (30:27–33)

Now look at verses at 27–33, for this is, at the first level, the deliverance that shall come. That poetic language in verse 26 about the moon shining like the sun, and the sun being worth seven days of sun all in one go is a poetic way of speaking of the light that will come when they would be delivered. And it did come to them when, under Hezekiah, God dispersed the Assyrians. If you can imagine yourself being in Jerusalem the morning after it was reported the Assyrians had gone, well that news would seem like marvellous daylight and you would have rejoiced in it, and in the fulfilment of God’s word and God’s truth. Here it has been fulfilled! What wonderful light on the matter. But then of course when you think of our Lord’s second coming and the day to come, the poetry will be by no means exaggerated then. It won’t be hyperbole, will it? It will be true.

This is the way that God will deal with the Assyrian, and the way he will deal with it is surely significant in this context.

Behold, the name of the Lord comes from afar, burning with his anger, and in thick rising smoke; his lips are full of fury, and his tongue is like a devouring fire; his breath is like an overflowing stream that reaches up to the neck; to sift the nations with the sieve of destruction, and to place on the jaws of the peoples a bridle that leads astray. (vv. 27–28)

It is poetry, of course it’s poetry. He shall destroy them. But look at the metaphor that is three times repeated: by his lips, by his breath, and by his tongue. They are words for God speaking. What the know-it-alls in Israel had refused was God’s word and God speaking. When God destroys the Assyrian, the picture is of God speaking.

You as Christians will read that, and you will say that is 2 Thessalonians.

And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. (2:8)

For if in creation he spoke and it was done, when he comes he will speak and the beast shall be destroyed. It is the word of God that will do it. And when the rider comes out on his white horse in Revelation 19, his name is written and his name is ‘The Word of God’ (v. 13). Then God will be expressing himself through the execution of his just wrath, and revealing his character. The wrath of God that Christ shall execute on this world will be a revelation of God’s character, and it will be his word.

In Isaiah 30, therefore, he shall destroy the Assyrian. And here it is described: ‘a bridle that leads astray’, which is ‘a strong delusion’, of course (see 2 Thess 2:11).

You shall have a song as in the night when a holy feast is kept, and gladness of heart, as when one sets out to the sound of the flute to go to the mountain of the Lord, to the Rock of Israel. And the Lord will cause his majestic voice to be heard and the descending blow of his arm to be seen, in furious anger and a flame of devouring fire, with a cloudburst and storm and hailstones. The Assyrians will be terror-stricken at the voice of the Lord, when he strikes with his rod. And every stroke of the appointed staff . . . (Isa 30:29–32)

It is very vivid poetry, isn’t it? Conjure up the image in your minds. There is the Assyrian, one who is, so to speak, the incarnation of anti-God beliefs, ideologies and actions. Now he comes under the rod, and every time the rod is brought down upon him, listen to the reaction of the people of God.

And every stroke of the appointed staff that the Lord lays on them will be to the sound of tambourines and lyres. Battling with brandished arm, he will fight with them. (v. 32)

There is music accompanying the execution of God’s wrath. Likewise, there is rejoicing when Babylon falls, and the hallelujahs go up to heaven (Rev 18–19). It is not rejoicing in the sufferings of the lost, but rejoicing in the judgment of God, that he has put an end to deception and an end to the tyranny of this anti-God dictator. That will be a cause for earth to shout its hallelujahs!

For [Topheth] has long been prepared; indeed, for the king it is made ready, its pyre made deep and wide, with fire and wood in abundance; the breath of the Lord, like a stream of sulfur, kindles it. (v. 33)

Here is the metaphor again. It is with ‘the word of his mouth’. It is what he is outbreathing; it is his speaking that will bring the dictator to his perdition. We take the Scriptures to be ‘God-breathed’ (see 2 Tim 3:16). They are the breath of God, aren’t they? If they won’t have the gospel that is preached, then men will know the breath of God that commands their destruction.

Questions and discussion concerning Topheth

Audience: Can I ask about the significance of Topheth?

DWG: You tell me, sir.

Audience: I thought it was a place of child sacrifice under people like Manasseh.

DWG: Well, so it is said, yes. What now do you think?

Audience: Well, what is described here in Isaiah 30 is before Manasseh.

DWG: It is before Manasseh, isn’t it? Do you feel that this is poetic justice that in the place where they, in their hideous paganism, sacrificed children, now God will bring them to their judgment? Is that what you feel?

Audience: I have read that when they sacrificed the children, there was loud music to drown out the cries, but I don’t know how well that’s documented.

DWG: I have read about the sacrifices in ancient civilizations in Mexico, on top of their pyramid-like structures, involving the plucking out of hearts to sacrifice them to the sun god. They had a lot of music to drown out the screams, didn’t they? I fancy when God executes his judgments, it won’t be to drown out the cries of the lost, so that nobody hears them. I think the first hallelujahs in the book of Revelation come there in chapter 19. When Babylon is destroyed it is to the praise of God. We mustn’t exult, and we don’t exult, in the sufferings of the lost; it is a fearful thing. But we should remember that God’s wrath is beautiful. The angels that come out of the temple with the vials of the wrath of God, in which the wrath of God is ‘filled up’, that is, ‘brought to its conclusion’, are not depicted in the Revelation like the Furies in the Greek myths—old hags with pus coming out of their eyes and ears, and dressed in black, and hideous. That is a Greek concept of the wrath of the gods, but it is not the biblical concept. The angels that come out with the bowls of God’s wrath are clothed in brilliant, beautiful, white linen. The wrath of God is an expression of his beauty, surely.

Audience: I wonder if the covenant with death was related to the earlier rebuke, where it says, ‘Should they enquire of the dead on behalf of the living?’ (see 8:19). It was related to that spirit, as a spirit from in the ground. I wonder if there was an occultic dimension to the going down to Egypt and the trusting in other alliances.

DWG: Well, there might well be.

Audience: That would explain Topheth.

DWG: Yes, well it could. I think we said it the other day. The early Christian eras after the fall of Jerusalem and the loss of the Jewish temple witnessed the reformation of Judaism now as a religion of the book. I am thinking of the Council of Jamnia. Yet, on the other hand, significant parts of Judaism went over to magic, the Kabbalah and all that stuff.

Audience: Is Topheth the picture of the lake of fire?

DWG: I imagine in the end it is, but you see, I speak incurably as a Christian. When the final beast is destroyed, he shall be consigned forthwith to the lake of fire, won’t he? But then, having said that, yes, we must consider what this first meant. Actually, am I not right in saying that the Assyrian king was not destroyed at the siege of Jerusalem, because he wasn’t there anyway?

Audience: There is a possible reference to ‘Moloch’ in Isaiah 30:33. Have you ever heard that?

DWG: You think ‘the king’ is a reference to Moloch?

Audience: The idea is that making this place of burning deep and large was due to the way that they submitted to Moloch and caused these things to happen; so the Lord’s judgment would be to burn them as they had burned little children in sacrifice to the god Moloch.

DWG: So, the interesting suggestion here is that we should translate ‘for the king’ as ‘for Moloch’. And this has been suggested because the word ‘moloch’ is another Semitic cognate, in another language. For melek means the king. And Moloch was the god to whom people offered their infants in sacrifice. Some would say that they prepared the timber to burn the children on. Others say that they had the statue of their god, and they heated a fire under his outstretched hands so that the metal was hot, and they put the babies on the hands, and sacrificed them to the gods in that way. As they did so, the people around shouted and sang deliriously their cultic hymns, in order to drown out the shrieks of the children. And the suggestion is that when it says, ‘a Topheth is prepared of old’ (30:33 rv) that is what the pagans had done, and they got it all ready, so to speak. Then God takes over, and he uses what was their own pagan religious ceremony in order to destroy the very people that had invented such barbarous crimes. So, the idea is that the wicked had fallen into the pit which they had dug.

Audience: It’s similar, perhaps, at least in my mind, to the account in Daniel where the men were burned up as they threw the three servants of God into the fiery furnace (3:22).

DWG: Yes, or you could quote Daniel 6 and what happened to the civil servants who had devised the den of lions to put Daniel in. When Daniel was taken out alive, they were put in. Whereas an angel had restrained the lions when Daniel was thrown in, by the time the civil servants were thrown in the angel had gone back to heaven, and the lions had gobbled up the civil servants.

Audience: You don’t like civil servants, do you?

DWG: Well, I must honour those in authority! But let me say the other thing here that someone else mentioned. In the book of Esther, Haman plotted to kill the Jews, beginning by hanging Mordecai on specially built gallows. In the end, he himself was hanged on those same gallows.

So, yes, I understand that this is the principle, but tell me whether you apply that view of Topheth to this whole situation. What does verse 33 mean, if verse 27 onward is talking about the relief of Judah and the destruction of the Assyrians? ‘The Assyrians will be terror-stricken at the voice of the Lord, when he strikes with his rod’ (v. 31). Now, how do you go on from there? How do you apply to the Assyrian this matter of Moloch?

Audience: If I’m understanding it right, it seems that in the book of Revelation we find the principle of overcoming and persevering against the onslaught of the anti-God, as you say.

If anyone is to be taken captive, to captivity he goes; if anyone is to be slain with the sword, with the sword must he be slain. Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints. (13:10)

DWG: Oh surely, yes. And it is a biblical principle that the wicked digs a pit and, by God’s providence, he falls into it himself.

Audience: Just one other thought on this is that Ahaz is famous for doing two things. He brought in the Assyrian, and he offered his own son to Moloch (2 Kgs 16:3).

DWG: That’s right, yes.

Audience: So he is the illustration here of condemning himself.

DWG: Yes, that could be true.

Audience: Is the reference to Topheth maybe an allusion? So, the king of Assyria, that cruel, devilish king, is in the same spirit as Moloch. The king of Assyria represents that same power of cruelty, and he will be destroyed in that place.

DWG: Yes, that is certainly worth considering. And as for Ahaz, though now deceased, his offering of his children to the gods was a barbarous thing, and I can understand God using that kind of thing and saying, ‘Suffer some of your own medicine. You did this to the children, didn’t you? I’m now going to do it to you.’ It would be that kind of effect, wouldn’t it? What still worries me just a little bit is that the judgment in this verse doesn’t fall on the Ahaz’s of this world; it falls on the Assyrian king. Isn’t that how it is? This funeral pyre, therefore, is not punishing Ahaz for his folly in offering his children to the gods; it is for the punishment of the king of Assyria.

But anyway, that is worth working out, isn’t it? Whatever it is, it is the judgments of God on the Assyrian king, rather than on the people of Judaea. And because it is the judgments of God, ‘the breath of the Lord’ shall kindle it.

Audience: Is it parallel, at all, with Ahab on Mount Carmel? I mean, he had his prophets of Baal up there. The Lord destroyed the prophets of Baal through Elijah, and yet the judgment didn’t come down on Ahab immediately. Elijah was able to say, ‘There is a sound of abundance of rain’ (1 Kgs 18:41 kjv). You get the idea that Elijah is being helpful to him.

Audience: So the judgment didn’t come right on the king immediately.

DWG: Oh surely. That is right.

Well, now, it is gone 11:30 and I ought to have stopped at 11:15, so I have transgressed. Lest some fate overtake me, like it overtook the Assyrian, I must now give you permission to stop and drink your coffee or whatever it is you drink. Is that fair? If we could be back in five minutes time, that would be good, and we must try to push on with this section of the book.

21: The Fifth Woe and the Nature of the Coming King’s Rule

Part 3B (28:1–35:10) Continued

I propose now simply to go ahead with some of the details of the oncoming paragraphs of Isaiah, rather than to devote this session to questions and contributions, because, as you see from the programme, we have fallen far behind. That doesn’t really matter because the discussion is very profitable, but I would like, by the end of the day, to come somewhere near the programme that we have set ourselves. It will mean that we shall have to move swiftly over these oncoming details.

The fifth woe (31:1–9)

The fifth woe is another denunciation of trusting in Egypt to deliver Jerusalem from Assyria. We might well ask, since we have already had such a long denunciation in an earlier chapter, why do we have another one here?

The nature of the book of Isaiah

One answer of course is in the nature of the book of Isaiah, as we now have it. First of all, it would appear from a number of indications that Isaiah spoke these messages at different times and in different places. As a prophet of God, what he spoke orally was inspired of God. It would further appear that, subsequently, he or some of his disciples collected his spoken word and wrote it down. They collected these written, separate accounts; and they were put together in the book as we now have it, namely, the prophecy of Isaiah.

You get an indication of this in an earlier chapter, when it was talking about Moab, and it gives you a long prophecy, an oracle, that was made over Moab. And then it adds, ‘This was written earlier and is what was spoken earlier about Moab. Now the Lord says . . .’, and now comes another bit (see 16:13–14). That is telling you that the earlier bit of the oracle was spoken on a previous occasion. It has been written down, it is here collected, and to it has now been added this.

It is a similar process, of course, as that which accounts for our Gospels. The material in our Gospels was about our Lord, either the miracles that he did or the words that he preached. So, the words were preached orally, and they were, of course, no less than the word of God when he spoke them. They were written down. Eventually Matthew, Mark, Luke and John got hold of these accounts, and they put them in what now stand as the four Gospels. Do notice the singular in each title, for there is only one gospel. There is the Gospel according to Matthew; and there is the Gospel according to Mark. There are not three or four ‘gospels’. No, just one gospel, but Matthew’s version of it, Mark’s version, and so on, as they took the compilations of our Lord’s deeds and words and arranged them under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

You see how the different Gospel writers write these things, sometimes in the same order, but sometimes in a different order. And you will see how one will record an incident at great length, and another Gospel writer will choose to record it briefly, because he is being guided to select the material, and put it down, in order to put across the significance of what our Lord said and did. Of course, as John says concerning the significance of what he said and did, ‘Well, you’d need a world to contain the books to bring out all the significance of what he said and did’ (see 21:25). His words and deeds were multi-significant. One writer, by putting them in this particular order, will bring out the significance in one direction. Another writer, using that same incident, putting it in a different order in a different context, will show it had another significance as well, because our Lord’s words and deeds were multi-significant.

It is something like that, therefore, in Isaiah.

‘But,’ you say, ‘if he preached two different sermons on two different occasions, why are they both put down?’

Well, presumably, because this second denunciation of going down to Egypt is going to add an element that was not in the first one that you have read in chapter 30.

The nature of Egypt’s strength (31:1–3)

The emphasis in this sermon in 31:1–9 is, as you see, the nature of the Egyptians, and the help that they offer, and even of their horses, for which they were famous.

Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help and rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many and in horsemen because they are very strong, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel or consult the Lord! And yet he [also] is wise . . . (v. 1)

Oh, what an understatement! It is delightful, merely as literature. Forgive my enjoyment of such things. What an effect in that understatement. ‘You go down to Egypt to the wise, and you don’t seek the Lord? It happens that the Lord also is wise. Could that be?’ Wow.

Anyway, the Egyptians, he says ‘are man, and not God, and their horses are flesh, and not spirit’ (v. 3). And here is the other criterion by which to judge them. It is literally relying on the arm of flesh, that is, mere human power, as distinct from relying on God’s power, so spirit rather than flesh. Then God’s description follows. To trust them instead of trusting God is folly. God has only to stretch out his hand and those who help, and those whom are helped, fail and fall together (v. 3).

Now comes a description of how God will protect Zion.

Audience: Dr. Gooding, in these two descriptions in chapters 30 and 31 about those who go down to Egypt, in chapter 30 it looks like the emphasis at the beginning is on counsel, looking for political advice. And in chapter 31 it is more military?

DWG: That’s right. And, secondly, the one is wisdom, as you rightly say, and counsel. This in chapter 31 is sheer power, and the nature of the power. Yes, it is military, too, but it highlights not just the advice on the one side, the wisdom, but the power. So, it is the horses and the military, and that kind of thing, but it is their power in their armaments. It is but human power, for it is mere flesh, as distinct from God’s power.

It becomes relevant to the way that the Lord is going to save Jerusalem, says Isaiah. How will it be saved? Well, not by human agency, and we are given a delightful picture in the next verse of chapter 31.

God as the protector of Zion (31:4–5)

For thus the Lord said to me, ‘As a lion or a young lion growls over his prey, and when a band of shepherds is called out against him he is not terrified by their shouting or daunted at their noise, so the Lord of hosts will come down to fight on Mount Zion and on its hill.’ (v. 4)

It is a beautiful metaphor. You see a young lion and it’s got its prey, and the shepherds come out. ‘What will we do about this lion?’ And they try to frighten it. But the lion looks at them in the face, and he growls. He’s not going to be afraid of a half dozen farmers who come out. Well, here’s the Lord, coming down on Mount Zion. A few Assyrians are not going to frighten him! Isaiah 40 will put things in proportion, whenever you come to it. The nations are but as a drop in a bucket. Taking up the isles is a very little thing for God (v. 15 rv). And so he will come down upon Mount Zion to protect it.

Secondly, the next metaphor:

As birds flying, so will the Lord of hosts protect Jerusalem; he will protect and deliver it, he will pass over and preserve it. (v. 5 rv)

An interesting verb is used there: pass over. It is the same verb as in Exodus 12, used of the Passover. Like a bird stretching her wings over her young. The Lord said, ‘when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you’ (v. 13).

Audience: Would ‘hover over’ be all right?

DWG: Yes, hover over, something like that. The term pesach in Exodus 12 is much debated as to its possible meaning, but I agree with those who say the idea is of a bird hovering, or of a bird stretching itself over, her nest. So, it is God himself putting himself between the enemy and his people. The idea is that mere human strength is not enough to deal with the enemy; God himself is going to intervene to protect Israel.

So, once more we consider the first level of interpretation, that God did send his angel and delivered Jerusalem from the Assyrian army. But as we think of the future, and project this onto the future, the way that the anti-God king will be dealt with is not by human power at all. The Lord shall come. The Lion of the tribe of Judah shall actually come! The message of the New Testament is not that God sits up in his heaven and just dismisses the anti-Christ. The Lord shall be revealed from heaven. He shall come and deal with the anti-God dictator of that final day.

God’s appeal to the Israelites (vv. 6–7) and the defeat of the Assyrian (vv. 8–9)

Then comes the appeal in chapter 31.

Turn to him from whom people have deeply revolted, O children of Israel. For in that day everyone shall cast away his idols of silver and his idols of gold, which your hands have sinfully made for you. ‘And the Assyrian shall fall by a sword, not of man; and a sword, not of man, shall devour him; and he shall flee from the sword, and his young men shall be put to forced labour. His rock shall pass away in terror, and his officers desert the standard in panic,’ declares the Lord, whose fire is in Zion, and whose furnace is in Jerusalem. (vv. 6–9)

You will remember, as you recall how the second woe began, that Jerusalem was called ‘Ariel’, the ‘altar hearth’, where the fire of the offering in the temple went up daily. And now the Lord will come; his fire in Jerusalem will destroy the Assyrian.

Rightly, you see that the metaphors do apply, in part, to the defeat of the Assyrian army outside Jerusalem in the days of Hezekiah. But the language is deliberate. It goes beyond that time, to the great consummation at the end of the age.

The nature of the coming king’s rule and the behaviour of his subjects (32:1–20)

With that, we come to a chapter about the rule of the king, where the enemy has been defeated and dismissed. Here in 32:1–20, the series of woes is interrupted in order to give a description of the values and the style of behaviour that will be established in the kingdom of the coming king. ‘Behold, a king will reign in righteousness, and princes will rule in justice’ (v. 1).

So, without waiting for the final woes to be pronounced, we have a fore glimpse of what the nature of the coming king’s rule shall be, and what the behaviour of his subjects shall be. The description of the king’s rule raises the question of the values that his government will be based on, and therefore, what values shall be expressed.

The nature of the king’s rule (32:1–8)

Why put that in here? Well, presumably, because hope of the coming king and his kingdom will strengthen people to trust in God and stand for him against the Assyrians. The hope of the Lord’s coming, and the nature of his rule when he comes, has that effect on us, doesn’t it? It strengthens our faith to stand now, in the confidence of the victory that the Lord shall achieve over all his opposition.

It has a second implication. Understanding what the nature of the coming king’s rule will be and the values it will enforce, leads to a realistic understanding that what behaviour the king will then enforce, he expects of us now. To use the argument from 1 John 3, ‘We know not what we shall be, but we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, and we shall see him as he is’ (see v. 2). Marvellous, isn’t it? What encouragement. And yet, here comes the exhortation. ‘He that has that hope in him purifies himself now’ (see v. 3). That is not an exhortation; that is a fact. If you really have the hope of one day being like Christ, you will want to be like Christ now, won’t you? There is an attitude that says, ‘Of course I’m going to be like Christ then, but you know, that’s heaven. I’m on earth now, and I can’t afford to be like Christ on earth.’ The logic is false, isn’t it? If I have the hope of being like Christ one day, I shall seek to purify myself so that in my life I am increasingly like him now. And so, in the midst of the battle, so to speak, with the enemy still around and threatening and not yet destroyed, we have the promise that he shall not only be destroyed, but that God shall positively set up his kingdom under his king; and these are the values that that king will express and expect. He will strengthen those who are waiting for him, to stand in their own situation and to begin to live according to those standards.

So, we see the nature of the coming king’s reign; it is characterized by righteousness. Secondly, a man, presumably the king himself, shall act as a protection from hostile powers, as a source of water in a dry place, and refreshing coolness as of a great rock in a weary land (v. 2). That is the second effect of the nature of the King’s rule.

The third effect is seen in verse 3. ‘Then the eyes of those who see will not be closed, and the ears of those who hear will give attention.’ If you said Isaiah was a man of one theme, well, people would understand, perhaps, what you are saying when they had read this.

Audience: It’s Isaiah 6 in reverse.

DWG: Yes, that’s right. And people will see, and they will hear. What blessings they are. We shall see him, of course. We shall hear him. The wicked will see him as well, and the sight will destroy them, but we shall have eyes to see, and ears to hear. That is the blessing of our salvation, and the work of God’s Holy Spirit.

The heart of the hasty will understand and know, and the tongue of the stammerers will hasten to speak distinctly. (v. 4)

You hear, and what you hear, you are able to express. It is as the hymn says: ‘And I no more as now shall sing.’ ¹⁸ In other words, I do my best to sing now, and express the Lord’s praise. When the Lord comes, I shall not only understand, I shall see him face to face and know as I am known, but I shall be freed from my limitations to express back to God my understanding and gratitude for the knowledge of God that he has given me.

And then we have the evaluation of character. The topsy-turvy values of our present world will be reversed. That is the force, surely, of verses 5–8. We are not here told how it will be achieved; we are simply told that this will be the case.

An appeal to the women (32:9–15)

In the next paragraph, we read an appeal to the women. Do you remember any other such appeal in Isaiah? Where did that come? Let me test how much of Isaiah has got onto our minds. Where did that other appeal to the women come?

Audience: Part one.

DWG: Part one, yes, jolly good. You’re getting the language! Yes, it was there that we read of their excessive attention to adornment, their proud arrogance, their beauty, and all that kind of thing (3:16–4:1). Now here comes its counterpart. They are going to be troubled.

Rise up, you women who are at ease, hear my voice; you complacent daughters, give ear to my speech. In little more than a year you will shudder, you complacent women; for the grape harvest fails, the fruit harvest will not come. Tremble, you women who are at ease, shudder, you complacent ones; strip, and make yourselves bare, and tie sackcloth round your waist. Beat your breasts for the pleasant fields, for the fruitful vine, for the soil of my people growing up in thorns and briers, yes, for all the joyous houses in the exultant city. For the palace is forsaken, the populous city deserted; the hill and the watchtower will become dens for ever, a joy of wild donkeys, a pasture of flocks; until the Spirit is poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness becomes a fruitful field, and the fruitful field is deemed a forest. (vv. 9–15)

How much of that is literal, and how much is metaphorical is a matter for judgment, but the general concern seems to be that these women were acting carelessly and not realizing the seriousness of the situation. The Assyrian siege was about to happen. It has not happened yet when Isaiah issues this prophecy. He points out what that will mean, in terms of the devastation of the countryside and the devastation of the vineyards of Judah, so that supplies in the city shall be meagre indeed. It is no time for women to think about what shade of lipstick they are going to use, if you see what I mean. Things are too serious for that. And they are called upon, not in any pessimism and denial of the good things of life, but to face the realities of the situation.

There is a similar principle involved when Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7, ‘Whatever you decide to do in all these matters, do remember this. The time is short. You haven’t got the time to do everything. The times of difficulty are coming, so do consider your priorities’ (see vv. 25–31).

Isaiah is saying to these women, ‘Think of the serious times yet to come. You are responsible for feeding the family, aren’t you? The supplies are going to be very meagre. It’s going to test you hard.’ And he calls for waiting on God, and strengthening their hearts, ‘until the Spirit is poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness becomes a fruitful field, and the fruitful field is deemed a forest.’

What does it mean? It is speaking of the time following the siege, to encourage the people to stand against the Assyrian offer. His offer would be, ‘Come out, and we’ll give you all the supplies you need, and put you comfortably in your own land, until we have the time to come and take you to a land that’s even better than yours. What are you staying here under siege for, in all the exigencies and the pain and the discomfort of staying in Jerusalem, just because you refuse to give up and come out?’ (see 36:16–17).

And the word of God through Isaiah was, ‘Stand firm, and this shall be a sign to you. When the siege is gone and you come out to a countryside that is devastated, and your homes and fields are devastated outside, there shall be enough for you. For the first year, you’ll feed on what is self-sowing, and during the year afterwards. And by that time, you’ll have collected enough seed to sow, and by the third year, you will have an abundant harvest’ (see 37:30).

So, you might say this is the first level of fulfilment. They are encouraged to dare to believe God, and put up with the privations of the siege, in the assurance from God through Isaiah the prophet that there will be enough and an abundant harvest, eventually, when they come out of the city in the third year.

So that is my contribution, and in the two minutes before we have to go, has anybody else got a contribution?

Audience: How long did the siege last?

DWG: You’ll have to tell me. I don’t remember, offhand. ‘Until the Spirit be poured on us from on high.’ Now, what about trying the eschatological interpretation? Joel says that, ‘it shall come to pass in the last days, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh’ (see 2:28). And what of Ezekiel and the restoration of the nation?

Audience: A similar verse we passed over earlier is in chapter 29.

Is it not yet a very little while until Lebanon shall be turned into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field shall be regarded as a forest? (v. 17)

Lebanon is a great cedar forest. It is similar phraseology.

DWG: Yes. Well, I take it that the first interpretation would be the immediate one, but then I think the language, and particularly the language of this third part of Isaiah, is deliberately couched to go beyond the immediate, with overtones for the future. And if you talk about the Spirit being poured out on high, you can think, if you like, of the Feast of Tabernacles. They added a ceremony to the Levitical ceremonies, and they went down with a golden pitcher to the pool of Siloam and brought up the water and poured it at the base of the altar. And if you listen to the rabbis, the significance of it was to remember that, in the desert, God got them water out of a rock so that their thirst was quenched. In order to make possible their redemption, you had to maintain the people with food and water. God brought the food of the manna, and the water out of the rock.

Then you could think of the promise of the former and the latter rains. The country was cooked hard like concrete by the summer suns. Unless you got the former rains in the autumn, you couldn’t soften the land, even to plough. So you were dependent on God to give the former rains. And then, when you had ploughed and sown, you needed the latter rains, in the springtime, to get the seed to grow properly, and you needed this for harvest. Those agricultural necessities lodged in the people’s mind the fact that they were dependent on God for the rains. And if they disobeyed God, he shut up the heavens, and there didn’t come any rain. So, the rabbis would have said this was why at the Feast of Tabernacles, when the harvest was in but the ground now was like concrete, they poured out the water. They were remembering before God that they depended on him to send the rain.

Oh, but yes, there was more than that in it, wasn’t there? There were the great promises of the prophets that, in the latter days, he would pour out his Spirit. And if Israel was to be revived and restored, it would need the pouring out of the Spirit in the last days. Thus did the rabbis preach for the Feast of Tabernacles. Therefore, our blessed Lord, standing up at the last great day of the Feast of Tabernacles, when they had just poured the water at the base of the altar, cried over the heads of the people,

If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’ Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. (John 7:37–39)

The Spirit came at Pentecost. When Peter interpreted that outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost, he quoted Joel. And many, I think, would argue that whereas that promise of Joel, and the one by Ezekiel, was fulfilled in Pentecost, it shall yet be fulfilled in the last days.

That has very big implications about the questions that we were discussing yesterday. If the pouring out of the Spirit in the last days is the same phenomenon that happened at Pentecost, well, we know what the pouring out of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost achieved. Israel’s hope, for the nation to be reborn spiritually, is the same thing as happened at Pentecost. But that is by the by.

The prospective effects of the pouring out of the Spirit (32:16–20)

We have considered the appeal to the women, and it is backed home, therefore, by the prospect of the coming of the pouring out of the Spirit. You see the result of it.

Then justice will dwell in the wilderness, and righteousness abide in the fruitful field. And the effect of righteousness will be peace, and the result of righteousness, quietness and trust for ever. My people will abide in a peaceful habitation, in secure dwellings, and in quiet resting-places. And it will hail when the forest falls down, and the city will be utterly laid low. Happy are you who sow beside all waters, who let the feet of the ox and the donkey range free. (vv. 16–20)

The effect of the pouring out of the Spirit is true judgment. ‘Justice will dwell in the wilderness, and righteousness abide in the fruitful field.’ That is total coverage—both wilderness and field. But in that same dispensation of God, ‘it will hail when the forest falls down, and the city will be utterly laid low’. Yes, for the ungodly, the coming of the judgments of God at the end of the age will be disaster. For the godly, they will mean the beauty and wonder and the fruitfulness of the reign of the coming King.

¹⁸ Fanny Crosby (1820-1915), ‘Some day the silver cord will break’ (1891).  

22: The Sixth Woe

Part 3B (28:1–35:10) Continued

The setting of the sixth woe (33:1–24)

The sixth woe fills the whole of chapter 33, but the first six verses seem to be a dramatic description, alternatively, of the outward distress and desolation occasioned by the siege, and then the remnant’s faith and exaltation in the Lord. Verse 1 seems to refer to the Assyrian himself.

[Woe to] you destroyer, who yourself have not been destroyed, you traitor, whom none has betrayed! When you have ceased to destroy, you will be destroyed; and when you have finished betraying, they will betray you.

A reference, perhaps, to the emperor’s treachery towards Hezekiah when he took the money, the treasure, from Hezekiah on the condition that he would not attack Jerusalem. Then, having taken the money, he treacherously pursued his intention of trying to take Jerusalem. Therefore, the Assyrian is warned, ‘When you have ceased to destroy, you will be destroyed; and when you have finished betraying, they will betray you.’ It is the fact that that particular Assyrian, when he returned home, was subsequently assassinated by two of his sons, in the temple of his god.

Now, in verse 2, the godly pray to the Lord.

O Lord, be gracious to us; we wait for you. Be our arm every morning, our salvation in the time of trouble.

Dramatic poetry as they express their feelings, the up and down feelings and anxieties, so to speak, in the night of their trial.

Verse 3 seems to celebrate the fact that, ‘At the tumultuous noise peoples flee; when you lift yourself up, nations are scattered’. Presumably this is referring to the nations fleeing at the fall of God’s judgment, and that God gathers their spoil. Then we read, ‘and your spoil is gathered as the caterpillar gathers; as locusts leap, it is leapt upon’ (v. 4). And then the godly in Zion delight to see the Lord exalted.

The Lord is exalted, for he dwells on high; he will fill Zion with justice and righteousness, and he will be the stability of your times, abundance of salvation, wisdom, and knowledge; the fear of the Lord is Zion’s treasure. (vv. 5–6)

All of these songs are anticipatory of the coming victory, and what will be the results of it, and the Lord’s blessing upon them. It is interesting to see how they go up and down. At one time the people are thinking of the spoiler, and then praying to the Lord to be gracious, and then feeling, yes, the victory is certain, and anticipating the results of God’s mercy and deliverance.

God’s judgments on the nations (33:7–12)

Now we have God’s judgments on the nations. ‘Behold, their heroes cry in the streets; the envoys of peace weep bitterly’ (v. 7). What is that? Is it, perhaps, that first bitter shock when Hezekiah’s ambassadors, in the negotiations with Sennacherib, realized that he has deceived them and broken the treaty and has no regard for cities, nor for human life?

The highways lie waste; the traveller ceases. Covenants are broken; cities are despised; there is no regard for man. (v. 8)

That is, the Assyrian man has broken the covenant, with the result that throughout land there is complete desolation, and no travel.

The land mourns and languishes; Lebanon is confounded and withers away; Sharon is like a desert, and Bashan and Carmel shake off their leaves. (v. 9)

And then the Lord intervenes.

‘Now I will arise,’ says the Lord, ‘now I will lift myself up; now I will be exalted. You conceive chaff; you give birth to stubble; your breath is a fire that will consume you.’ (vv. 10–11)

The principle is that sin destroys itself, in the end.

And the peoples will be as if burned to lime, like thorns cut down, that are burned in the fire. (v. 12)

The effect on the inhabitants of Zion (33:13–34)

Now, from 13 onwards, we see the effect on the inhabitants of Zion. God is speaking and says,

Hear, you who are far off, what I have done; and you who are near, acknowledge my might. The sinners in Zion are afraid; trembling has seized the godless: ‘Who among us can dwell with the consuming fire? Who among us can dwell with everlasting burnings?’ (vv. 13–14)

When they witness God’s destruction of the Assyrian, here described in terms of burning up the thorns, and they thereby realize the holiness of the God that dwells in Jerusalem, in Zion, the question immediately arises, ‘Who can possibly be fit to dwell in Zion, if it is inhabited by the Lord of such holiness?’ It is not saying, ‘Who of us shall go down to the lake of fire?’ It is asking, ‘Who of us can abide in Zion, with a God who is a consuming fire?’

We remember that that is the exhortation that comes at the end of Hebrews 12. It is good for us to remember it. That chapter begins by contrasting the God who appeared on Mount Sinai, amidst the fires, the thunders and the earthquakes that terrified the Israelites because of his majesty and holiness. The writer says, ‘We have not come to a mountain like that, that burned with fire, such that even Moses said, “I do exceedingly fear and quake”. No, we have come to the heavenly Jerusalem, with all its delights’ (see vv. 18–24). And lest we shall think that God has grown less holy than he used to be, he then adds, ‘whose voice once shook the earth at Sinai, but he has promised that he will shake it again’ (see v. 26); as in Isaiah 24. ‘And this word, “once more I shake”, signifies the removing of everything that can be shaken, so that that which is unshakeable shall remain.’ He concludes, ‘We therefore, having received a kingdom that cannot be moved, let us seek grace that we may serve him with godly fear, for our God (still) is a consuming fire’ (see vv. 25–29).

‘Who among us can dwell with the consuming fire? Who among us can dwell with everlasting burnings?’ ask those in Jerusalem, the city that in this section of Isaiah is called ‘the altar hearth’ (33:14).

The answer to that question is now given in verse 15. And notice here, the prophet is not led to dwell upon the atoning sacrifice of Christ. Of course, it is not that he didn’t know about that. Isaiah 53 will eventually explain, in words of simple syllables, how we can have peace with God through the atoning sacrifice of Christ; but here, the prophet is inspired to say that those who dwell amongst the everlasting burnings will show these characteristics. That is the message of Psalm 15, isn’t it?

O Lord, who shall sojourn in your tent? Who shall dwell on your holy hill? He who walks blamelessly and does what is right and speaks truth in his heart. (vv. 1–2)

And it continues. In Isaiah 33:15, the characteristics of those that dwell with the everlasting burnings are, ‘He who walks righteously and speaks uprightly’, so righteousness in behaviour and word. ‘He who . . . despises the gain of oppressions, who shakes his hands, lest they hold a bribe, who stops his ears from hearing of bloodshed’; that is, schemes that will involve murder and assassinations, and so forth; ‘and shuts his eyes from looking on evil, he will dwell on the heights’.

In Hebrew terms, Isaiah is using those descriptions of sin that were commonplace in his day, in the world of speech and commerce, and so forth. These are the characteristics, then, of those who shall inhabit the city.

Notice the results in verse 16, the blessings of dwelling with the everlasting burnings of God’s holy presence. One is security: ‘his place of defence will be the fortresses of rocks’. So, security and defence. Secondly, no more unsatisfied hunger and thirst: ‘his bread will be given him; his water will be sure’.

Then comes that unspeakable blessing of seeing the king in his beauty. ‘Your eyes will behold the king in his beauty; they will see a land that stretches afar’ (v. 17). It does not say you shall see the king at a distance, but rather, you shall see the king in his beauty, in a land with unrestricted vistas. There will be nothing narrow about dwelling with the king. What immense and indescribable blessing this clause describes. His servants shall see his face, and they shall serve him (see Rev 22:3–4).

Your heart will muse on the terror: ‘Where is he who counted, where is he who weighed the tribute? Where is he who counted the towers?’ You will see no more the insolent people, the people of an obscure speech that you cannot comprehend, stammering in a tongue that you cannot understand. (Isa 33:18–19)

‘Your heart will muse on the terror’, that is, on the terror that is passed. We are here given a description of the Assyrians with their foreign language and the addition, therefore, to the terror which the besieged city had experienced. But now the people have the ability to look back without fear, but rather with ever deepening gratitude, on the terror they once experienced, but which has now passed away for ever.

And for us incurable Christians, I suppose, too, one of the glories of heaven will be that we’ll be able to look back over the past, to the fears and alarms that once disturbed us, and see how God delivered us from them all, to look back without terror and without trauma. There will be no traumatized memories in glory, my brothers and my sisters.

Then we have the resultant, ever-increasing enjoyment of the religious feasts, and of Jerusalem city, never to be uprooted.

Behold Zion, the city of our appointed feasts! Your eyes will see Jerusalem, an untroubled habitation, an immovable tent, whose stakes will never be plucked up, nor will any of its cords be broken. (v. 20)

The language is interesting, isn’t it? They are talking about a city, but the language he uses to describe it is a metaphor drawn from tent life, where you had to have stakes and ropes to keep the tent established. And long after Israel learned to live in cities, you will find, if you read the history in the Old Testament, they frequently use the metaphors drawn from tent life.

So, it is a city of solemnities, that is, of the great festivals. He is thinking, perhaps, in terms of the feasts of the Lord, such as Leviticus 23 described, and in particular the Feast of Tabernacles, when for a week, they made booths on the top of their houses, or in their back gardens, or wherever they could. And, dwelling in tents, they remembered all the way that the Lord had led them from Egypt, until they got to Canaan.

Just as in their solemnities, their yearly festivals, they looked back over the extent of God’s redemption, in its various phases, so now too they will rejoice in this event that they have just been through. And in the literal Jerusalem that followed Sennacherib’s failed attack, there would be added to their solemnities the memory of this tremendous experience of deliverance.

And then there is the certainty that the city was never to be uprooted. Of course, this is what Isaiah, in his day, was anticipating. Remember that the city of Jerusalem on earth was most definitely uprooted, in the sense that the king of Babylon eventually took it, and destroyed it. And then, when that was rebuilt under Zerubbabel and under Nehemiah, eventually that city, though much enlarged and improved by Herod the Great and others, it was eventually assailed by the Romans, and Hadrian eventually turned it into a Gentile city. So, physically, yes, Jerusalem was eventually uprooted, but presumably we may be allowed to see, in this confidence of the believers and their redemption and deliverance from the Assyrian, anticipations of the eternal city that bears that name ‘the new Jerusalem’ that shall never be uprooted.

But there the Lord in majesty will be for us a place of broad rivers and streams, where no galley with oars can go, nor majestic ship can pass. (v. 21)

I am no naval expert. I suppose that, to the ancient mind, with the thought of broad rivers came the possibility of being invaded by seaborne troops and crafty pirates and other such things. And therefore, using that language, he depicts the safeties and securities of Jerusalem. I don’t suppose myself, though others may, that that means that the Jerusalem of the coming day will have broad rivers surrounding it, of course. This I take to be metaphorical for absolute security, by land or sea. I take it to be what Isaiah would have anticipated as he said these words. But if you think one day Jerusalem will be connected with the Mediterranean by broad rivers, or by a broad river from the East, as well, so be it. The notion is that it will not make Jerusalem vulnerable, presumably by warships, or even unwelcome merchant ships.

For the Lord is our judge; the Lord is our lawgiver; the Lord is our king; he will save us. (v. 22)

The Lord returns.

Your cords hang loose; they cannot hold the mast firm in its place or keep the sail spread out. Then prey and spoil in abundance will be divided; even the lame will take the prey. (v. 23)

Verse 23 is what disposes me to think that verse 20 is metaphorical, because, presumably, what is said in verse 23 is metaphorical.

Audience: There were rivers going up to Zion. There were the rivers of nations going up to the hill of the Lord (Isa 2:2).

DWG: Oh, well, marvellous. Yes, flowing, but they weren’t made of water.

Audience: No, something better.

DWG: Yes, something better!

Audience: Do you take as literal the river in Zechariah that flows east and west (14:8)? Would that be a river, literally, that would be flowing from the Mount of Olives to the great sea?

DWG: Oh, well, my answer to that is I am going to wait and see, if you see what I mean. I have no objection to it happening. And that is not meant to be cynical. There is a lot that I am prepared to wait and see exactly what was meant, whether it was literal or something else.

Audience: In verse 22, we have the three branches of our United States government: the judicial branch, the legislative branch, and the executive branch. But here the Lord is all three.

DWG: Yes, he is. I just thought you were going to say the three branches of your American government would be there! I soon saw that you were using it as an illustration. That was a very helpful analogy. The three branches of the government; and our Lord will be all three, so to speak. And there is the guarantee, not only of physical security, but of every other security you could wish.

Audience: Maybe there is an allusion to Eden with the rivers?

DWG: It could be, yes, the rivers of paradise. There is going to be a big river in the new Jerusalem.

Audience: The river of life.

DWG: Yes. Whether you should insist of that being made of water, I’m not altogether sure. But surely verse 23 is meant to be metaphorical.

Your cords hang loose; they cannot hold the mast firm in its place or keep the sail spread out. Then prey and spoil in abundance will be divided; even the lame will take the prey.

What does that mean? Do correct me, because I could be wrong, as often I am, but I take it to be the metaphor of the ship of state, and as it went to combat the great Assyrian, it was all unshipped. They couldn’t raise the mast properly. The tackling that kept the sails and the mast in place were loose. They could not spread the sail, then the prey of the great spoil was divided, and it wasn’t the efficient that took the prey, but the lame that took the prey, because God was with them. I don’t think that the Israelites knew a lot about sailing. Well, Jehoshaphat had a go at seafaring, and joined with Ahab, and Ahab’s son, but the Lord didn’t smile upon his adventures with his navy (1 Kgs 22:45–50).

Audience: So, the Assyrian government is as a shipwreck?

DWG: Do you think verses 23 is a description of the Assyrians?

Audience: That’s what I’m asking.

Audience: In support of that, in verse 4, the spoil and prey being gathered as a caterpillar gathers it, is probably the people of Jerusalem gathering the prey after the great slaughter.

DWG: Oh, I see. Well I take it that, yes, it was the prey of a great spoil divided. I thought it was the Jerusalemites taking the prey.

Audience: The danger to Jerusalem is the ship from outside. Maybe this is Assyria, as a ship coming to attack.

DWG: And so it’s the picture of a ship being unsuccessful? They couldn’t spread the sails, and because they came to shipwreck, then the people of Jerusalem, even the lame, took the prey? Well, it is possible.

And no inhabitant will say, ‘I am sick’; the people who dwell there will be forgiven their iniquity. (v. 24)

Surely, it refers to the inhabitants of Jerusalem who will know no sickness, and they shall enjoy complete forgiveness.

Audience: Hallelujah.

DWG: Amen.

Audience: I missed the point on the lawgiver, judge and the king, the concept there.

DWG: Someone come to his aid.

Audience: The reason our security is so sure is that the Lord himself controls all of the branches of government and provides the perfect security of peace and rest.

DWG: Yes, and what I would mean by security is that there will be complete justice. It is not merely security from outside enemies, but it has to do with people’s behaviour within the city. And if your next-door neighbour can do you an injury and get away with it, you’ll not feel secure. Isaiah has announced, all the way through, the corruption of the legal system and the false interpretation of Scripture that was the legal system in Judaea. He looks forward to a day when a king will reign in righteousness. That will give you, not merely security from external enemies, but will guarantee proper social security amongst the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

Audience: So, government perfected?

DWG: Oh, surely, government perfected. Yes, in all its branches.

Audience: He’s offering a vision of the faithful in his day, a messianic, millennial vision, as a comfort in the present threat of Assyria.

DWG: Oh, surely he is. We are all allowed to comfort our hearts like that, aren’t we? When we see the corruption in the world, and even in the best-intentioned circles in governments we see the corruption, we sustain our hearts by the hope and certain knowledge that one day Christ will rule; and there will be an end to all misrule.

Audience: Our government was established on the basis of that verse. And obviously you can see the decay and corruption that has advanced over time.

Audience: Is that why Zechariah was sent to the remnant that had grown weary? He was to encourage their hearts in what the future would be if they stayed steadfast?

DWG: Surely. The certainty of the glory is not escapism, like some people say it is. As I heard you singing earlier, ‘Eternal glories gleam afar | to nerve my faint endeavour’. ¹⁹ It is not escapism from the realities of present life; it is the motivation and the encouragement that there shall come the Lord’s reign of peace, which strengthens us to persist now in our service for him.

The coming of the Lord in power to execute judgment on the nations (34:1–17)

With that we come to the end of the woes, and now to the announcement of the coming of the Lord in power to execute judgment on the nations. The woes here in Isaiah give place to the coming of the Lord, as they do in the Revelation, of course. Although it maybe had a meaning for its own time, as far as I understand it, its prime meaning will be a reference eschatologically to the coming of Christ. Why do I say that? Well, let’s read it through.

Draw near, O nations, to hear, and give attention, O peoples! Let the earth hear, and all that fills it; the world, and all that comes from it. (34:1)

We started the third section of Isaiah with chapter 24 and its prediction of cosmic disturbances at the coming of the Day of the Lord. It seems to me we return to that theme.

For the Lord is enraged against all the nations, and furious against all their host; he has devoted them to destruction, has given them over for slaughter. Their slain shall be cast out, and the stench of their corpses shall rise; the mountains shall flow with their blood. All the host of heaven shall rot away, and the skies roll up like a scroll. All their host shall fall, as leaves fall from the vine, like leaves falling from the fig tree. (vv. 2–4)

That is language that seems to me to go far beyond anything that ever happened when Sennacherib’s forces were repulsed from Jerusalem. It fits in with that cosmic description in chapter 24, with which this section of Isaiah began. And we are now coming towards the end of the last chapters of Part 3 (chapters 34–35), and they resume the topic with which Part 3 began, the cosmic disturbances at the coming of Christ to judge.

For my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens; behold, it descends for judgement upon Edom, upon the people I have devoted to destruction. The Lord has a sword; it is sated with blood; it is gorged with fat, with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams. For the Lord has a sacrifice in Bozrah, a great slaughter in the land of Edom. Wild oxen shall fall with them, and young steers with the mighty bulls. Their land shall drink its fill of blood, and their soil shall be gorged with fat. (vv. 5–7)

But now comes the operative phrase that will control for us how metaphorical it is and how literal.

For it is the day of the Lord’s vengeance, the year of recompence in the controversy of Zion. (v. 8 rv)

We must pause a moment with those terms. To help us put all things in focus, let’s recall that this coming of the Lord, so to speak, to Bozrah in judgment, occurs again in the last part of the prophecy of Isaiah, that is, in chapters 40–66. It might be well worth our time looking at the similar description of this coming in chapter 63.

Who is this who comes from Edom, in crimsoned garments from Bozrah, he who is splendid in his apparel, marching in the greatness of his strength? ‘It is I, speaking in righteousness, mighty to save.’ Why is your apparel red, and your garments like his who treads in the wine press? ‘I have trodden the wine press alone, and from the peoples no one was with me; I trod them in my anger and trampled them in my wrath; their lifeblood spattered on my garments, and stained all my apparel. For the day of vengeance was in my heart, and my year of redemption had come.’ (63:1–4)

Now, sometimes and occasionally you will hear somebody refer to our Lord that he ‘trod the winepress alone’ as if it were a description of our Lord enduring the penalty of our sin as he hung upon the cross. But this chapter and chapter 34 are surely not describing our Lord’s sufferings at Calvary. They are discussing and depicting when he comes to execute judgment and to avenge his people. The day of vengeance, that is of avenging has come. It is the time when he will settle the great controversy over Zion that has plagued the world for centuries. And to show how this terminology is used in the New Testament, let’s look at Revelation 19, which surely is describing the same event.

Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. (vv. 11–16)

In other words, he is treading the winepress of the wrath of God, not suffering the wrath of God on Calvary. He is now the executive of the wrath of God, and hence, because he is treading the winepress so that the wine of the wrath of God flows out, his garments are bespattered with the blood of those he destroys. And the invitation goes out in the next verses to the great carnage, and the birds are invited to the supper. It is gruesome language, but it is vividly describing the coming of the Lord in power and great glory to execute the wrath of God on an evil world.

If then we have established the connection between Isaiah 34 and Isaiah 63, and Revelation 11–18, we can conclude that Isaiah 34 is a prophetic description of the coming of Christ in power and great glory to execute the wrath of God, not just on Sennacherib, but on the whole world. So, the words go far beyond the repulse of Sennacherib’s army from Jerusalem in the days of Hezekiah. But now look at the term that is used in 34:8.

For it is the day of the Lord’s vengeance, the year of recompence in the controversy of Zion. (rv)

I am not sure how the word is used in your language in America, but with us the notion of vengeance seems to conjure up in many people’s minds ideas of revenge, as though somebody were reacting and getting their own back, that is, taking revenge. And many people think that revenge is a bad thing. It is not a question of revenge; it is a question of avenging. So, let’s look again, first of all at Isaiah 61, which, as you know, our Lord quoted as his programme when he stood in the synagogue of Nazareth, his home town.

The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn; to grant to those who mourn in Zion—to give them a beautiful headdress instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, the garment of praise instead of a faint spirit; that they may be called oaks of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he may be glorified. They shall build up the ancient ruins; they shall raise up the former devastations; they shall repair the ruined cities, the devastations of many generations. (vv. 1–4)

Now, it is true that when our Lord stood in the synagogue in Nazareth, he got to the point where it said, ‘to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God’, but at the end of the bit that said, ‘the acceptable year of the Lord’, he closed the book and handed it back to the attendant. Then he began to say to them, ‘Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your ears’ (see Luke 4:16–21). And preachers unnumbered have pointed to the fact of exactly where he closed the book. ‘Good job,’ they say, ‘that he closed the book there, ending with “the acceptable year of the Lord”, and said that was fulfilled, and didn’t add the next bit, “the day of vengeance of our God”. What a mercy he didn’t add that and say that also was fulfilled, because that would have brought down the vengeance of God upon people unprepared for it.’ And, of course, that is a really valid point to make. But, in the ears of the Jews, the day of vengeance not being now fulfilled would have been very disappointing. That is because the day of vengeance in the controversy over Zion was the time when Messiah was expected to come and deliver the godly, to avenge the widow that called day and night to have justice done, and to be delivered from her unjust oppressors. The day of vengeance therefore was not a threat, as you see in Isaiah 34. It is the day of vengeance in the controversy over Zion, for the Messiah to come and vindicate Zion, and to see that she is delivered from her oppressors and that justice is done. And therefore when the Lord indicated that he hadn’t come to fulfil that, there would have been many a heart sorely disappointed. As other people said, on the road to Emmaus, ‘We trusted that it would be he who would have liberated Israel, but he didn’t do it’ (see Luke 24:21).

That leads us to think about something we were discussing sometime during these past few days, concerning why it is that some people find it difficult to believe in God and in the message of Christ. They say, ‘If Christ is the Son of God, and God cares for justice, why does he not avenge the weak and the oppressed, and put things right in this evil world?’ They are stumbled by the fact that Christ allows things to go on and doesn’t avenge the innocent. In Isaiah 34 and 63, and in the New Testament likewise, our Lord lays down his timetable. He will avenge his people who cry to him day and night, but not at his first coming. His avenging of them will take place at his second coming.

Now, avenging, of course, will mean massive execution of justice on the rebellious and sinful of this world. Particularly you notice the context in Revelation. It is in chapter 19 as the rider comes out on the white horse, thus clothed in garments bespattered with blood, and the birds of the heaven are invited to come to the consequent gruesome supper of the flesh of captains and all the rest, that he comes to deal with the beast and the false prophet, the ultimate of the anti-God dictators who have persecuted anybody who will not receive their mark in their forehead or in their hand (v. 20). The similarity therefore between that and this passage in Isaiah, what you might call a prototype, of Sennacherib surrounding Jerusalem, is moderately clear, isn’t it? The day of vengeance will be when the Lord comes and delivers his faithful people and vindicates them and settles the age-long score in the controversy over Jerusalem.

Audience: Is there any way that there can be a connection with the day of vengeance of our God and Calvary?

DWG: Well, I think the connection between the two is perhaps expressed in the hymns of Revelation 5, because, as we know, when the challenge is given as to who is able and who is worthy to take the book and to loose its seals, the question is raised because loosing the seals of that book means letting loose the judgments of God on an ungodly world. It means bringing back earth to serve the purpose of him who made it. Revelation 4 ends up with a great song of praise to him who sits on the throne. It is the throne of the creator in chapter 4. And they sing, ‘Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honour and power’. Why? It is because ‘you created all things’. And why did he make them? The song goes on, ‘by your will they existed and were created’ (v. 11). That is, creation was made to serve the will of the creator. And since creation, in man’s hands, has rebelled against the creator, and got itself into consequent chaos, inevitably one day creation will have to be brought back, and will be brought back to serve the will of the creator.

Audience: But it is only possible because Christ took the vengeance of God upon himself, and therefore he is able, without totally obliterating the world, to restore it.

DWG: Well, yes, the hymn in Revelation goes like this. When he takes the book, and is about to open the seals and let loose the series of judgments,

they sang a new song, saying, ‘Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.’ (5:9–10)

Why do they say he is worthy? Well, for a number of reasons. Firstly, ‘for you were slain.’ Before he executes the wrath of God on unrepentant sinners, he first was slain. And the word is not a nice word. It is ‘slaughtered’. The world slew him. But then the hymn takes up the phrase, ‘You were slain; and for us, and those who repent, there is forgiveness.’ Secondly, ‘And you have redeemed us to God by your blood, and made something of us, made us a kingdom, that is, people that obey God. You have made us a kingdom of priests, people that live to serve God.’

So, it isn’t a question of Christ coming along and saying, ‘This world is an utter failure, let’s eliminate it and start afresh with nothing.’ For God to do that (I hesitate to say it) would be a defeat for God. Satan would have the last laugh, and say, ‘Aha, you made a world, didn’t you? I tempted it, and it went wrong. Well, I know you’ve got power to destroy me, God, but you lost, didn’t you? You have to admit that earth was a failure. Your scheme went wrong, and you couldn’t do anything about it, so you had to destroy it. You lost, didn’t you? You were defeated there.’

God is not going to be defeated. Before the Lord executes the judgments, and cleans the world of impenitent sinners, he has made something of God’s creation, for God. Out of the seeming wreck, by his own sacrifice of blood, he has redeemed men and women to God out of every kindred, tribe, tongue, people and nation: representatives of the whole earth. He has made something of them. He has made them a kingdom, priests to our God!

What a victory that is. And because he has done that, he has the moral right, now, to execute the judgment of God on impenitent sinners, and to redevelop the world. Yes, and when he does so, Revelation 5 says that all who are in heaven and on earth, and under the earth agree to his moral worth (see vv. 11–14). Not even Satan himself will be able to dispute the moral right, the moral worth, of Christ. Even though Satan will remain his unredeemed enemy for all eternity, he shall be compelled to admit the moral right of Christ to execute the judgments of God.

Audience: Isn’t the difficult point, though, in this section, how all of this cosmic stuff relates to Edom? And after Edom is destroyed, night monsters, and various animals are living there. So the specificity of the locality involved in this cosmic passage is difficult (see Isa 34:8–17).

DWG: Yes, that is very much so, and because that is so, I had devised a very crooked plan. I had thought to stop this session now, and invite you to take tea, and then to have a question time. And the question time will cover that bit about Edom, and then the porcupines, and the highway, and then the final song of the redeemed coming back. And as usual, of course, in the question time, it is I that will put the questions, and it is all of you that do the answering. How about that? Amen. Good, glad you agree!

¹⁹ James Grindlay Small (1817-1888), ‘I’ve found a friend, O such a friend’ (1866). 

23: Questions and Contributions

Beasts, Books and Holy Highways

Let’s begin by reading the last few verses of Isaiah 35.

And a highway shall be there, and it shall be called the Way of Holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it. It shall belong to those who walk on the way; even if they are fools, they shall not go astray. No lion shall be there, nor shall any ravenous beast come up on it; they shall not be found there, but the redeemed shall walk there. And the ransomed of the Lord shall return and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain gladness and joy, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away. (vv. 8–10)

As chapter 35 brings to an end the third part of the prophecy of Isaiah, it ends, like so many other parts, with a highway for the ransomed to come back to Zion.

Beasts, books and holy highways

We have questions to answer that were raised at the end of the last session. In particular, in chapter 34, they relate to two questions. Why is Edom singled out as the place to which the Lord comes to execute his judgment?

For my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens; behold, it descends for judgement upon Edom, upon the people I have devoted to destruction. (34:5)

And secondly, in describing the consequent desolation, chapter 34 says,

Seek and read from the book of the Lord: Not one of these shall be missing; none shall be without her mate. For the mouth of the Lord has commanded, and his Spirit has gathered them. (v. 16)

This is referring to all these wild, noxious, sinister creatures that shall inhabit the land now made desolate by the judgments of God that have been inflicted. What is this book of the Lord that is to be read that will show us that all these sinister animals and the rest of the thorns and the thistles and so forth shall in fact come to be? And we are to read of it. We are to know that none of them will be missing; the prophecy will be fulfilled.

As you come to answer those questions, I shall have another question in reserve. Chapter 34 talks of these thistles and thorns and sinister wild beasts. Chapter 35, in describing the highway that shall be there, that is, the way of holiness, says,

No lion shall be there, nor shall any ravenous beast come up on it; they shall not be found there, but the redeemed shall walk there. (35:9)

The question that will exercise us in relation to both passages is: what is this long section in chapter 34 about? Why are we given this description of these beasts? And why the attention to the record in the book? What book? Where is it said? And to what does this apply? Does it apply to Edom in the past that perhaps was made desolate and became the haunt of wild and rather sinister animals? But, if it refers in the first part of the chapter to the second coming of Christ, is the result of his coming to be in a certain part of the geography of Palestine, namely Edom? Is that to be transformed into a desert with wild beasts of a sinister kind being there for the rest of earth’s history? What exactly is meant?

Also, the question will arise of this highway. In previous chapters, when the highway has been mentioned it has been, for instance, a highway out of Assyria and out of Egypt for Israel to return to Zion. It is easy, therefore, to think of it literally. A way shall be made back for the exiles to return. Or, again, on one occasion, it is a highway from Assyria to Egypt to facilitate the intercourse of those two nations, when both are reconciled and with Israel form a triad of the Lord’s people in the earth. But here it is not said where this highway shall be from. You notice it is said where it shall be to, but not from.

And on this highway, even the wayfaring man, though a fool, shall not go astray. I have heard many a sermon, or part sermon, or mention of it in prayer, that the gospel, the highway to heaven, is so simple, that the wayfaring man, though a fool, shall not go astray. I would like to hear from you whether I heard that right and whether that was the right interpretation, namely that this is the highway to heaven. And no lion shall be there. What, you mean the devil as a roaring lion, shall not be there? Or, if it is not the highway to heaven, then it is a highway from where, and to what? Is this just comforting the exiles as they return from America to Israel, that there will be a way and no lion shall be on it? What are we to make of these things? We are to take the passages seriously, of course, but what will serious exposition lead us to?

Why the coming to Edom?

So now I am all ears to hear what you have to say. I have spoken enough, I think, and more than enough. Let’s begin with question number one. Why is this coming of the Lord in judgment, so to speak, directed towards Edom? If this is the second coming of Christ, why to Edom?

Possible retribution

Audience: Could it go back to when Edom refused the children of Israel passage on their way from Egypt to the promised land? Moses said, ‘We’ll stay on the King’s Highway. We won’t go off it, but we’ll stay on the highway’ (see Num 21:22–23). There is a specific mention there of a highway, and they were refused the use of it to make their way to where they were going, which was, ultimately, Jerusalem. So perhaps this is retribution upon Edom for that.

DWG: So, the idea is that this is the retribution for Edom refusing a way through to the Israelites as they were on their way to the promised land? And the retribution is to come when the Lord comes, perhaps three thousand years later?

Audience: Why not? Payday someday.

Audience: The problem is that Edom doesn’t exist anymore.

DWG: Well, you could say, couldn’t you, that Edom is now subsumed in Jordan. At least, the Jordanians will tell you that they are Edom and that Amman is their capital.

Audience: As a people?

DWG: Well, there you are; but that’s what they say.

Audience: There is a reference that postdates this one in Isaiah, I think. It is in Psalm 137.

Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites the day of Jerusalem, how they said, ‘Lay it bare, lay it bare, down to its foundations!’ O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall he be who repays you with what you have done to us! (vv. 7–8)

When Babylon destroyed Jerusalem, apparently the Edomites were helping enthusiastically. That’s the way I understand this psalm.

DWG: And then, am I right in thinking that the prophet Obadiah said something about Edom? Would somebody like to find Obadiah for me, if you can find him? He is very elusive. You have found him? Read that for us.

Audience: From the beginning?

DWG: Well, as much as you feel relevant.

Audience:

The vision of Obadiah. Thus says the Lord God concerning Edom: We have heard a report from the Lord, and a messenger has been sent among the nations: ‘Rise up! Let us rise against her for battle!’ Behold, I will make you small among the nations; you shall be utterly despised. The pride of your heart has deceived you, you who live in the clefts of the rock, in your lofty dwelling, who say in your heart, ‘Who will bring me down to the ground?’ Though you soar aloft like the eagle, though your nest is set among the stars, from there I will bring you down, declares the Lord. If thieves came to you, if plunderers came by night—how you have been destroyed!—would they not steal only enough for themselves? If grape gatherers came to you, would they not leave gleanings? How Esau has been pillaged, his treasures sought out! All your allies have driven you to your border; those at peace with you have deceived you; they have prevailed against you; those who eat your bread have set a trap beneath you—you have no understanding. Will I not on that day, declares the Lord, destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding out of Mount Esau? And your mighty men shall be dismayed, O Teman, so that every man from Mount Esau will be cut off by slaughter. Because of the violence done to your brother Jacob, shame shall cover you, and you shall be cut off for ever. On the day that you stood aloof, on the day that strangers carried off his wealth and foreigners entered his gates and cast lots for Jerusalem, you were like one of them. But do not gloat over the day of your brother in the day of his misfortune; do not rejoice over the people of Judah in the day of their ruin; do not boast in the day of distress. Do not enter the gate of my people in the day of their calamity; do not gloat over his disaster in the day of his calamity; do not loot his wealth in the day of his calamity. Do not stand at the crossroads to cut off his fugitives; do not hand over his survivors in the day of distress. For the day of the Lord is near upon all the nations. As you have done, it shall be done to you; your deeds shall return on your own head. For as you have drunk on my holy mountain, so all the nations shall drink continually; they shall drink and swallow, and shall be as though they had never been. But in Mount Zion there shall be those who escape, and it shall be holy, and the house of Jacob shall possess their own possessions. The house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau stubble; they shall burn them and consume them, and there shall be no survivor for the house of Esau, for the Lord has spoken. Those of the Negeb shall possess Mount Esau, and those of the Shephelah shall possess the land of the Philistines; they shall possess the land of Ephraim and the land of Samaria, and Benjamin shall possess Gilead. The exiles of this host of the people of Israel shall possess the land of the Canaanites as far as Zarephath, and the exiles of Jerusalem who are in Sepharad shall possess the cities of the Negeb. Saviours shall go up to Mount Zion to rule Mount Esau, and the kingdom shall be the Lord’s. (Obad 1:1–21)

DWG: Thank you very much. Now, what should I deduce from that?

Audience: Obadiah has read Isaiah.

DWG: Yes, that is the number one point! And the number two point is that, in days gone by, Edom seriously opposed and afflicted their brother-nation Israel. And in the time when Judah was ravaged and taken into exile to Babylon, Edom rejoiced and helped the Babylonians thus to maltreat the people of Judah. And because of that, the wrath of God was stirred against them.

The values of Edom

Thus far, I think that’s clear. Can I say, therefore, that when Isaiah prophesied the second coming of Christ, he was a prophet who (in the nature of prophets) mixed the near and the far; and, therefore, he thought the Lord’s coming would deal with what were then the well-known enemies of Zion, namely Edom? But the prophecy does mix the near with the far. Therefore the Edom that Isaiah hoped and prayed (and was assured) would be dealt with, will be dealt with three thousand years later, so to speak, when the Lord comes in glory. At that time, Edom will stand for something else (to put it crudely). Edom stands, therefore, as a label for the then great enemy of the people of God.

That, at least, is how the Jewish Rabbis would understand it. If you read the Talmud, they will tell you Edom represents Rome because, at the time they were writing, Rome was the great oppressor of Israel. Therefore, they interpret these references to Edom as applying to Rome. Now, would you have me do that, or not?

Audience: I just have a question. Herod was an Edomite, wasn’t he? So, being an Edomite, he was a false king sitting on the throne at the time of Christ’s first coming. Do you think that fits in here at all, at least as a type?

DWG: When you say in type, or in prototype, yes, I think it is significant that Herod was an Edomite. He is often referred to as the ‘King of the Jews’, but he wasn’t a Jew himself; he was an Edomite. And the Genesis record is that there were kings in Edom before there were kings in Israel. We recall the first story about Esau and how he got the name ‘Edom’. Although he had the birth right, so to speak, he sold it for a bowl of stew (Gen 25:29–34). He preferred to have a full stomach now, rather than live on promises for the future.

Herod showed similar propensities. He was determined to be king now, and so when our Lord was born of the seed of David with a claim, therefore, to being the true king of the Jews, for Herod this was a political claim, and he determined to wipe out any such claimant that might compete with him. He wanted to be king now. So, yes, you may think of Edom in that connection. It is certainly a good thing to bring up. My concern, however, would be how we understand this in relation to our Lord’s second coming.

Audience: Perhaps the repeated phrase in Revelation, ‘Those who dwell on the earth’ (11:10) could be significant. Edom means ‘red’, and is related to that word for red earth. Esau is of course the earthly minded brother of Jacob, but maybe it’s more general than that, related to those whose orientation is towards this earth.

DWG: Well, that is an interesting suggestion, though it seems to me that he got his name ‘red’, that is, Edom, from his red stew originally. That is why he was called Red. If we now say he got the name because he was earthly minded, well, that could be so. Perhaps in the purposes of God, historically, he wanted to be king of the area and there were kings there before there was any king, such as David, in Israel. So perhaps this is talking in semi-political terms of that ancient world, and of a tribe that had disputed Israel as the tribe that would bring God’s king on the earth, and wanted to anticipate it and establish its own kingdom in Edom before Israel’s king got going. That would explain to me the historical thing. It is the carry over, if I can make that clear, of this mention of Edom in a passage that seems to be talking of the second coming of Christ.

Audience: If there is a link between his first coming and the position of Israel at his first coming, then that, in a sense, is a foretaste of the condition of the nation at his second coming. And the leaders of the nation of Israel were in cahoots with the Edomite (Herod) in their opposition to Christ at his first coming. And whereas the first time he came he fled from people, as we noticed earlier, the point at which he closed the book when he was reading this prophecy didn’t bring judgment then but brought the day of grace and salvation. At his second coming, he won’t be fleeing from the Edomites; he’ll be crushing them.

DWG: Yes. In other words, you are suggesting that just as in the first coming of our Lord, Herod the Edomite tried to eliminate him. Then another Herod, who executed John, was the one at the trial of our Lord. The Lord was sent to that Herod by Pilate, because he belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction. Herod mocked him and, therefore, was in cahoots with Pilate and the chief priests and all that crowd, an unholy alliance if ever there was one. Listen to the early church in Acts 4, interpreting Psalm 2.

‘The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed’—for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. (Acts 4:26–28)

Do they not cite Pilate and Herod and the leaders of the Jews? Therefore, at the second coming of Christ, we are to think of their counterparts in the future. Is that what you are saying?

Audience: Yes.

DWG: We are thinking of their counterparts in the future, that is, the unholy alliance of Jews and others against the Messiah who will be dealt with.

Fleeing to the hills

Audience: In Matthew 24:16, the Lord says those who are in Judaea should flee into the mountains after the abomination of desolation is seen. Some have presumed that would be the area of Edom, Petra and those areas, that they are to flee to looking for protection. That perhaps connects to the verse over in Revelation about calling the rocks to fall on us (6:16). It’s a very mountainous area. Would that seem to symbolize the attempt of the ungodly to avoid the judgment of God? And would the focus on that area highlight that the Lord is going to destroy that area where they seem to get their safety and their protection?

DWG: Well, that is interesting. Some people have felt that when Revelation 12 says that when the woman flees to the desert to escape the attack of the dragon, this indicates that in the last days the remnant will flee, and then people tend to think that will be down into the desert, the Negev.

Alongside of that idea, I could tell you that I took a small party of friends to Israel once, and I deliberately took them to stay in an exceedingly orthodox kibbutz, just for the experience, up in the hills above Tiberias. We were drinking our coffee, and you can’t drink it in the restaurant because coffee has milk in it and you mustn’t mix milk with flesh, you see, à la their understanding of the Old Testament. You mustn’t ‘boil a young goat in its mother’s milk’ (Exod 23:19). But hearing us discussing the Scripture together as we were drinking our coffee outside, this senior woman came and hobbled around and eventually plucked up courage and said, ‘Is that the Bible you’re reading?’ We said, ‘Yes,’ and she joined in the conversation. She had come as a refugee to Israel. And in those first days, she told us, they lived in tents up on those mountains. In the winter that would be impossibly cold. And with their hands they had collected the stones off the earth to make it possible to plough. With great privations, qualified people with all kinds of degrees did it, and now they had a flourishing farm. We talked because we were discussing amongst ourselves the various sites that we wanted to go and see. And the matter of prophecy came up. She said, ‘We know that Armageddon is coming, and we have no hope. That’s why we are developing the Negev, so that when that happens, we can perhaps flee down to the Negev and survive there.’ So, that is a Jewish view, too.

As for our Lord’s words concerning fleeing to the mountain, the early Christians didn’t flee down south to Petra. They fled to Pella, which is a town in the foothills of the mountains of Edom, but north of Jerusalem, on a level, perhaps, with the river Jordan or the south of the Sea of Galilee, in that sort of direction. And Pella, being a city at the foothills of the mountains, was nevertheless a very beautiful, classical city founded by Alexander the Great. Eusebius tells us that is where the Christians fled just before the siege of Jerusalem, and he adds that the Jews held it against the Christians. They thought it was treachery that the Christians fled there from Jerusalem when the Roman armies were coming near. That is where they fled at that time. But forgive all that perhaps irrelevant information.

Audience: If nothing else, Edom in the Old Testament is a wonderful representative of the nations that hated the Jews. They certainly started out that way. In 1 Samuel we read of Doeg the Edomite, and then we have Herod in the New Testament. It is to such an extent that, at the end of the Old Testament, the statement comes, ‘Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated’ (see Mal 1:2). I was thinking especially of Romans 9, where it speaks of the Lord’s election, and that his election might stand, ‘It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger’ (v. 12 kjv). It’s speaking of nations. And then, of course, the verse is reiterated again. ‘As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated’ (v. 13 kjv). And then in Romans 11, it does say,

And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, ‘The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob’. (v. 26)

So it seems like in the end, one thing that is very necessary for the Lord to be the deliverer, is that the elder now shall serve the younger, and Edom shall be in subservience to Jacob as a nation.

DWG: Well, yes. I rather like the notion that people have been expressing, that what Edom stood for in the Old Testament and what the Idumeans (Herod and company) stood for in the days of our Lord, will be held in the future by their counterparts who are hostile both to Israel and to Israel’s Messiah. And it is they who will thus be dealt with.

In the modern world, the present Jordan was an artificial creation, by the British I’m afraid, and some others, when they parcelled out the country artificially. But the present Jordanians are amongst the most pacific that you could find regarding Israel. The late king of Jordan, in his difficult situation, tried to mediate between Iraq and Israel, living in mortal fear of what Iraq might do to him, and yet he tried to bridge between the Arabs and Jerusalem, even though the Israelites took what was originally a lot of his land. But they don’t appear, to me, to be the most hostile to the present Israelis. Therefore, it seems to me that perhaps the Jewish exposition has got the right idea on this. As distinct from the modern inhabitants, we are thinking of the Herods and Edom who were hostile to God and to his Christ and to the Israelis, so we are thinking of their counterparts in the future.

Audience: In particular, those that ought to have been brothers. Somehow there’s a treachery involved. They are close enough to have a deep jealousy.

DWG: Yes, that’s right.

Wild beasts and the book of the Lord

Now the time is going on, so please let’s discuss my other two questions concerning, one, this absolute devastation with the wild beasts in Edom, and two, this idea of reading out of the book of the Lord.

Seek and read from the book of the Lord: Not one of these shall be missing; none shall be without her mate. For the mouth of the Lord has commanded, and his Spirit has gathered them. He has cast the lot for them; his hand has portioned it out to them with the line; they shall possess it for ever; from generation to generation they shall dwell in it. (Isa 34:16–17)

How am I to understand, not only the desolation but this collection of wild and sinister beasts that go on for ever and ever? Am I wise to take this literally, or how should I take it? Please instruct my innocence.

Audience: I have read that it had a literal fulfilment. If you go to Petra you see these animals and so forth. The animals love ruins; they provide nice little dens in the desert. But forever is another question, isn’t it?

DWG: You feel again that this is Isaiah and the nature of prophecy, blending the near and the far?

Audience: It seems like the literal fulfilment may have been a sign that the ultimate fulfilment would surely happen. But what these ultimately represent, I don’t know. I think the Septuagint translates one of them as ‘night devils’ or something, a kind of a spiritual representation of these as demons. It is in Revelation as well, isn’t it?

DWG: ‘Babylon has fallen and become the haunt of animals’ (see 18:2).

Audience: Yes. And there is a similar passage about Babylon in Isaiah 13.

DWG: Yes, that’s right. I mustn’t say it was commonplace, but it was certainly a way of talking. That ruined cities became the haunts of wild beasts is common knowledge all around the ancient world. It is a horrible, sinister picture of desolation. Not only broken buildings that once were highly civilized places with palaces, but the haunts of fearful and horrendous beasts adds to the gloom a bit.

My question now is this. If you say this was literally fulfilled in the devastation that followed the Assyrian attack all down the south and in Edom, and these places were overwhelmed by the Assyrian armies and became a desolation and therefore didn’t recover, and it was the home of wild beasts and so on, and that this now becomes the near but points to the far desolations that shall accompany Armageddon or something, I could see that. But now what about this bit about ‘forever’. And what is ‘the book’? Which book are we to read in order to read this out of it? Is it what Isaiah has written? Is this the book that he’s referring to? So, chapter 34 of Isaiah’s prophecy is what we are to read and notice what he said? Is that the book, or what book is it?

Audience: Isn’t that the simplest explanation?

DWG: It is, yes. I like the simplest explanation myself.

Well, then, because time is going on, I want the more pleasant question answered, if I may, concerning this lovely description of the blessings that shall come. For us, surely, we want to read it as the blessings that shall follow the coming of Christ and the establishment of his kingdom, and the glories thereof, because verse 3 uses it to strengthen those whose hands are weak and whose knees are feeble and those that are fearful of heart.

Strengthen the weak hands, and make firm the feeble knees. Say to those who have an anxious heart, ‘Be strong; fear not! Behold, your God will come with vengeance, with the recompense of God. He will come and save you.’ (35:3–4)

We should remember that our Lord Jesus talks in these same terms. ‘Behold, I come quickly and my reward is with me’ (see Rev 22:12), meaning not simply that he’s going to reward saints that have been faithful. This is the language of the Lord’s coming to recompense. When he comes in that day to avenge his people, his reward is with him. He is going to see that justice is done. And therefore he encourages the church, which in John’s time was under persecution, with the promise that he will come, and he will put things right. He will avenge his people, and not simply reward them for their work for him.

So, our consideration of these lovely pictures of our Lord’s reign and the blessing thereof should be for us a strengthening of our weak hands so that we work the harder for the Lord in the meantime, and a strengthening of our feeble knees so our walk shall be the steadier and the more determined and resolute. By them our hearts should be fortified and strong and fear not whatever troubles, trials and afflictions come, and particularly those that come for the Lord’s sake. It is right that we comfort ourselves with the fact of the Lord’s coming.

Now, some of my dear brothers, and those in the past particularly, have thought that any mention of vengeance was certainly Jewish, and that Christians are not allowed to pray for vengeance; we are asked to forgive our enemies. And so we are indeed. But then there is another side, isn’t there? When our Lord was carrying his cross to Calvary, he certainly prayed for the soldiers who drove the nails through his hands. He prayed for them forgiveness, for they did not know what they were doing. How could they? They were Roman soldiers who were just doing their duty; and his claim to be the Messiah Son of God would have meant nothing to a Roman soldier. Our Lord prayed forgiveness for them (Luke 23:32–34). But as he was walking to Calvary, it is important to notice what he said to the women of Jerusalem. They came out bewailing him, like kindly women will do if there has been a severe accident on the road and some poor, young man has been mangled and killed. They will wring their hands and shed their tears: ‘Poor young man.’ And that’s very natural and nice. But when they came out, wringing their hands over him carrying his cross, he turned around and said to them, ‘Don’t you weep for me. Oh, dear, don’t you weep for me. It’s not I that have got the wrong end of the stick. It’s you. You want to start weeping for yourselves, for the days are coming when they shall cry to the mountains to fall on them, and to the hills to cover them. For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?’ (see vv. 26–31). He was warning Jerusalem and Zion’s daughters that if they can do such a thing in a time when government was supposed to be stable and concerned for justice and the high priest and company were executors of the law in the name of God, what shall be done when government has gone to pot? If they can do such a thing as to condemn an innocent man to be crucified, knowing he is innocent, in ‘a green tree’, what shall be done in a dry? And pray remember that the day is coming when God will rise up and judge.

They were not unworthy thoughts in our Lord, were they? At the end of the chapter, 1 Peter 2 tells us that when our Lord walked to his cross, he committed himself to him who judges rightly.

When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. (v. 23)

Yes, forgiveness for those that repented, forgiveness for those who would murder him, if they would repent. He went to Calvary not retaliating. When he was threatened, he threatened not. He died so that sinners might be forgiven, but he did that in the absolute confidence that God would judge righteously, that God is a God of justice. It is our confidence that God will one day judge righteously that strengthens us to follow the example of Christ and not to retaliate.

And when Paul encourages the believers not to return evil for evil, he doesn’t say, ‘Because you’ve no right to expect justice.’ He reminds us that God says, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay’ (Rom 12:19). God will see that justice is done, and because that is God’s province to do that, we can leave it to him to do it while we follow the example of Christ and, for his sake, pray for our very persecutors. It is not wrong, however, to look forward to the day when Christ shall come and justice shall be done. That is how I understand it.

The highway

DWG: Now you were going to tell me, finally, about this highway that fools can walk on and find, and shall not go astray on it. What is your mind as to what kind of a highway this is? Bear in mind that there shall be no lions or things like that on it.

Audience: Where was the King’s Highway?

DWG: It was one of the roads in Palestine, wasn’t it? It was leading to Zion, and from Zion outward.

Audience: Do you know where it actually went?

DWG: If you gave me a map, and it had it on it, I could tell you. Seriously though, the King’s Highway is a way. It is known as such, like the Way of the Sea that goes by the coast. And then there are various ways, and that is the name of one of them. I’m simply not a good geographer. I can’t remember.

Audience: Could there be a connection with Romans 8 where even the creation itself is set free? So, the believer as well as creation itself is set free, rather than thinking maybe of a specific highway?

DWG: Well, yes. I think many of Isaiah’s prophecies, such as the one that speaks of the lion eating straw like the ox and so on (65:25), perhaps are vivid ways of saying that ‘creation itself shall be delivered from its bondage to corruption’ (see Rom 8:21), delivered from vanity. That may well be so that specific items are taken as an expression of the larger thing.

Audience: Could you give me a reading in your translation of Isaiah 35:8? There is a marginal rendering in the King James that says, ‘but it shall be for those . . . for he shall be with them.’

DWG: Anybody got a decent translation? It’s a little bit odd, isn’t it? My Revised Version says here, ‘but it shall be for those . . .’. Who? It sounds a little bit curious: ‘the wayfaring men, yea fools, shall not err therein.’ Let me consult a Hebrew expert on that verse. This is, again our friend Alec Motyer in his commentary on Isaiah.

Through this attractive, nourishing landscape runs a highway. Where it goes we are not yet told, only who may go on it. This stanza has attracted much imaginative alteration of the Hebrew text, such as might be appropriate if we were dealing with sober prose, but there is in reality no literary licence here beyond what poetry permits. Though the form, maslûl (highway) is not found elsewhere it has the same meaning as the more familiar m^esillâ (a road built on a raised causeway and therefore visible and unmistakeable). The [Masoretic Text] reads, ‘And there will be there a highway and a way’. The addition ‘and a way’ is not found in [the Qumran text of Isaiah, manuscript A] and could be a familiar word inserted to explain an unfamiliar one, but the duplication is not displeasing in such charged poetry. It will be called the Way of Holiness/‘The way of holiness shall be called to it’ [the Hebrew literally translated] is identical in form to, ‘holy shall be said to him’ in 4:3. [‘he shall be called holy’]. The linguistic usage is as distinctly that of Isaiah as is the emphasis on holiness.

Now, where shall we come? Perhaps he will answer in the end, this good man. I hope he will. Yes, here we are.

Unclean is singular, meaning ‘any unclean person’. The word tāmē’ refers to impurities catered for in the sacrifices [meaning, the sacrifices atone for them]. Those disqualified from using the highway were, therefore, self-disqualified through failure to use the means of grace. By parity of reasoning those walking in holiness had availed themselves of the divine provision. . . . translate It will be for those as ‘It will be for them’ and continue, ‘Whoever walks that Way–even simpletons could not/will not stray!’ ²⁰

He takes it, then, that it will be for those who are prepared, who have been cleansed by God, and are Holy. It will be a way of holiness prepared for them who meet the necessary condition of being holy. That is how he interprets the Hebrew. Referring back to it as the way of holiness, it is for those who are holy. No unclean person shall be upon it. To be on that road you will have to be holy, of course, made holy by the Lord.

Audience: The American Standard Version 1901 interprets it as ‘the redeemed’ who shall be on it.

DWG: The redeemed shall be on it.

Audience: As a wayfaring man, a fool, I’m going to take a stab at an answer.

DWG: Oh, good. I hope you will not err therein.

Audience: Even the simplest person, according to Isaiah, who embraces the salvation of God, will be able to follow in that way and not get off to the left or to the right.

DWG: Yes. I tend, I must say sir, to agree with that interpretation. I think in the early chapters of Isaiah, where Isaiah talks of a way from Assyria or from Egypt to let the exiles return to Palestine, we can think of that, in the first place anyway, as a literal way back. And the way is often compared with how God led them through the wilderness, because for captives to come back from Assyria to Palestine would be a difficult undertaking; to come straight across the desert would be very difficult. If they had to go around by the Fertile Crescent, that would be a long way for exiles to come back. Read Ezra concerning the provision that had to be made to lead a few thousand Israelites back from Persia across to Jerusalem. You had to have guards and I don’t know what, and provisions. It would be, in those days, quite a difficult and a dangerous journey. And, therefore, the promises are that God will do as he did in the wilderness and provide food and rivers in the desert (the language is poetic) and every provision that will make possible a literal return to Zion.

When it comes to this passage, I find it rather difficult to conceive of a motorway. It is not said from where it comes, is it? A motorway built so that a fool should not miss the way seems a little bit, well, I don’t know what word to put on it if this is a motorway back to Jerusalem. And the fact that no lion shall be there? I don’t know that you would expect a lion to be there if you were going from America to Israel, would you?

I do incline to think that this is not just poetic language but is pointing to a much deeper and more profound spiritual thought, that ‘the way’ now is ‘the way of holiness’. I don’t know if any motorway could be called holy. This is a way for holiness, and a way for the ransomed and the redeemed to tread. Therefore, I think it goes beyond its immediate fulfilment. Just as the prophecy of the Lord’s first coming goes beyond anything that was fulfilled in Assyria’s day, so my feeling is that now, coming to this climax to this part of Isaiah, we are thinking in much more spiritual terms of the way back to the glories of our Lord’s reign. It is a spiritual way. It is a way for fools, that is, they are unlearned; but they have believed God’s word, and they have availed themselves of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. They have not only been forgiven but have been made holy and ready to partake in the blessings of the reign of Christ. That is how I would tend to read it.

Audience: So is verse 10 speaking of a spiritual Zion as well?

DWG: I would not like to limit it. The most literal of us who believe in the literal millennium yet have to say what will happen to the dear believers even if they never pass away through the thousand years. What shall happen to them then? Shall they not spend eternity with the Lord?

Audience: Isn’t there going to be that concept of going up to Zion during the millennial reign, and going up to be there when the Lord is in the land?

DWG: Well, all the nations of the world shall come to Zion.

Audience: Yes, and they will go up and down the highway. You could think the lion is Satan who during the time of the millennium is not going to be around to block the path the way he does today.

DWG: Yes, but in the millennium he shan’t be there.

Audience: Right.

DWG: But again, I find it a little difficult to think of an actual road.

Audience: I’m not thinking of that either. I’m talking about just the idea of going to Zion. I’m thinking of all the ways they will take to go up to Zion.

DWG: All the ways, yes.

Audience: There are restrictions to that road to Zion. I mean, there are some that are prohibited from going on that road.

DWG: That’s right, yes.

Audience: Will they sacrifice when they get there?

DWG: I tell you one certainty, and then you can add the other certainties. They will not sacrifice in order to get forgiveness of him.

Audience: Amen.

Audience: We kind of skipped over the second question without any answer. Isn’t there a clarifying clause there when it says ‘for ever and ever’, that is, when it says ‘from generation to generation’? Wouldn’t that seem to indicate that it would be limited to the millennial period?

DWG: Well, you might say that, but in Scripture one of the ways of speaking about ‘forever’ is ‘from generation to generation’. It is one of the Hebrew phrases, you see. It’s a little bit difficult in Hebrew to fix a word for eternity. You have to be content with expressions in the context.

Audience: That’s what I mean. The context of that would be limited to the millennium.

DWG: Yes, but if you say from generation to generation, the Epistle to the Ephesians says, ‘to all generations of the ages’ (see 3:21). It is a way of talking of eternity, if you like.

Well, thank you very much for those helpful discussions and contributions. And with that, we come to the end of chapter 35. This evening the programme says that we should spend a brief while looking at chapters 36–39. That need not take us a long while because it is a matter of history, and the lesson is fairly clear. If you have other things that you want to raise before we go our separate ways and the evening ends, by all means feel free to make your suggestions. Someone close in pray, please, and we will go to dinner.

Father in heaven, we thank thee for a time in thy precious word this afternoon. We glory in this passage, our Father, to realize that the journey of thy ancient people will come to an end in this glorious thought of a highway of holiness as they come to Mount Zion. When we think of that journey, from Ur of the Chaldees, to Bethel, and on to the city of the kings, Lord, we will rejoice with thy people in thy coming day. What glory it will be for the redeemed of the Lord. We give thanks to our Father for revealing these thoughts unto us, that we might understand thy mind and thy great care for thy people. We look forward to those days, our Father, that are yet ahead of us, when the Scripture says that we will be with your Son.

We thank thee for the Lord Jesus Christ, and his great love to us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Lord, as we rejoice with Isaiah of old may our hearts rejoice as well. Quicken us, we pray, in our minds and our hearts that we, our Father, as we continue to study this evening, may be changed and be more dependent upon thy beloved Son, our great deliverer, even our Lord Jesus Christ. We give thee thanks in his holy name. Amen.

²⁰ pp. 274-275. 

24: The Middle Section of Isaiah

An Overview of the Second Movement (chapters 36–39)

This is the last evening I shall have the pleasure of being with you for a while. Let me, therefore, thank you most sincerely from my heart for the joy that your fellowship has been to me and the profit it has brought me. Thank you very much for coming to encourage an old man in his declining years. Thank you for your fellowship in the word. It is a tremendous stimulus to see people that are prepared to work hard even to the point of fatigue in the study of the word of God.

Thank you, also, for the gracious way you have dealt with it when I have said things impossible to believe, and disagreed, perhaps, with your keenly held views. It is a sign of your Christianity that you have not cast me out, nor even despaired of me, and have treated me in a Christian way.

Thank you, also, for the encouragement you are at a distance, as I think of you in your different works and hear, from time to time, of your initiatives in the work of the Lord.

I want to thank Scott, particularly, and here publicly, for all the hard work that he put in to organizing this week and the good job he made of the notes at extremely short notice, because of my lateness, as usual, in getting the information to him. And, not least, William, who you will be glad to hear, is going to take me away tomorrow, back to Philadelphia. I thank him very much for his contribution to the good of the conference, and all the hard work he performed in bringing the like of the books, and everything else he does constantly behind the scenes to make these occasions so comfortable and profitable to us all.

Isaiah 36–39

Now we come to chapters 36­–39 in the book of Isaiah, the historical portion of the book that comes in the middle. I have listed for you on one page the three major parts to the historical chapters.

Chapters 36–37

Part 4: Hezekiah’s stand against the Assyrians

Chapter 38

Part 5: Hezekiah’s illness and recovery, and his writing after he recovered

Chapter 39

Part 6: Hezekiah’s intrigue with the king of Babylon and his rebuke by Isaiah

Hezekiah’s stand against the king of Assyria (36:1–37:38)

These chapters, and particularly chapters 36 and 37, form a very important part of Isaiah’s book. They show that the prophecies that he uttered in the name of God, namely that Jerusalem would not be taken by the Assyrians, were fulfilled to the very letter. Of course, as we have noticed, as we look back with hindsight, many of the prophecies given him by God were couched in such language that we can now see went quite beyond his historical position indeed. They were fulfilled at various levels and notably in our Lord’s birth, death and ascension; and they were fulfilled in the days of the Acts of the apostles, as the apostles understood them, and they will be fulfilled in their completeness at our Lord’s return.

How much of that Isaiah was given to know, we are not told, but his prophecies as they regarded the Jerusalem of his day were fulfilled. That is, perhaps, the first main function of chapters 36 and 37. When he spoke those prophecies, they all must have been incredible, because of the success of the relentless armies of the successive Assyrian kings, because so many nations had fallen to them, and because eventually the ten tribes went into exile, as Isaiah prophesied they would. And the fact was that Egypt proved helpless against Assyria. Certainly, a large party of the politicians in Jerusalem thought Isaiah was talking nonsense, and that they would find help in the great empire of Egypt that was traditionally at enmity with the Assyrians. The Assyrians, as Isaiah said they would, came right up to the neck and devastated the countryside in Judah and took the defenced cities at the southern crescent down near the Negev, cities like Lachish. The Assyrian’s took those cities that were there as the first line of defence of Jerusalem for an enemy coming from the south. They took Lachish and from there sent their armies up to Jerusalem and surrounded it so that Jerusalem was left like ‘a booth in a cucumber field’ (see 1:8). Jerusalem was perched on its mountains with the armies right up to its neck. Numerally speaking, they came within an ace of being defeated and taken. In spite of all of that, Isaiah’s prophecies were proven true, and he was vindicated as a prophet, and the promises of God were found absolutely fulfilled. So, these historical chapters form a very important part of the book of Isaiah.

Later devastations of Jerusalem

It is to be noticed that some of Isaiah’s prophecies (many of them perhaps) look forward to the future, and give us in the description of the Assyrian king a prototype of the final stages of this age when the man of sin shall appear, whereas the Assyrian king did not take Jerusalem; that is not to be interpreted as being a prophecy that Jerusalem would never be taken. The city of Jerusalem was taken by the Babylonians. The house of David was suspended. Then, after the return and Jerusalem was rebuilt, when the Seleucid monarch Antiochus Epiphanes came, he didn’t need to take Jerusalem; it was part of his empire. What he did was not even to destroy the temple like Nebuchadnezzar did. He did worse than that. He let the temple stand, but he put upon the altar in the house of the Lord a statue of his own god, Baal-shamayim, and sacrificed a pig upon the altar—a horrendous thing for any Jew to contemplate. He forbade circumcision and possession of the Scriptures. He put altars all down the streets. And he did all this with the collusion of the high priests who were Hellenizers, and were quite happy to say that Yahweh, or Jehovah, was just one name among many for God. They said it didn’t matter whether you called him Jehovah or Yahweh or Baal or Zeus or whatever you called him. All religions are the same and really meant the same thing. And the right-wing Maccabees, of course, had to fight not only Seleucid forces, but they had to resist their own high priests. That was a fearful state for Jerusalem to get into under Antiochus Epiphanes.

Antiochus Epiphanes had the credit (if that’s the word to use) for putting in the temple ‘the abomination of desolation’. And that is a phrase, of course, that our Lord used when he was forecasting the future and referred to Daniel the prophet, and said, ‘let the reader understand’ (Matt 24:15–16). That action of Antiochus Epiphanes was certainly a prototype of other similar actions that would take place later, the final abomination being the man of sin sitting in the temple of God, claiming to be God (2 Thess 2:3–4).

In Antiochus Epiphanes’ time also, for those three years when he thus desecrated the temple, there was a very big problem for the faithful in Israel. How could a sinful, mortal man, king though he be, thus insult the God of heaven and his temple, and nothing happen? No thunder, no earthquake, no fire. How could God be silent when such an outrage had been committed against his honour and glory? If ever there was a three years’ time of trial for God’s people, when the high priests themselves were on the side of Antiochus Epiphanes, if ever there was a time when the people of God were tried in the ancient world, it was then, of course. Why was God silent? When you read of silence in heaven in the Revelation, you find an echo of that age long problem. Why is God silent?

After Antiochus Epiphanes the Romans came eventually, and what they did to the temple we know, and how they become a prefigurement of the end as well. For that read the book of the Revelation.

We mustn’t, therefore, press every detail of each one of those monsters, or suppose that each one of them will be individually represented at the end of the age. From them we build up a picture, but our final understandings must be governed by what the New Testament explicitly says.

Hezekiah’s illness and recovery (38:1–21)

With that, let’s come back to this middle section of Isaiah. We have seen the point of Hezekiah’s stand against the Assyrians. The story of his illness and recovery, interesting as an historical fact, raises another question. Why does Isaiah trouble to record that? We will return to think about that.

Hezekiah’s intrigue with the king of Babylon and his rebuke by Isaiah (39:1–8)

The final chapter in this middle section of Isaiah is also historically important, because whereas Part 4—Hezekiah’s stand against the Assyrians, looks backward to the history that precedes it, Part 6—Hezekiah’s intrigue with the king of Babylon, is the hinge that looks forward to what shall follow. It led, of course, as Isaiah warned it would, to the Judaean monarchs being defeated and taken down to Babylon, and the house of David suspended. The riches of Jerusalem were removed to Babylon, and the king’s sons were made eunuchs in the courts of the Babylonian king. And although Isaiah does not then describe the Babylonian conquest in detail (that is left to Jeremiah who lived in those days) his second part of the book does concentrate on the prophecy relating to Israel’s restoration from Babylon. And, of course, they couldn’t be restored unless they had been taken away. Isaiah has, at the end of chapter 39, a prophecy that the kings will one day be taken down to Babylon. More than that he was not given to prophesy, but he was given to prophesy the glorious gospel message of Israel’s recovery from exile in Babylon.

At this late hour in our conference, I think we only need to cast a bird’s eye view on the detail of parts 4, 5 and 6. I have listed them for you on the notes. Perhaps we need only just scan through them.

Part 4A – Hezekiah’s stand against the king of Assyria

I have called this Part 4A because the challenge was in two parts. There was the first challenge and then there was a second challenge.

The first challenge (36:1–37:7)

The challenge to Hezekiah (36:1–10)

The first challenge was issued by the great king, the king of Assyria, to Hezekiah. It was a dire situation. Sennacherib had captured all the fortified cities of Judah, and only Jerusalem was left. The Rabshakeh came with an army and, standing outside the city walls, addressed the high officials in the presence of the people and gave them a message from Sennacherib for Hezekiah. ‘You have rebelled against me,’ he said to Hezekiah, ‘putting your trust in Egypt, but Pharaoh will let you down’ (see 36:4–6).

Second, he said, ‘It’s useless to trust in Jehovah when Hezekiah has taken away his altars and high places and made everyone come to his temple in Jerusalem’ (see v. 7). Of course, that was the way a pagan would have looked at it. He had no sense of the uniqueness of the temple in Jerusalem, and couldn’t see why idols were wrong anyway. He thought that Hezekiah, in cutting down idols, was offending the gods. The man had no concept of what the temple in Jerusalem really stood for. To him it was simply one among many religions with their many gods.

Then came his tempting offer of two thousand horses, if Hezekiah would renew his pledge of loyalty to Assyria (v. 8). In other words, Jerusalem would have been treated as a vassal country and Hezekiah maybe even allowed to be king under the Assyrians. It was a tempting offer.

Then, on the other side of it came the question, ‘How can you (that is, without horses and without forces) repulse even one of my officers? How would you put your trust in Egypt for horses?’ (see v. 9). Egypt was the supply centre for horses from the days of Solomon onward, but with the armies of Sennacherib around the city, how would he get any horses from Egypt? With Assyria in charge of all the crescent of fortified cities to the south, which was the first line of defence to Jerusalem, how would any horses ever get through?

And, finally, there came what must have been a painful dig in the ribs for Hezekiah. The Rabshakeh said, ‘The Lord himself has brought me up’ (see v. 10). Well, Isaiah had said that the Lord would use the Assyrians as the rod of his anger, even against Jerusalem. There was truth in that, though not in the way that the Assyrian meant it, of course.

The appeal to the ordinary citizens (36:14–21)

That was the word to Hezekiah, but then the Rabshakeh made an appeal to the ordinary citizens. ‘Don’t let Hezekiah deceive you’. And when the high officials of Jerusalem said, ‘But don’t speak in a language that the people can understand,’ the Rabshakeh mocked them. Of course he was going to appeal to the people over the heads of the officials, and over the head of Hezekiah. He was appealing to the people for a revolt against Hezekiah. ‘Don’t let Hezekiah fool you. He cannot save you. Don’t let him make you trust in Jehovah. Don’t listen to Hezekiah, for if you make peace with me, I will allow you to leave the cramped conditions in the city and return to your houses, and you’ll be in comfort instead of being like sardines in a besieged city. You will be in comfort until I come and take you away to a far better land’ (see vv. 14–17).

That was the policy of the Assyrians, to deport great sections of the conquered people and put them elsewhere in their empire. Stalin pursued that principle in Russia, and the results of it are with us to this day in many a country, in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and the Baltic countries and Chechnya. Vast populations of Russians were deliberately put there by Stalin to help to keep control on those other countries. That was the Assyrian method as well. You will remember that when Cyrus the Persian took Babylon he had the very opposite policy. His policy was to let all such people return to the countries of their birth.

‘Don’t let Hezekiah persuade you that the Lord will deliver you. No other gods of any other country have delivered any city out of my hands, neither will your God. In fact, he’s no different to any of the other gods’ (see vv. 18–20).

The people didn’t reply. Hezekiah had forbidden them to stop and argue (v. 21). And sometimes that can be the best policy. If you are not capable of arguing with the kings of Assyria of this world, well, best not to try, better just to trust the Lord and keep your mouth shut. Some people do have to argue with ‘the kings of Assyria’, and they had better know how to do it.

Hezekiah’s reaction (37:1–7)

Hezekiah’s reaction was consternation, as you might understand. Would the people be loyal to him? Would the city stand? And in dire consternation, he went into the house of the Lord and sent his officials to ask Isaiah to pray for him and for the people in their helplessness. Notice the ground on which now the man prayed. The ground was that the king of Assyria had reproached the living God, therefore God himself might be expected to rebuke the king (37:1–4). Here, God in his mercy is bringing Hezekiah and his people to the point where trust in God is the only option. Their plea, therefore, is based on God’s honour. They ask that God will intervene, not so much to save Hezekiah and the Jerusalemites, but because God’s name has been slandered and challenged, and that for his own name’s sake he will vindicate himself. That is a sound basis for prayer, that God will vindicate his name.

God’s reply, through Isaiah, was there was no need to fear. The king’s blasphemies had been noted. ‘I will put a spirit in him. He will hear a rumour and return to his own land. I will cause him to die by the sword in his own land’ (see vv. 6–7). That is what happened. He was in his temple, so the story goes, and his sons murdered him in the temple of his gods (vv. 37–38).

Audience: Here in chapter 37 we see God by his mercy bringing Hezekiah and his people to the point where their only option is to trust God. I understand what you’re saying there. How does that differ from the place that God brought Ahaz, when he said, ‘I will deliver you. Ask of me anything’ (see 7:1–12)?

DWG: Yes, well, Ahaz was not only afraid, but he positively refused to ask of God a sign. When God says to Ahaz, ‘Ask a sign,’ and Ahaz turns around, making polite excuses but refusing to ask God for a sign, that is downright, absolute rejecting God’s offer of salvation. That is another story.

Audience: God put Hezekiah on this same ground of helplessness, as we see it, but Hezekiah could have still rejected it.

DWG: Well, if he’d have liked to give in to the king of Assyria, he still had the choice, didn’t he? And the people still had the choice. What I mean by saying it was on the ground that he could do nothing other than give in completely, was that he could not get anybody through to the Egyptians. It was useless now. And it was no good appealing to the Babylonians now. He was besieged, Judah laid waste, and its fortified cities were taken. There was no hope of deliverance. They could give up and surrender, but there was no hope of deliverance now by getting other people to come and help. The only possible help was God Almighty himself.

Part 4B - Hezekiah’s stand against the king of Assyria

The second challenge (37:8–13)

Now, you notice there was a second challenge issued to Hezekiah by ‘the great king, the king of Assyria’. The reason for the second challenge was that after the king of Assyria had sent Rabshakeh to surround the city and deliver the demand, and while the king was engaged in his siege work at Lachish and other places, he heard a rumour that an enemy king was coming up against him. Therefore, he was obliged to break off his operations and take his army and go to meet the hostile force coming to meet him. So, he took the precaution, now, to deliver this second challenge to Hezekiah in this form. ‘Well you’ve heard, have you, that I’m going away? Don’t let your God deceive you and say to yourself, that’s my God that’s caused him to hear this rumour, and now he’s gone and run away. That isn’t so, says the king of Assyria. Don’t let your God deceive you into thinking that, when none of the other gods of the nations have delivered them from the Assyrians, your God will prove to be an exception’ (see vv. 8–13). In other words, ‘Don’t be deceived. When I have dealt with this other chap, I shall come and take you. It is inevitable.’

Hezekiah’s response (37:14–20)

This time, Hezekiah’s response was that he went to the house of the Lord, spread the letter before the Lord and appealed to God. And notice the grounds on which he appealed. It is a wonderful example of an effective prayer, isn’t it? He appealed on the basis of God’s uniqueness.

O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, enthroned above the cherubim, you are the God, you alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; you have made heaven and earth. (37:16).

He was now putting Judah’s main article of faith, their monotheism, to the test in the realities of life. ‘You are the one and only true God of all the kingdoms of the earth.’ Was it true? It is basic faith, now issuing in prayer to God’s uniqueness. He prays, ‘You are the creator of heaven and earth. You are the God who sits enthroned upon the cherubim.’ In other words, ‘You have unlimited executive power, so regard Sennacherib’s blasphemous reproach of the living God’ (see v. 17). Hezekiah admits before God that the Assyrians have devastated all the other lands and destroyed their gods, but they were no gods, only man-made idols (see vv. 18–19). And with that, he comes to the real issue at stake. ‘Save us from his hand. Not merely for our benefit,’ as you notice, but ‘that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you alone are Lord, even you alone’ (see v. 20).

That is Israel functioning as Israel was meant to function, as a witness to the one true God, protesting against the idolatry of the other nations. They ask now to be delivered so that Israel’s experience will be a testimony that all the kingdoms of the earth may know ‘that you are the Lord, even you alone.’ That is a wonderfully powerful ground on which to state one’s prayers.

Amongst the many thousands who do such work, my few colleagues and myself who go to Russia, found our prayers and intercessions on this likewise. We pray that in the land where for many decades the name of Christ has been systematically blasphemed, ridiculed and denied, and the name of God blasphemed and made to look ridiculous throughout the whole system and at every level of society, among the university students and school children, God, for his own name’s sake and for the sake of the name of his Son, in justice to his Son, will do something worthy of the dimensions of the merits of Christ. We pray this so that God’s name will be honoured, and so that the nations of the world will be obliged to see that God has honoured his name in spite of the blasphemies of the past many decades. There we can rest our case, can’t we? We rest it on God’s concern for his own name and the name of his beloved Son.

God’s answer to Sennacherib through Isaiah (37:21–35)

God’s answer to Sennacherib through Isaiah was that ‘the virgin daughter of Zion, not tempted by Sennacherib to yield to his offers (not guilty of spiritual fornication, in other words), has despised you’ (see v. 22). ‘You have reproached no less than the holy one of Israel to his face’ (see v. 23). ‘You have boasted of all your conquests as if they were owing to your own powers. In fact, I, God, brought it about, and that was why none was able to resist you’ (see vv. 24–27). ‘Because of your arrogant rage against me, I will put my hook in your nose and turn you back by the way you came’ (see vv. 28­–29). Notice the metaphors God uses of this boasting, God-defying man. He will treat him like a mere animal. He will put a hook in his nose and cart him off.

God’s word to Hezekiah through Isaiah (37:30–35)

God’s word to Hezekiah through Isaiah was first a sign to confirm God’s promise. It related to the land now devastated, which would make life very difficult even if the siege were removed. How would the people find food enough to feed themselves? Here are God’s comforting words about the sufficient supply of food in the following next two years, so that the remnant of Judah would take root again in the countryside. This would be the result of God’s zeal for his people (vv. 30–32). The Assyrian would not be allowed into the city, nor to shoot at it, nor to build siege works. He would have to return the same way as he came (vv. 33–34).

Notice the other ground of God’s action. He would defend Jerusalem for David’s sake, and the covenant he made with David (v. 35). This is God being loyal to his covenant, and all that that implied, not only for Jerusalem but for David and the Davidic house, the royal house (2 Sam 7).

The sequel (37:36–38)

The sequel, of course, is that an angel smote the Assyrian army with a plague, with great loss of life. Sennacherib went back to Nineveh. As he was worshipping in the temple of his god, his two sons assassinated him. That was the end of him.

Part 5B – Hezekiah’s nearly fatal illness and his recovery

Now the second story. First comes Hezekiah’s illness, and the Lord’s sentence: Hezekiah will die (v. 1). Then comes Hezekiah’s distress and prayer. He turned his face to the wall and prayed unto the Lord. He said,

‘Please, O Lord, remember how I have walked before you in faithfulness and with a whole heart, and have done what is good in your sight.’ And Hezekiah wept bitterly. (38:3)

How much of that was true? I don’t know. Do you? He had done well in the siege, but his behaviour before it was highly questionable. The ground of his prayer this time is his perfect devotion and good works, but it was only half-true!

Audience: Is it possible that this is not chronological and is before the siege?

DWG: Well, that makes it worse. If he was praying this before the siege with his behaviour like it was, then to say, ‘I have walked before you in truth and with a perfect heart,’ was a slight exaggeration. More than slight, perhaps.

Then the word of the Lord came to Isaiah: ‘Go and say to Hezekiah, Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer; I have seen your tears. Behold, I will add fifteen years to your life. I will deliver you and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria, and will defend this city. This shall be the sign to you from the Lord, that the Lord will do this thing that he has promised: Behold, I will make the shadow cast by the declining sun on the dial of Ahaz turn back ten steps.’ So the sun turned back on the dial the ten steps by which it had declined. (vv. 4–8)

So, God did take notice of the man’s prayers, in his compassion. But notice once more what he says: ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father’. God will maintain and restore Hezekiah because he was a son, ultimately, of David. God is saving the city for David’s sake.

Discussion concerning the nature of the sign

Audience: Can you comment on why there are so many signs in this part?

DWG: Well, I don’t know. I regard the sign, myself, as miraculous. I don’t attempt to explain it.

Audience: There is another sign in chapter 37.

DWG: Yes, there is one in chapter 37 about the land. Notice that was a post-dated sign. They had to believe God that it would be so. It was not an immediate fulfilment. The sign was that the land would flourish and they would have enough corn to eat from the self-sown seed, and then in the next year there would be enough to sow. Then finally in the third year they would have good harvests. They had to believe that before the siege was lifted, didn’t they?

Audience: That must have been a tremendous miracle, to slow the sun down.

DWG: Yes.

Audience: To slow the earth ten degrees. There is no record that that ever changed either.

DWG: Well, I am interested to hear you, as a scientist, make that comment. Not being a scientist, I have no means of explaining it, or what kind of a miracle it was. How you could slow the earth and make the shadow go backwards, I just don’t know.

Audience: I was just going to ask that. In the version you read, it said ‘steps’. In the King James Version it says ‘degrees’. I understand the literal word is ‘steps’, as you said, with a reference to the shadow caused by the sun falling on Ahaz’s palace steps. So it was going back ten steps, rather than ten degrees, which I assume would be a little less than ten degrees.

Audience: It would be difficult even if it was one degree.

DWG: Yes, one degree would be difficult, wouldn’t it?

Audience: Yes, to not only slow it but reverse it.

Audience: It shows the power of God over the universe.

DWG: There are those who say that the word implies the ancient form of sundial. They had a thing going up in steps, as an ancient form of sundial, and this was the steps to which the prophet was referring.

Audience: I’d never heard ‘steps’ until you read it just now. I had always heard degrees.

DWG: Well, yes, but of course if it was a sundial then you might appropriately talk about degrees. It is thought by some to have been a form of sundial. I can’t explain the miracle, but I imagine that, like our Lord’s miracles, it was also a parable, saying that God was going to ‘put the clock back’ from what it had been. In fact, for a while, there was a distinct recovery from the time of Ahaz. And Hezekiah, according to Chronicles and Kings, instituted great reforms and invited the people from the north, those who were left, to come down to Jerusalem and keep the Passover. And for a king in that state to celebrate the Passover took a lot of faith, didn’t it? For, if you are celebrating a Passover, you are celebrating God’s deliverance of the nation from Egypt. And if a great power is hovering about you and has just gone, and you have escaped by the skin of your teeth but it might come back, to celebrate the Passover meaningfully is to declare your belief in the God that delivered Israel from Gentile oppression. And to ask Israelites from the north, whose friends and relatives have all been taken away to Assyria, to celebrate the Passover, that was an act of faith, wasn’t it? So, in that sense, perhaps, the clock was put back from the terrible lapses in Ahaz’s day. As for the specifics of the miracle, I have to leave it to the scientists to comment on it.

Discussion concerning the timing of Hezekiah’s sickness

Audience: Why the sentence of death on Hezekiah? I have always wondered that.

DWG: I have no idea.

Audience: If you’ll pardon me, Scofield points this out in his notes that this incident occurred just after Hezekiah made his overture to the king of Babylon, fourteen years before the end of his reign. We are not quite sure, but it was about the same time. So, there might be some suggestion that this was punishment for that. As far as his chronology notes, chapter 39 does follow 38 in his chronology. What goes before the illness in his notation is the first invasion of Sennacherib, where Hezekiah pays him off with gold from the temple.

DWG: I shall set you a problem in a minute, of a slightly different sort, relating to this sickness.

Audience: I think that we have to remind ourselves that man is subject to disease and there may have been no particular reason why Hezekiah got this disease that was going to take his life, but he did. The fact is that he knew that it was terminal, and he cried out to God and God chose to hear him and to do something about it.

DWG: Yes, but I think the difficulty comes in verse 1, when he was sick, ‘And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him, and said to him, “Thus says the Lord . . . you shall die”.’

Audience: Yes, because God knew that he would die, but Hezekiah didn’t know that. There may not have been any particular reason. He may just be succumbing to diseases, just like believers do today, but God chose to intervene, and then he demonstrated the answer by stepping the sun back.

Audience: As I recall from the dating, this sickness would have been just prior to the birth of Manasseh.

DWG: Some people say, and in my youth I used to hear it often, ‘Don’t plead with God too much to save you from dying, because Hezekiah did that, and the Lord heard his prayer and what a disaster for Hezekiah it was, because then he fathered a child, Manasseh, who turned out to be the biggest rogue unhung. And it would have been better if he were never born.’ On the other hand, the aforesaid Manasseh, after all his horrors and crimes, was restored. He repented and was restored and came back to the Lord.

Audience: It’s interesting in verse 8, that the sign was with Ahaz’s sundial, and Ahaz was the one who wouldn’t ask for a sign.

DWG: Yes. That’s right. That’s very good.

Audience: If Scofield is correct, then not only would Manasseh not have been born, but Hezekiah wouldn’t have been there for the deliverance from Assyria and Sennacherib.

Audience: Or for the great revivals thereafter.

DWG: The question of the chronology of the events in these chapters is very interesting. They don’t appear to be in the same chronological order as in Kings and Chronicles. But that surely means that, since Isaiah was inspired to put them in this order, there is some importance in the thematic order rather than in the chronological order.

Audience: I want to ask if there is a certain sense of parallel between what happens here and in chapter 36. It says there that Assyria had come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, so the way it seems that we read that is that it had dwindled down to nothing but Jerusalem. So, it got down to that one place. The parallel, in my thinking, is that there came a time when it got down to one child of the seed royal.

DWG: Yes, that’s right. It did.

Audience: Would it be possible that 38:1 would be similar to Abraham being told to offer his son? So perhaps it was not because God didn’t know Hezekiah had faith to be healed, but rather to show us further that Hezekiah believed in God and would pray to him.

DWG: Well, I would put a lot of store by the writing of Hezekiah when he had been sick and was recovered (vv. 9–20). It sounds to me somewhat different from the type of prayer he prayed when he was sick when he pleaded on the grounds of his good works. Now, when he has recovered, he gives his reactions in nearly the rest of that chapter, and you see the effect upon him of this experience of illness and God’s recovery of him, and what it meant to him. We see his awareness, to start off with, that his recovery was all God’s work according to God’s promise.

I said, In the middle of my days I must depart; I am consigned to the gates of Sheol for the rest of my years. I said, I shall not see the Lord, the Lord in the land of the living; I shall look on man no more among the inhabitants of the world. (vv. 10–11)

And so forth and so on. But now look at 15. ‘What shall I say? For he has spoken to me, and he himself has done it.’ You see his awareness that his recovery was all God’s work, according to God’s word and promise.

Discussion concerning the extending of Hezekiah’s days

Audience: What are your thoughts on the continuation of the lineage? God will accomplish his purposes, with or without a Manasseh. But what are your thoughts on the elongation of days?

DWG: Well, to start with, I don’t think, myself, that Hezekiah’s prayer and God’s answer of his prayer was a disaster. That is what I used to be taught, but I don’t believe that. I think this was in the good providence of God, and God is proving himself to Hezekiah now. Listen to Hezekiah’s confession. God was pleased to answer his prayer. God wasn’t being spiteful and saying, ‘Right, I’ve answered your prayer, and I’ll make you pay for that by what happens next.’ I don’t, myself, think God acts like that.

So then, we listen to his reaction. ‘What shall I say? he has both spoken unto me, and himself has done it: I shall go softly all my years because of the bitterness of my soul’ (v. 15 rv). That is, his experience would work a change of attitude in him for the rest of his life. These are permanent results of the experience God allowed him to go through. He is now showing awareness that this experience of God and his forgiveness is the very heart and secret of life.

O Lord, by these things men live, and in all these is the life of my spirit. Oh restore me to health and make me live! (v. 16)

To have an experience of God in a thing like this brings that sense of the reality that my life depends on God. That is worth gaining at any expense.

Audience: Isn’t this like a picture of what’s happening with Israel anyway? They were basically being told, ‘You are going to die, so get ready.’ And it’s only by intercession, by grace, that they can say, ‘O, Lord, by these things men live.’ It is the story of the country.

DWG: Yes, surely.

Behold, it was for my welfare that I had great bitterness; but in love you have delivered my life from the pit of destruction, for you have cast all my sins behind your back. (v. 17)

This is Hezekiah’s recognition that God’s chastisement was for his good and led to true peace with God, and health and forgiveness of course.

For the grave cannot praise you, death cannot celebrate you: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for your truth. (v. 18 rv)

He is speaking, of course, as an Old Testament man.

The living, the living, he shall praise you, as I do this day: the father to the children shall make known your truth. (v. 19 rv)

The new life he has been given leads to praise and the motive for making known God’s truth, which he had personally experienced, to the next generation of his royal house.

The Lord is ready to save me: therefore we will sing my songs to the stringed instruments all the days of our life in the house of the Lord. (v. 20 rv)

It would lead to a life of worship, and he would lead others in song to the Lord in his house all the days of his life.

Now, look back, if you will, to verse 14. The very request that he makes was a confession of sin.

Like a swallow or a crane I chirp; I moan like a dove. My eyes are weary with looking upwards. O Lord, I am oppressed; be my pledge of [surety]!

That is a marvellous term, isn’t it? My ‘pledge of safety’, my ‘surety’, my ‘guarantor’. This is a rather different prayer. It is a confession of sin and his incapability of coping. He hasn’t the resources. God goes as his surety. Is there anywhere you know in the New Testament where we are said to have a surety?

Audience: Hebrews 7.

DWG: It is good thing to know, isn’t it?

And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him: ‘The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest for ever.”’ This makes Jesus the guarantor [the surety] of a better covenant. (vv. 20–22)

He is not only the mediator of a better covenant, but the surety of a better covenant. That is marvellous language, because if God has a covenant with people like us, somebody has got to stand behind the covenant ready to pay the expenses when we go bankrupt.

That is what sureties are. If you try to go to your bank manager to borrow a million dollars, he’ll ask you, ‘Have you got any collateral?’

‘Well, I’ve got a bungalow by the sea.’

‘Yes, but sensible collateral.’

‘Well, I haven’t got much.’

‘Well, have you got anybody prepared to go guarantor for you?’

‘Well, my grandfather will.’

‘Oh, yes? How much does he earn a week?’

‘Oh, he’s retired, but he’s got a good old-age pension. I think he’s got £500 in the bank.’

You’re not going to get very far, are you, if your project has got to be guaranteed up to a million? When it comes to the covenant that covenants to get the likes of us home to God, who is going surety to guarantee that the forgiveness it provides is going to cover it? That is a wonderful thing. Our Lord has been appointed by God, not merely to mediate the new covenant but to be its guarantor, to be the surety for us. And Hezekiah was given an experience of God as his surety.

Audience: If God hadn’t told Hezekiah that, he would have just gone on every day thinking he was going to live a long time; but when he was told he was going to die, all of a sudden his attitude changed because now his days were numbered. He only had fifteen years. Your attitude would change.

DWG: Surely it does, and eternity becomes more real, and one depends on God the more closely as our surety.

Three kings brought down to the grave

Now let me set you my little problem. I don’t necessarily expect an answer. Early on this week I presented you with a very rough and crude layout of the whole of Isaiah, did I not? And there I suggested the three great movements. The first is in chapters 1–35, which is prophetic regarding the salvation of Jerusalem from the Assyrians. The second movement, chapters 36–39, is the historical salvation of Jerusalem and of Hezekiah, both of the city and the king of the house of David. Then the third movement, chapters 40–66, speaks of future salvation from Babylonian captivity, so it is prophetic once again. ²¹

If it is the fact that within those three movements there are three parts in each, then you might care to look at the second part in Movement 1. It contains the story of the downfall of Babylon’s king, the Assyrian, and he is brought down to Sheol and the grave. And the kings of the nations that are down below, like shades that are dead, rise from their thrones and say, ‘Are you become like one of us, brought down to the grave and to Sheol?’ (see 14:10–11).

Then we come to the second movement and to the middle of chapter 38 where we have the writing of King Hezekiah in which he says, ‘I go to the gates of the grave’ (see v. 10). And we have his experience of God being ready to save him and bring him up from the very jaws of death.

Then look at the third big movement. Its central chapters are 49–57, and they contain the description of God’s suffering servant, of whom it is said, ‘kings shall shut their mouths because of him’ (52:15). Then he is brought down into death, and we read of the grave once again.

And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. . . . he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. (53:9–10)

I just call your attention to it as an observation and leave it to you to ponder whether you see any significance in those stories that lie central to each part of the three parts of Isaiah. They are the three kings and they’re being brought down to the grave. There is, first, the reaction of other kings to the Assyrian’s death, then Hezekiah’s recovery, and then the servant’s resurrection.

It might be worth considering. You might even get a sermon out of it one of these days, though we shouldn’t read the word of God to get sermons for other people, should we? We should read the word of God because it is God who is speaking, whether we ever made a sermon from it or not. We shouldn’t say to the Almighty, ‘Well, sorry Lord, what you’re saying now is not much use. I could never preach that to anybody.’ If God speaks, we listen and study what he says, simply because it is God’s speech. But nonetheless, this point is an interesting point.

Audience: I’m sorry, I missed the question you were asking.

DWG: The question was a very vague question. I was just pointing to the interesting fact that, central to all three movements is the story of a king who was brought down to the grave, down to Sheol.

The first one is the king of Assyria. From his aspirations to rise above the stars and be like God he was brought down to Sheol, to the grave. And when he came to the grave, the kings that are but shadows of their former selves down there in Sheol, rose from their thrones and sarcastically said, ‘You are the great king, are you? Going to be like the stars? You’ve become as one of us.’ The kings taunted him.

Then, central to the middle movement is the story of Hezekiah, the king of David’s line who was brought down to Sheol, he says, to the grave in other words. He prayed to God, and God raised him up again.

Central to the third movement is the suffering servant of the Lord, of whom it is said that ‘Kings shall shut their mouths because of him, for that which has not been told them they see,’ and so forth. The Lord’s purpose for this suffering servant—smitten, stricken and afflicted—was to bruise him. By his stripes we are healed. The chastisement of our peace was upon him. He poured out his soul to death, and ‘they made his grave with the wicked’. Yes, but he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

All I was doing was making a very simple and superficial observation. But it is simply the fact that, central to each of these portions is a king that was brought down to the grave. The Assyrian king died and went down to the grave. And Hezekiah, from nearly dying, was brought up. The servant, from actually dying, would be raised from the dead. And the question was a very vague question. Is there any significance in that, or does it just happen to be happening?

Audience: The first significance for me is that it tends to vindicate your outline breakdown.

DWG: Oh, well that is something! Yes, you are obviously a very discerning and perceptive man. You show great promise!

Audience: I think that it’s also interesting that the first king is a picture of Satan, the one who exalts himself to the highest throne. The last king is the servant of the Lord who goes into the grave. And in between is a king who is faced with the choice to believe God or not. He chooses, in this case, to believe God.

DWG: That could be very significant, couldn’t it? It is a small observation, but I leave it with you for what it’s worth. Any way of coming at the glories of our Lord is exceedingly valuable.

The embassy from the king of Babylon to Hezekiah

Finally, we come to the sad chapter, chapter 39. The embassy from the king of Babylon to Hezekiah was ostensibly to give Hezekiah a present and congratulate him on his recovery from his illness. The historical fact is that Merodach-Baladan, king of Babylon, was a vassal king under the emperor, the king of Assyria. He was notorious for fomenting political alliances with the surrounding, smaller nations, and seeking for them to join him in rebelling against the king of Assyria. And some of the kings of Assyria treated him very roughly, and he was obliged to get out of Babylon, but he managed to get back, and all that kind of stuff. Read the history books for the detail. It is certain that he would have been very pleased to hear that Hezekiah had recovered, and doubtless saw in him a potential ally in the next revolt against Assyria. When Hezekiah showed the ambassadors all the treasures and all the armaments in the storehouses of the royal palace, it is difficult to think it was simply a guided tour around an art museum put on for the benefit of visiting officers of state. At any rate, it made old Baladan aware of the resources that Hezekiah had, and if he could be persuaded to join an alliance against the king of Assyria he had pretty good resources to pay for some troops.

Isaiah’s rebuke of Hezekiah

Obviously, from 39:3 we see that Isaiah interpreted Hezekiah’s act as a very seriously wrong move, and not just part of the normal entertainment of distinguished visitors. Witness the solemn consequences that Isaiah said would eventually follow. One day all the treasures that the successive kings of the house of David had laid up in the royal palace would be carried away to Babylon. The royal sons of David’s line would also be carried captive to Babylon, and become eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon. So, there would be no future line of kings from any of them.

Then comes Hezekiah’s astonishingly complacent reply. ‘The word of the Lord through you is good. There will be peace and truth in my days’ (see 39:8), as though that apparently was all that mattered to him.

Discussion concerning the line of David being cut off

Audience: I don’t know if you can even address it, but my question concerns the issue of the kings of the line of David being made eunuchs, along with the issue of the signet ring of Jeconiah being taken off the hand. How does God restore the house of David? I know it’s not an easy question to answer, but how do you get past Jeconiah?

DWG: You mean in the line of legal and physical descent, such as it is recorded in the Gospel of Matthew and in the Gospel of Luke?

Audience: Yes, sir.

DWG: Well, my answer to that, in all honesty, would be to consult the good commentaries, because it is a serious problem. But more serious than that, perhaps, is that under the Babylonians the house of David was put an end to, and that raises the question of what has happened to God’s covenant with David. That is a real problem that the writer of Psalm 89 discusses at great length. The answer to that is, of course, important for us as Christians, because our gospel is about Christ who, according to the flesh is of the seed of David (Rom 1:3). And the question that is raised by your question and others, is whether God’s covenant that David would never be without a man to sit upon his throne was altogether unconditional, or whether it was conditional on the good behaviour of all the descendants of his line. And if it was unconditional, how did God allow the line or the promise to be put in abeyance, at least, by the king of Babylon, and not ever renewed in the literal sense? Of course, it has been fulfilled, as our Lord and the Christians of the New Testament would claim, in that Jesus was of the line of David and, therefore, the covenant with David has been fulfilled. So, yes, it is a question to be pondered deeply.

Audience: Coniah (Jeconiah) died childless.

DWG: Yes, childless. That’s right.

Audience: And yet he is listed in the genealogy.

DWG: Well, then, that is a thing to be investigated, surely. I don’t have any immediate off the cuff answer for you. It is something to be thought about.

Audience: Can I make a suggestion as to an answer?

DWG: Yes surely, by all means, sir.

Audience: If we examine the chronologies of Jesus Christ in Matthew 1 and Luke 3, we find that Joseph’s father is a bloodline descendant from the kings. Jesus’ mother, Mary, is related to David also, but her line splits off much earlier. So, through Mary he received the blood of the Davidic bloodline but through Joseph he received the legal right to the bloodline and, thereby, skipped being a direct son to the male lineage.

DWG: Your point is that, even if Coniah was childless, it establishes a legal line, whereas the line coming through Mary is a physical, biological one.

Audience: Where do we get that Jeconiah was childless?

Audience: It’s in Jeremiah 22:24–30. The signet is later returned to Zerubbabel, and Zerubbabel is a descendant of Jeconiah. Those are my questions.

DWG: Yes, it is an interesting and important problem, and when you come to your final answer, be kind enough to drop me a line.

Audience: This final behaviour of Hezekiah here at the end of chapter 39 seems to me like a very tragic incidence of a fulfilment of what Isaiah’s commission in chapter 6 was, which included the idea that those he spoke to would go blindly towards destruction. And here’s a good man, but he can’t see past his own time. He doesn’t take it seriously. He’s left in the dark.

DWG: Yes, and I am tempted to say, in view of present tides of opinion, that Hezekiah fell to the notion that even if the king of Babylon was an idolatrous old pagan and the king of the city renowned for its religious paganism, yet if they were fighting Assyria, the Judaeans might well cooperate at least in this, and join forces to fight the king of Assyria. It is an argument that, as far as I can see, is being used by some evangelicals of whom one might have expected better things. They say that okay, Rome is idolatrous, but some Catholics are Christians and, therefore, it is right to join with them in what we can in order to fight atheism. That, to my mind, is a very questionable theory. For Hezekiah to join Babylon just because they both thought it was a good thing to fight Assyria, because Assyria was so anti-God, well, obviously Hezekiah fell for that kind of reasoning; but it was seriously wrong.

But there I have ended my remarks. Thank you for your patience with what were very scrappy comments. I apologized at the beginning, and now I apologize at the end. They might have been slightly less scrappy if I hadn’t been suddenly overtaken by urgent demands for work for Russia in the fortnight before I came. But you have been very, very patient with me, and I thank you for it. And may God bless his word to us.

Now, I am in your hands for what you would like to be done. You deserve a break, surely. After that, if any of you want to go over anything further, we can certainly do so.

Audience: I’d like for you to go over the chart on Isaiah, the one that you just went into as we looked at the central part of all three major movements. Maybe you could even touch a bit on any significant use in patterns that you value.

Audience: For some of us younger ones, I mean, those of us under two hundred years old, we still need some help in studying those last twenty-seven chapters of Isaiah. We don’t need anything long, just a few hours, just some hints as to what we should be looking for, if you would be so kind.

Audience: You only have to turn the sun back ten degrees to fit that in.

DWG: Well, I think now, therefore, you ought to take your coffee. And then I will yield to popular vote as to anything you want me to do.

²¹ The full size version of this chart can be found in the Appendices. 

25: A Brief Introduction to the Third Movement

Suggested Approaches to Isaiah 40–66

As I understand it, you have agreed amongst yourselves to have now a time of discussion concerning the third movement in Isaiah’s prophecy, that is, chapters 40–66. And if I have that right, then what I propose is simply to give a few brief thoughts on how you might yourselves helpfully pursue further study in this section, drawing on what we have considered together in the first two sections. This will necessarily be an overview, and we will not be able to tarry long over any one idea, but even so, to engage our minds together towards further work and study is always a good thing.

Someone has kindly erected the chart here for us all to look at together. I remind you once again that this is meant as an aid to understanding the book, the prophecy, of Isaiah. If it helps you to keep the contents in front of your mind and to make clear the flow of thought from one idea to another, from one portion of the text to another, then it is worth using. If it does not help you to do that, well then set it aside and find something that does so help you. What we are after, ultimately, is better understanding of the text. ²²

An overview of the third movement (Isaiah 40–66)

Part 7 (Isaiah 40–48)

We come now to what I have called Part 7, covering chapters 40–48. Primary in these chapters is the idea of Israel’s rediscovery of the only true Creator God in their own experience. They were supposed to be monotheist, but holding monotheism as mere doctrine is one thing; discovering God as creator in their own experience is another. So those chapters concern Israel’s rediscovery of God as the one true Creator God, and not only creator of heaven and earth, but the one who formed Jacob. You will find that expression repeatedly: ‘I formed Jacob from the womb’ (see 43:1), meaning, ‘I created Israel as a nation, and I who created you will carry you, and I will make something of you.’

Fear not, you worm Jacob, you men of Israel! I am the one who helps you, declares the Lord; your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel. Behold, I make of you a threshing sledge, new, sharp, and having teeth; you shall thresh the mountains and crush them, and you shall make the hills like chaff; you shall winnow them, and the wind shall carry them away, and the tempest shall scatter them. And you shall rejoice in the Lord; in the Holy One of Israel you shall glory. (41:14–16)

And in chapter 43 he says, ‘You are my witnesses’. It is not so much, ‘You will tell other people about me’ but, ‘Being redeemed by me and discovering me as a God who makes something of you, you will thus be a witness to the truth of the one true God.’

‘You are my witnesses,’ declares the Lord, ‘and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.’ (v. 10)

So, in that section, the announcement of God’s destruction of Babylon comes very late on. There was no sense in delivering them physically from Babylon if in their heart they were still idolaters and lacked personal faith in the reality of the one true Creator God. That I conceive to be the main burden of chapters 40–48, the rediscovery of God as creator.

I said before that I thank God for those who brought me up. I was brought up with great emphasis on the redemption that is in Christ, of course. In my later life, I have had to discover God again as the creator. When Moses went to Egypt, he announced to the Israelites that God had come down to redeem them, but when he found himself in opposition to Pharaoh, he had to remind Pharaoh that the redeemer of Israel was, in fact, the creator. And Paul in Colossians, talking to us about our reconciliation, says, ‘making peace by the blood of his cross’ (1:20). Whose blood? Well, we have redemption through his blood who was in the beginning. ‘In him were all things made’ (see v. 16), in other words, the creator. That is a marvellous thing to discover, that our Redeemer is the creator. It is that way around. You might have thought it was the other way around, that we first discover God as creator and then as redeemer, but sometimes for the redeemed there is a need to go the other way around and discover God as our creator.

Part 8 (Isaiah 49–57)

Certainly the central part of chapters 49–57 is Israel’s eventual discovery of the suffering servant. We considered him to be smitten of God and afflicted. We now realize that he was wounded for our transgressions. If Israel is going to be restored, they won’t be restored without coming to recognize that the one whom they rejected and crucified was the suffering servant of God, and they will have to come to terms with him as their Saviour.

Part 9 (Isaiah 58–66)

In the third place, if Israel is going to be restored, as chapter 58 mentions right from the start, they will have to be brought to confession of their sin. Their pride will have to be broken, and they will have to be made ready for the second coming of Christ.

That is how I would read the general drift of those three divisions (parts 7, 8 and 9) of the third movement of Isaiah, covering chapters 40–66. That isn’t very detailed help, I know, but I can’t give you much more in the time that we have.

Comparing similar passages in Movement 3

In order to look more closely at some of the themes in this third movement, I can suggest a little exercise that you might be happy to do. That is to look at the straight prophecies of the Messiah as given in Part 7 (chapters 40–48). There are two notable ones.

Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations. He will not cry aloud or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street; a bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice. He will not grow faint or be discouraged till he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his law. (42:1–4)

That prophecy speaks directly of God’s servant and his Spirit upon him and what he will do. The question that always occurs, of course, is: who is the servant? Is it Israel? Or, is it Cyrus? Or, just who is it? But here is a description of the servant and what he will do and what he will not do. That goes, perhaps, from verses 1–9. That is one description of the servant.

Now look at chapter 45, which begins, ‘Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus’ (v. 1). God had said right from chapter 41 that he was going to raise up one from east.

Who stirred up one from the east whom victory meets at every step? He gives up nations before him, so that he tramples kings underfoot; he makes them like dust with his sword, like driven stubble with his bow. He pursues them and passes on safely, by paths his feet have not trod. Who has performed and done this, calling the generations from the beginning? I, the Lord, the first, and with the last; I am he. (vv. 2–4)

But little more was said there concerning the identity of this one from the east. Now, at the end of chapter 44 God actually names this one that he was going to raise up.

who says of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and he shall fulfil all my purpose’; saying of Jerusalem, ‘She shall be built’, and of the temple, ‘Your foundation shall be laid.’ (v. 28)

Now here is the description of what God’s anointed, that is, God’s messiah, would do. Of course, messiah means ‘anointed’. Cyrus in some sense was a messiah, anointed by God for the deliverance of his people. He was used of God to let the Babylonian captives go back to their land. What Cyrus would do, he would do for the sake of Jacob ‘my servant’.

For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I call you by your name, I name you, though you do not know me. (45:4)

Therefore, in Part 7 (chapters 40–48) we have two paragraphs of description of God’s anointed servant. Now a little exercise: why the two descriptions?

We had some practice of that early on this week, didn’t we? In Part 1 of the very first movement there were two paragraphs giving a prediction of the glory that was to be. One is at 2:2–4, and the other at the first paragraph of chapter 4. And we found it useful to compare and contrast them, and then to ask how they were related to their context, if they were related at all. It might be a good exercise to do this same thing with these two paragraphs of description. Granted that the one is Cyrus and named, but he is named as a ‘messiah’ to do for Israel and make their deliverance. People would naturally take the other in chapter 42 as a prediction of our Lord, and we are strengthened in that claim because Matthew actually quotes it about our Lord (12:15–21).

That makes an interesting exercise, doesn’t it? I shan’t tell you the results of it; I’m setting it as homework. If you haven’t done it by the next time I come back, I can’t think of what I will do.

The tactics used in the two passages

So, what is the difference between these two by way of tactics? Are the tactics described the same in each case?

He will not cry aloud or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street; a bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench. (Isa 42:2–3)

Does that sound to you very like the same tactics that Cyrus used? I think one of you has said it sounds like the opposite. And there might be other contrasts, mightn’t there? What is the significance of the contrast between these two messiahs, and why did the passage about the second one come first, and the passage about Cyrus second? And what is the point that Matthew is making when he cites the first of them as being the tactics adopted by our Lord for the recovery of Israel? For this comes in the section that is talking about the restoration of Israel, but Matthew says that the tactics here, predicated of Messiah, were fulfilled by our Lord at his first coming. So, you can all see what the exercise is and what its importance is.

If Matthew is concerned to preach to Israel that Jesus is the Messiah, he had better somehow explain why Messiah did not liberate Israel at the time, hadn’t he? And when the apostles, dear souls, were greeted after the resurrection by the Lord Jesus and he taught them, eventually they plucked up courage to pop the question. Well, now, Jesus was the Messiah, there was no doubt about that; he was alive. So they said, ‘Is it at this time that you are going to restore the kingdom to Israel?’ (see Acts 1:6). We read his answer in the verses that follow. It is a basic Christian question that the world has a right to ask us. If Jesus is God’s servant to restore Israel, he doesn’t seem to have done much about it so far. What did Isaiah say his tactics were to be anyway? And how does this passage in Isaiah 42, describing Messiah’s tactics, relate to the tactics that Cyrus will adopt when he comes? He broke a few bruised reeds, Cyrus did. He broke down gates of brass! Would you say that he was a sort of disreputable messiah? Why didn’t our Lord adopt the tactics of breaking down doors of brass?

Audience: But in the sequel to chapter 42, we read, ‘Sing to the Lord a new song’ (v. 10), and then in verse 14,

For a long time I have held my peace; I have kept still and restrained myself; now I will cry out like a woman in labour; I will gasp and pant. I will lay waste mountains and hills, and dry up all their vegetation; I will turn the rivers into islands, and dry up the pools. (vv. 14–15)

DWG: Yes. That’s right. So how do you make sense of it? How do these paragraphs follow one another, and how are they related? We are back to the same task that we found confronting us at the beginning of the week, to understand these paragraphs and then relate them to their context, and to compare the similar ones. We see that here are two messiahs, but then we need to contrast them and see where they fit in to the flow of thought.

Part 8 (Isaiah 49–57)

I don’t think I’m going to set you any harder problem than that in the first of these parts of Movement 3. But what I can do, perhaps, is to set you something further to think about, if I could have a big enough bit of paper to write on.

Audience: As we set that up, could I just ask whether the second half of the first major movement of the book also divides into three parts as do the other two movements? You have said that each of the first two major movements of the book is divided into three parts, and each part within each movement is divided into halves. Is each part of the third major movement of the book also divided in half?

DWG: Well, it may well be. I think it probably is, but I wouldn’t go to the stake for any of that, you see. Change it, by all means. It is what the scientists call a heuristic tool. It’s simply a tool you use to start discovering things. I suspect that each of the three parts in that third major movement is divided into two parts, but I couldn’t prove it as I stand here.

Audience: One of the others here said that the fact that there were three kings at each central part, and each went to the grave, proved to him that your division of the book was very right.

DWG: That was nice of him to say so. That’s just a ploy to get me to come back.

Audience: Is it working?

The Messiah’s satisfying work

Now, what I am about to scribe on this board, you shouldn’t take as a proffered structure. I am using this to lay out before you some of the contents of the second main part of the third movement, which is chapters 49–57. This is the one that begins with Messiah addressing the nation. That is a very touching movement, isn’t it? By the time we come to 49:1 we have heard God addressing the nations in chapter 40 onwards. It is God addressing them. Now a very touching moment comes when Messiah addresses the nations.

Listen to me, O coastlands, and give attention, you peoples from afar. The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name. He made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand he hid me; he made me a polished arrow; in his quiver he hid me away. And he said to me, ‘You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.’ But I said, ‘I have laboured in vain; I have spent my strength for nothing and vanity; yet surely my right is with the Lord, and my recompense with my God.’ And now the Lord says, he who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him; and that Israel might be gathered to him—for I am honoured in the eyes of the Lord, and my God has become my strength— he says: ‘It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.’ (49:1­–6)

Now notice that this is Messiah speaking, and he is calling to the Gentiles. Yes, he was raised up to restore Israel but, as God admits, that is not a big enough task for the Messiah.

You see, if you are going to find satisfaction in your work, the work must be big enough. Some people go through life miserably disappointed because their work isn’t big enough. It’s not that there is too much of it, but the work isn’t big enough for them. The work must be commensurate with your abilities if you are going to be satisfied. And now here is Messiah talking. ‘Raise up Israel? Well, that’s scarcely enough.’

Consider who he is. What work would satisfy him? And we come to think about the inner feelings of our blessed Lord, and the work he is asked to do. He wants a big enough task to satisfy him. So God says, ‘Yes, it’s too small a thing for you to be my servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved of Israel. I will also give you as a light to the Gentiles, that you may be my salvation unto the end of the earth.’

You worship a Christ like that, don’t you? It wasn’t enough just to raise up Israel. He wanted to raise up you as well, and all the Americans and the Europeans and all the rest, and the world.

Thus says the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel and his Holy One, to one deeply despised, abhorred by the nation, the servant of rulers: ‘Kings shall see and arise; princes, and they shall prostrate themselves; because of the Lord, who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you.’ (v. 7)

Now God begins to describe in detail the mission that he has given to the Messiah, one big enough to satisfy the Messiah. Hold onto that idea of satisfaction, because it will recur in this central part of this third movement and in a noticeable place, too. You will find this incredible to believe. His service to raise up the Gentiles, as well as Israel, will involve him in the suffering that chapter 53 describes. Now listen to what is said in verse 10 of that chapter. ‘Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him’. That is, God decided, it was God’s purpose. It was not his pleasure in our modern sense. It didn’t please God and delight him in that sense. It is the word for ‘he decided to’. The idea is ‘this was his purpose’.

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. (vv. 10–11)

‘He shall see of the travail of his soul, the anguish of his soul and be . . .’ Do you believe what it says next? It says that when he sees the like of us in glory and thinks back to the travail of Cavalry, he shall be satisfied that he’s got a good bargain. What a story this is!

Then he’s got the salvation, and that has got to be satisfactory as well. Christ doesn’t deal in little salvations. And so chapter 55 is going to say,

Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labour for that which does not satisfy? Listen diligently to me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in rich food. (vv. 1–2)

You want a salvation big enough. Why would you go for less?

Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labour for that which does not satisfy? Listen diligently to me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in rich food. Incline your ear, and come to me; hear, that your soul may live; and I will make with you an everlasting covenant, my steadfast, sure love for David. (vv. 2–3)

We know what that means from Acts 13. This is the guarantee of the resurrection. A big enough salvation to satisfy you! It is a lovely theme, isn’t it, going through these chapters? It is the Messiah talking to us Gentiles.

Now if you come back to chapter 49, when Messiah has talked and God has agreed to give him a big enough mission to raise up, not just the houses of Israel (that’s too small a task) but to be a light to the Gentiles, and his mission is described, the result is jubilation.

Sing for joy, O heavens, and exult, O earth; break forth, O mountains, into singing! For the Lord has comforted his people and will have compassion on his afflicted. (v. 13)

Sometimes I wish I could put this as a drama upon a stage. Here is Messiah talking to the Gentiles: ‘Listen to me, you isles, and all you Gentiles.’ And this is what the Lord says. ‘It isn’t enough to raise up Israel. He’s given me to be a light to the Gentiles.’ Marvellous. ‘Sing, O heavens!’ And just as the song finishes, you suddenly hear a voice. Who is that? It looks like a woman, all dressed heavily in black. When Messiah stops talking about raising up Gentiles, she says, ‘But Zion says, “Jehovah has forsaken me”’. This is Zion’s response to the Messiah’s enthusiasm to be a salvation to the Gentiles.

But Zion said, ‘The Lord has forsaken me; my Lord has forgotten me.’ (v. 14)

Zion as a woman bereaved of her children

What does Judaism think about Jesus going to the Gentiles? They are not exactly too keen, are they?

So, just let me put this down in shorthand. Here is the lesson, ‘O, Isles listen to me’ (see 49:1). This is our Lord Messiah speaking to the Gentiles. And there follows Zion’s objection, ‘But Zion says . . .’. And what does she say? Zion says, ‘Jehovah has forsaken me, and the Lord has forgotten’ (see v. 14). Zion speaks, therefore, as a mother bereaved of her children. The figure is of a woman, representing Zion, and she speaks as a mother bereaved of her children. And the matter is discussed in the next verses and into the following chapter.

Thus says the Lord: ‘Where is your mother’s certificate of divorce, with which I sent her away? Or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities you were sold, and for your transgressions your mother was sent away.’ (50:1)

Zion as a woman with no sons to guide her

Then we come to the words that start the next chapter. And while I say I am not giving you a structure, I am now arbitrarily (as arbitrary as many preachers, you see) choosing the bits I know something about and leaving the other bits and hoping the congregation hasn’t noticed!

Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness, you who seek the Lord: look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were dug. (51:1)

That will do for the moment, and you can read for yourself what follows, but if you read far enough, you will come eventually to the command: ‘Awake’ (v. 9), and again, ‘Awake. Stand up, Jerusalem’ (see v. 17). Whereas Zion in the earlier part is a woman bereaved of her children, now here Jerusalem is a mother who has suffered the Lord’s fury. She has none of her sons to guide her.

Now you are thinking of a mother with grownup sons, who would be there to support and to guide their mother. But the Lord’s fury has been poured out on them, and she has none of her sons to guide her. She is a captive woman, but eventually is set free and is beautified and promised that no uncircumcised shall enter her, that is, into Jerusalem, again. You see that this woman is the personification of Zion city, not a literal woman. Jerusalem city, Zion, is figured as a woman and in chapter 49 her children are gone. In chapter 50 she is complaining of the fury of God on her sons, for none of her sons are left to guide her. That is the mother talking about grownup sons.

As you begin to see that this altercation is between what Messiah is saying and what Zion city is saying, talking about her children that have been lost, your mind will go to when Messiah stood outside the city of Jerusalem, won’t it? We think of that time when he said, ‘O, Jerusalem. Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wing, but you would not’ (see Matt 23:37).

This then is a very moving piece of writing, with Messiah speaking and then Zion replying. Zion is pictured as a mother who has lost her little children and is complaining that Messiah is going to the Gentiles. And what of Jerusalem? God is looking after the Gentiles, but what about the gas chambers for the Jews?

Zion as a woman deserted but now restored

Eventually you will come to the passage that says, ‘Behold, my servant.’

Behold, my servant shall act wisely; he shall be high and lifted up, and shall be exalted. As many were astonished at you—his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind—so shall he sprinkle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they see, and that which they have not heard they understand. (52:13–15)

Do you remember that passage? And you know what it says thereafter in chapter 53. After that, you find this.

Sing, O barren one, who did not bear; break forth into singing and cry aloud, you who have not been in labour! (54:1)

It is the woman again, isn’t it? And here, Zion is represented as a wife of youth who was deserted (v. 6). That is another figure of a woman, isn’t it? The first one was of a woman bereaved of her little children. The second one is a woman, now perhaps a widow, who had sons to guide her, but now they are gone, so she has no sons to guide her. Now it is a woman who has been a wife of youth who has been deserted, with all the pain that that implies. But now, says the word, she has been taken back. Her maker is to be her husband.

For your Maker is your husband, the Lord of hosts is his name; and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, the God of the whole earth he is called. (v. 5)

Secondly, she is a woman afflicted, a city now to be refounded and rebuilt, and all her children taught of the Lord.

All your children shall be taught by the Lord, and great shall be the peace of your children. (v. 13)

Do you see how this metaphor of the city as a woman is being maintained throughout the whole section?

Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labour for that which does not satisfy? Listen diligently to me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in rich food. Incline your ear, and come to me; hear, that your soul may live; and I will make with you an everlasting covenant, my steadfast, sure love for David. (55:1–3)

You know the verses from chapter 55. Then at the start of chapter 56 the Lord says to ‘keep judgment’, or justice.

Thus says the Lord: ‘Keep justice, and do righteousness, for soon my salvation will come, and my deliverance be revealed.’ (v. 1)

In this context we are told of the strangers and the eunuchs who will be Zion’s legitimate seed (vv. 4–6). But then there comes the rebuke in chapter 57.

Zion as woman of questionable morality

But you, draw near, sons of the sorceress, offspring of the adulterer and the loose woman. (v. 3)

Oh, dear. Now, once again, I am not giving you a structure for this section. I am not proposing it as a structure. I am merely picking out those particulars of this middle part of the third movement of Isaiah. But this is pretty clear. Look at this repetition of the metaphor of Zion as a woman, four times over.

We return to the old business of first noticing the similarities and, when you have noticed the similarities, then doing a bit of differential diagnosis. Doesn’t that term sound impressive? It is merely looking at the differences and noticing what the differences are.

A woman bereaved of her children. That is Zion. Messiah is keen to go off to the Gentiles. Zion has got a big objection: ‘The Lord has forsaken me. I’ve been bereaved of my children.’ Do have some sympathy with Zion, and for the feelings involved. Then, ‘Awake, stand up Jerusalem.’ Her sons have suffered the fury of God. They lie in the streets like antelopes caught in a net, because of the judgment of God on the city. If you want an example of that think of ad 70 and the butchery of Zion’s sons and population, perhaps to the extent of about two million. They lie in the street, caught in the net like antelopes, and Zion has no sons left to strengthen and guide her. But then she is told, ‘Sing, O barren, you who did not bear.’ How can she begin to sing? For she was like a wife of youth deserted by her husband. But now, barren though she has been, her maker is to be her husband.

We are talking about the restoration of Zion, aren’t we? So that is a lovely thing, and there is more to say about the subject. But look at this last one, in the chapters of that middle part of the third movement in Isaiah. ‘Make known to Israel their sins.’

Cry aloud; do not hold back; lift up your voice like a trumpet; declare to my people their transgression, to the house of Jacob their sins. (58:1)

Here there is no room for sentiment, because they, like the rest of us, are sinners and have been. ‘Draw near, you sons of the sorcerer and the seed of the adulterer and the whore’ (see 57:3). What words to use of the people of Zion! You remember that the Gospel of John and chapter 8 begins with the story of a woman taken in adultery. They dragged this unfortunate woman before the Lord and they said, ‘Lord, Moses and the law command that such should be stoned. What do you say?’ It had already been proved that the woman was taken in adultery. The only question left was, should the sentence of the law be carried out? And it was a trick question. If he said, ‘Yes, carry it out,’ they would have reported him to Pilate and had him arrested. If he said, ‘No,’ they could blaze it abroad that he was a phony evangelist who doesn’t take the word of God seriously. So they would get him either way.

He wrote on the ground and then said, ‘He that is without sin among you, cast the first stone.’ Well, they turned around and walked out because the law of Moses was good at exposing your sin by its commandments, but now they had met the lawgiver. They turned and walked out. They dare not stay, for they knew in their hearts that they were guilty. And who dared to pick up a stone? Why didn’t they stay? I feel like calling after them, ‘Come back, you fools! By running off you are confessing you’ve sinned!’ But if they had stayed, he would have exposed them.

He bowed down a second time and wrote on the ground with his finger. There is a passage in the Old Testament that talks of God writing with his finger. He wrote twice, in fact. The first time he wrote the law, and because of Israel’s apostasy Moses threw the tablets down, though written by the finger of God, and smashed them. Then in God’s unbounded mercy, as a result of Moses’s intercession, Moses was told to bring the tablets up to God, and God wrote them again in his sublime mercy and compassion (Exod 32:15–16; 35:1).

Here before them was the lawgiver. ‘Moses commanded,’ they said. Oh, did he? Our Lord wrote with his finger on the ground. And when he lifted himself up the second time, he said to the woman, ‘Has no man condemned you?’

‘No man, Lord.’

‘Well, neither do I condemn you.’

He meant the sentence was not to be carried out. How could he say that? Well, it’s an obvious answer: he was about to suffer the penalty.

Then he said a lot of other things, and when he said these things they believed on him (John 8:12–30). To the Jews that believed on him, he said, ‘Okay, and if you continue in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.’

‘Half a minute,’ they said, ‘did you say free?’

‘Free, yes.’

‘Free from what?’

‘Well,’ he said, ‘free from sin, of course, for he that practises sin is a slave of sin. And the slave doesn’t abide in the house for ever (any more than Ishmael did. He was the son of a slave woman), but the son abides for ever. If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.’

At which they got most alarmingly angry. ‘What do you think you’re talking about? We are Abraham’s seed,’ they said.

‘That’s funny,’ said he, ‘you don’t look very much like Abraham. For I’ve just spoken you the word of God and you think to kill me. Abraham didn’t do that kind of thing.’

‘Here,’ they said, ‘we weren’t born of fornication, even if you were!’

They had heard of the virgin birth and didn’t believe it, of course.

‘We are God’s children.’

‘Well, that’s even more curious,’ he said. ‘For if you were God’s children, you’d bear the family likeness, wouldn’t you? If you were God’s children, you would love me. I came forth from God. I better tell you your parentage right now.’ (It’s like talking about a woman caught in adultery who brings forth children that look more like the butcher down the road than her husband.) ‘I’d better tell you your earthly fatherhood,’ he said. ‘You are of your father the devil, and it is your pleasure to do his works. He was a murderer from the beginning and stood not in the truth. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own. Why can’t you hear what I’m saying? Because you’ve no idea of the message’ (see vv. 31–47).

That was straight talk, wasn’t it, to people who thought they were sons of God and children of Abraham? Something had gone wrong as to their parentage.

I haven’t more to say, except of course to remind you that when we come to consider these responses on Zion’s part to the message of the Messiah we ought to have sympathy for her people. Here is the Messiah, starting by announcing he is not merely content to raise up Israel, but he is going to be a light to the Gentiles and bring them in. And you think of that historically, of what that meant to Judaism and Jerusalem. They feel we Christians have monopolized the whole thing and taken it away, and it was their city anyway. They feel that the Christian world should be held responsible for the Holocaust. And we consider all the grief in orthodox Israel over Christianity.

When you think of these passages in Isaiah, you can begin to understand such replies, can’t you? Pray, have sympathy and compassion in your heart for Zion. ‘For a little while I deserted you,’ says God, ‘like a wife of youth deserted.’ You think of the heartbreak there. ‘But now I shall marry you. Your maker is your husband’ (see 54:5). And, ‘Sing, O barren one who did not bear’ (v. 1).

This will get you thinking, because you are experts on that part that is mentioned in the New Testament, in Galatians. We haven’t the time, but if we did then you would tell me, of course, that Paul is talking about Sarah and how is it that the woman that was barren has more children than the woman who had the husband.

But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written, ‘Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labour! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.’ (4:26–27)

Perhaps the fuller passage from Isaiah 54 is a good note on which to end our studies.

‘Sing, O barren one, who did not bear; break forth into singing and cry aloud, you who have not been in labour! For the children of the desolate one will be more than the children of her who is married,’ says the Lord. ‘Enlarge the place of your tent, and let the curtains of your habitations be stretched out; do not hold back; lengthen your cords and strengthen your stakes. For you will spread abroad to the right and to the left, and your offspring will possess the nations and will people the desolate cities. Fear not, for you will not be ashamed; be not confounded, for you will not be disgraced; for you will forget the shame of your youth, and the reproach of your widowhood you will remember no more. For your Maker is your husband, the Lord of hosts is his name; and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, the God of the whole earth he is called. For the Lord has called you like a wife deserted and grieved in spirit, like a wife of youth when she is cast off, says your God. For a brief moment I deserted you, but with great compassion I will gather you. In overflowing anger for a moment I hid my face from you, but with everlasting love I will have compassion on you,’ says the Lord, your Redeemer. (vv. 1–8).

²² The full size version of this chart can be found in the Appendices.

---

Study Notes

1: Preliminary Remarks - The Main Aim of These Seminars

A Survey of the Book as a Whole

1. a. To acquaint ourselves with its major contents and themes. b. To try to understand how the material in the book is organized. c. To examine whether the book is simply a collection of Isaiah’s prophecies, originally spoken at different times and different places, and now put together in no particular order, without any particular connection of thought between one paragraph, or chapter, and the next; or whether the material is deliberately arranged according to dominant themes; and if so, what those themes are.
2. Every now and again we shall come across a verse, paragraph or chapter that sparkles like a gem with prophetic descriptions of the Lord Jesus, his birth, ministry, death, resurrection, second coming, etc. a. We shall let our hearts be warmed and provoked to worship by these passages; b. But we must also consider the order in which they occur throughout the book; for they do not occur in chronological order so that all the references to his birth come first, then all the references to his death in the middle, and all the references to his second coming at the end of the book. Chapter 2 verses 2–4 refers to the millennium; chapter 7 to his birth; chapter 34 verses 1–8 to his second coming in judgment (cf. 63:1–6); yet chapter 53 refers to his death and chapter 55 verse 3 to his resurrection (cf. Acts 13:34). c. We must therefore endeavour to discover why each of these prophecies comes where it does in the book, and how it fits its particular context.

The Historical Setting of Isaiah’s Prophecies

1. Isaiah (sixty-six chapters), Jeremiah (fifty-two chapters) and Ezekiel (forty-eight chapters) form a large part of the Old Testament. All three are clustered round a catastrophic event in world history: the sack of Jerusalem city, the destruction of the temple, and the suspension of the royal house of David. a. Isaiah ministered before and after the deportation of the ten tribes of Israel to Assyria. He lived through the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrians. He does not describe the attack of the Babylonians on Jerusalem and the deportation of the two tribes to Babylon; but he foretells God’s eventual deliverance of his people from Babylon. b. Jeremiah lived through and describes the approach of the Babylonian armies, and their eventual capture of Jerusalem and deportation of the people. He also prophesied Israel’s restoration. c. Ezekiel ministered to the exiles now in Babylon. He too prophesied Israel’s restoration.
2. We must first therefore try to understand the historical significance of the exile of the ten tribes, the destruction of Jerusalem, city and temple, and the suspension of the royal house of David. If it was really true that Israel was God’s specially chosen nation, raised up by God to witness to the one true Creator God as a protest against the pagan idolatry of all the other nations, how could God allow the pagan nations to destroy Jerusalem city and the temple, and to defeat and dethrone the Davidic kings?

Having First Understood the Significance of Isaiah’s Prophecies in the Original Historical Context, We Can Then Enquire:

1. How far does the God-defying king of Assyria, in his advance on, and siege of, Jerusalem, foreshadow the man of sin (2 Thess 2; cf. Zech 14:1–4)?
2. How far does God’s use of the Assyrians to chastise Israel foreshadow God’s discipline of Israel under the beast?
3. How many, or how much, of Isaiah’s prophecies of Israel’s eventual deliverance, salvation and return from Babylon refer to: a. The return from Babylon under Cyrus, Ezra, and Nehemiah? b. The salvation offered to Israel by the Lord Jesus during his life on earth (e.g. 61:1–2)? c. The salvation preached by the apostles (e.g. 11:10; 49:6; cf. Acts 13:46–47; Rom 15:8–12)? d. Israel’s conversion at the end of this present age (59:20; Rom 11:26)? e. The blessing of the Gentile nations as a result of Israel’s restoration (Rom 11:15; cf. Isa 2:2–4)?

2: Contents of Isaiah’s Prophecy

Chapters 1–35: Prophecy

1. The Assyrian threat
2. The deportation of the ten tribes
3. The Assyrian advance and virtual siege of Jerusalem
4. The threat turned away: Jerusalem saved

Chapters 36–39: History

1. Hezekiah’s valiant stand against the demands of the king of Assyria
2. Hezekiah’s grave illness and recovery
3. Hezekiah’s compromise with the king of Babylon

Chapters 40–66: Prophecy

1. The deliverance from exile in Babylon and the restoration of Jerusalem

3: The Salvation of Jehovah

Salvation of Jerusalem from the Assyrian(s)			Salvation of Jerusalem and of Hezekiah			Future Salvation from Babylonian Captivity
First Movement—Chs. 1–35—Prophetic			Second Movement—Chs. 36–39—Historical Narrative			Third Movement—Chs. 40–66—Prophetic
Part 1: 1–12	Part 2: 13–23	Part 3: 24–35	Part 4: 36–37	Part 5: 38	Part 6: 39	Part 7: 40–48	Part 8: 49–57	Part 9: 58–66
The sins of God’s people in general and of the house of David.	Ten oracles against the nations.	Judgments on the earth, on the host of the high ones on high, on the kings of the earth.	Jerusalem saved from the Assyrian siege through divine intervention.	Hezekiah’s illness and recovery.	Hezekiah’s fatal mistake: shows treasures to Babylon.	The rediscovery of the only true God-Creator.	The discovery and recognition of God’s suffering servant.	Repentance in readiness for, and at, Christ’s second coming.
The rod of God’s anger, the Assyrian.	Downfall of Babylon’s king (Sennacherib) ‘the Assyrian’.	The punishment of the swift serpent, the crooked serpent; he shall slay the dragon.	Envoy and letter of Assyrian king.	The writing	Envoy and letter of Babylonian king.	Jehovah’s servants:	Kings shall shut their mouths at him.	The final restoration.
				of King Hezekiah.		Messiah
						Jacob
						Cyrus
Immanuel on the throne of David.	He comes to Sheol—the grave.	The way of holiness.	Hezekiah of David’s house stands against Assyria.	I go to the gates of the grave.	Hezekiah	To liberate Israel and make them a true witness to God.	His grave	The new heavens and the new earth.
					of David’s house compromises with Babylon.		with the wicked and with the rich.
the highway from Assyria.	The kings of the nations rise from their thrones.	the song of the ransomed.	Assyrian king.	Jehovah was ready to save me.		No peace to the wicked.		Their worm shall not die . . . their fire shall not be quenched.
			Nineveh.		King’s treasure and sons.		He shall prolong his days.
Jehovah is my song.	The seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.
			Murdered by his sons.		Babylon.		He shall see his seed.
							No peace to the wicked.

4: Structure and Themes (1:1–35:10)

Part 1A (1:1–6:13)	Part 2A (13:1–19:24)	Part 3A (24:1–27:13)
Heaven and earth called to listen as	Cosmic convulsions on the day of the Lord	Cosmic convulsions: earth’s foundations shaken
God denounces his people’s rebellion.	Five oracles about the nations.	The punishment of the host of the high ones
The song of the vineyard:	I will break the Assyrian in my land (14:25–26).	on high, of the kings of the earth (24:21), of the serpents and the dragon (27:1).
What could have been done more to my vineyard? I will lay it waste (ch. 5).	Zion’s role as a refuge for the smaller nations at the approach of Assyria.	The Lord shall reign in Zion.
God’s judicial blinding of Israel.	The conversion of Assyria,	The feast for the nations.
The scattering of the nation.	Egypt and Israel.	The swallowing up of death (ch. 25).
But the holy seed remains.	A highway between Assyria	The song of the vineyard (27:2).
	and Egypt (19:23).	The song of the strong city (ch. 26).
		The return of Israel from Assyria and Egypt (27:13).

Part 1B (7:1–12:6)	Part 2B (20:1–23:18)	Part 3B (28:1–35:10)
God rebukes the disbelief of	Five further oracles about the nations	God rebukes the pride and arrogance of Israel and the scornful men of Judah.
the house of David.		Scorning and rejection of the word of God leads to judicial blinding.
God’s anger against Jacob.	No escape for the nations from Assyria: even Babylon falls (20:1–6; 21:9).	Going to Egypt for help instead of trusting God results in disaster.
The rod of God’s anger, the king of Assyria.	The bad and good stewards of the house of David (ch. 22).	The converted in Zion shall see their teachers accept God’s word, and Christ as King.
The virgin born Son on the throne of David.		The coming of Christ in judgment (ch. 34).
The re-gathering of God’s people.
the highway from Assyria (11:16).	The restoration of tyre and the songs of the harlot (ch. 23).	The highway of holiness (35:8).
the song of salvation: God’s anger turned away.		The songs of those returning to Zion (35:10).

5: God’s Response to the Rebellion of his Children

1. God’s denunciation of his people’s rebellion (1:1–31)
2. A prophecy of millennial glory (2:1–4)
3. God’s denunciation of his people’s sin (2:5–4:1)
4. A prophecy of millennial glory (4:2–6)
5. God’s denunciation of his people’s sin (5:1–30)
6. A vision of the King and his throne (6:1–13)

6: Part 1B - God’s Response to the Unbelief of the House of David

1. Perturbations in the House of David 7:1–8:22

1. Chapter 7: Panic because of the Syro-Ephraimite confederacy against Jerusalem to set up another king; God pleads with Ahaz to believe him: Ahaz refuses to ask for a sign—is given the sign of the VIRGIN BIRTH, and IMMANUEL: the imminent demise of the two kings brought about by God’s bringing on them the king of Assyria; the consequent devastation.
2. The sign of Maher-shalal-hash-baz, and prediction of the Assyrian despoiling of Damascus and Samaria: Judah’s rejection of Shiloah will bring the Assyrian flood up to the neck of Immanuel’s land. God’s exhortation to the faithful REMNANT to fear the Lord, not the Assyrians (cf. 1 Pet 3:14–15). THE STONE OF STUMBLING (cf. 1 Pet 2:8). Isaiah and his disciples are the remnant waiting for the Lord (cf. Heb 2:13).
3. The folly of turning to necromancy.

2. Prophecy of the Coming King to Fill the Throne of David 9:1–7

1. His tactics: to start in Galilee
2. The result: end of all oppression
3. WHO THE KING WILL BE
4. The increase of his government

3. The Lord’s Anger 9:8–10:34

1. His anger against Jacob/Israel (9:8–10:4)
2. The rod of his anger, Assyria. Assyria’s false attitude and eventual punishment
3. Israel’s repentance: the RETURN of the REMNANT (cf. Rom 9:27–28); the Lord’s people not to be afraid of the Assyrian. A dramatic account of the Assyrian’s approach.

4. Prophecy of the Coming Messiah 11:1–12:6

1. The nature of his government: its results. The second return of the remnant: HIGHWAY from Assyria. THE SONG OF SALVATION: GOD’S ANGER TURNED AWAY.

7: Part 2A - God’s Ways with the Nations in Relation to the Anti-God King and God’s Foundation of Zion

1. The Oracle About Babylon 13:1–14:27

1. The overthrow of Babylon out of God’s compassion for Israel (NB. FOR the LORD . . . 14:1); Israel’s return to the land and their release from oppression.
2. The downfall of the anti-God king of Babylon according to God’s predetermined purpose: I will break the Assyrian in my land (14:24–27).

2. The Oracle About Philistia 14:28–32

1. They should not boast in their temporary relief: there will be no escape from the Assyrian attack (14:29–31).
2. The only refuge is Zion, founded by the Lord (14:32).

3. The Oracle About Moab 15:1–16:14

1. The progressive laying waste of Moab’s cities (15:1–9).
2. Moab’s ambivalent attitude to Zion: it sends lambs to Zion’s ruler; it seeks asylum in Zion for its refugees, and protection from the oppressor; but it is too proud to own loyalty to Zion’s king (16:1–5).
3. Therefore there is no escape from destruction (16:6–14).

4. The Oracle About Damascus/Jacob; i.e. The Ten Tribes 17:1–11

1. Syria will be ruined (17:1–3)
2. The ten tribes will experience almost total disaster, because you have forgotten the God of your salvation (17:4–6, 10)
3. This will lead to repentance from idolatry and a turning to the Creator (17:7–8)

5. Two Further Considerations 17:12–14 and 18:1–7

1. Only God can disperse the Assyrian armies (17:12–14)
2. The uselessness of depending on Ethiopian diplomacy (18:1–2)
3. After God’s destruction of the enemy, Ethiopia shall bring a present to the Lord: to THE PLACE OF THE NAME OF THE LORD OF HOSTS, the Mount Zion (18:3–7)

6. The Oracle About Egypt 19:1–25

1. The coming of the Lord to Egypt will stultify the wisdom and commerce of Egypt (19:1–15)
2. The hand of the Lord and the land of Judah become a terror to Egypt (19:16–17)
3. The conversion of Egypt to faith in, and worship of, the Lord (19:18–22)
4. The conversion of the Assyrians to the Lord and their reconciliation with Egypt (19:23)
5. Israel, Egypt, Assyria, all three at one in faith and worship: Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my inheritance (19:24–25)

8: Part 2B - False Hopes Against the Assyrian Attack

1. A Preliminary Warning to the Coastal Cities 20:1–6

It is useless for these cities to put their trust in the political super powers, Egypt and Ethiopia; for in three years Assyria will defeat both. Then the coastal cities will have no hope of escape.

2. The Oracle About the Desert by the Sea, i.e. Babylon 21:1–10

Jerusalem has put its faith in a coalition, led by ‘religious’ Babylon, to try to stop the Assyrians. Now they hear the spine-chilling news that Babylon has been utterly destroyed by Sennacherib in 689 BC (not by Cyrus in 539 BC).

3. The Oracle About Dumah/Edom 21:11–12

The watchman anxiously seeks to know: When is the gloom going to be finally relieved? But no answer can be given. They must wait, and enquire again. Beware of false timetabling!

4. The Oracle Against Arabs 21:13–17

Relief agencies do a good work to help refugees from the theatre of war. But that will not stop the inevitable destruction that God has foretold.

5. The Oracle About the Valley of Vision, i.e. Jerusalem 22:1–24

False, worldly, attitudes in the city of David itself

1. Inappropriate joy probably at the relief obtained by Hezekiah’s attempt to buy off Sennacherib with vast sums of money (22:1–6; cf. 2 Kgs 18:17ff); a. The relief was very short lived b. Many of the rulers had defected c. And now the Assyrians were mounting a siege
2. Trust in their stock pile of arms, in their water supply engineering, in their demolition of houses to fortify the walls, instead of trust in the Lord (22:7–11).
3. Their rejection of God’s call to repentance and their adoption of the world’s hopeless attitude: Life is short, live it up while you can, for tomorrow we shall die (cf. 1 Cor 15:32). God’s response: there can be no purging of this iniquity until you do die (22:12–14)!
4. The misuse of the office of high steward in the house of David: Shebna had no higher motive than self-glory, and no larger vision than a magnificent sepulchre! (22:15–19).
5. The only proper attitude to this high office: that of Eliakim; awareness of divine appointment, and maintenance in the enormous responsibility of being the chief administrator in the house of David, set up by God for God’s age long purposes in the world (22:20–23; cf. Rev 3:7).
6. A potential danger in this office: that his family would come to depend on him rather than on the Lord. The Hebrew of verse 24 can be translated: ‘should they hang on him’ (22:24–25; –cf. 1 Cor 1).

6. The Oracle About Tyre 23:1–18

1. Tyre was an empire built on technology and commerce (23:1–7).
2. Its skill, products and artisans made a very useful and distinguished contribution to the temple (1 Kgs 5:1–11; 7:13–46).
3. But the danger of its very attractive ‘goods’ was, as now, that these lovely things drew people’s hearts away from God.
4. Tyre’s gods were pagan–and cruel; and Jezebel of Tyre introduced these gods to Israel and displaced Jehovah.
5. Tyre sold to everyone, but was loyal to none. Its beauty was that of a harlot. Like modern commercialism and globalization, its prime motive was profit for its shareholders, not genuine love for God and fellow-man.
6. Tyre brought on itself the judgment of God (for the purpose behind God’s judgment see 23:8–9); and he used the Assyrians to accomplish it (23:13).
7. BUT THERE WAS TO BE RESTORATION FOR TYRE! Its merchandise would serve the needs of the Lord’s people, and that is a holy project. Even the Lord’s people need food and durable clothing! Question: Will there be trade and commerce in the millennium (23:15–18)?

9: Part 3A - The Effect of God’s Judgment on Planet Earth and its Cities, and on the Restoration of his People

Key Terms in this Part of Isaiah 24:1–27:13

Earth: twenty-five times in chapters 24–27

City: 24:10, 12; 25:2–3; 26:1, 5; 27:10

Mountain: 24:23; 25:6–7, 10; 27:13

The superhuman powers throughout creation:

In the heavenlies (24:21)

On the earth (27:1)

In the sea (27:1)

Note: It has been said ‘God made the country, man made the town’. In much ancient Greek thought, cities are the expression of man’s progress and achievement; of organized civilization, as distinct from remaining in small individual units, living in the wild, more like animals.

From the time of Nimrod (Gen 10:8–12), however, big cities have often expressed man’s independence of, and even hostility to, God.

On the other hand, while God began with the garden of Eden, God’s ultimate purpose was to have a city: first the earthly Jerusalem, and then the heavenly new Jerusalem.

1. The Shaking of Planet Earth 24:1–20

1. Turned upside down, physically and socially, with population scattered and emptied (24:1–6)
2. The reason for it: man’s guilt in polluting the earth (cf. the pollution of the earth by murder and moral perversion: Gen 4:11; Num 35:33; Lev 18:25–30); transgressing the laws, changing the ordinances, breaking the everlasting covenant (24:5–7; cf. Gen 9:1–17)
3. Result: the curse, the end of wine and joy, social confusion and desolation, mourning (24:6–12)
4. Yet a small ‘gleaning’ shall repent and glorify the Lord for his majesty (24:13–15)
5. Isaiah is appalled at the extent of the utter catastrophe (24:16–20)

2. The Reign of Christ 24:21–23

1. The punishment of superhuman principalities and earthly kings (24:21)
2. The remand of some in prison until the end of the millennium (24:22)
3. The brilliance of the occasion outshining sun and moon (24:23)
4. THE LORD OF HOSTS SHALL REIGN IN MOUNT ZION AND IN JERUSALEM, AND BEFORE HIS ANCIENTS GLORIOUSLY (24:23)

3. The Joy of the Messianic Banquet 25:1–8

1. PRAISE TO GOD FOR HAVING FULFILLED ALL HIS PROMISES (25:1): a. In bringing down all hostile opposition (25:2–3) b. For having been a stronghold to his people when they were under persecution (25:4–5)
2. THE BANQUET for ALL NATIONS: a. Sumptuous joy (25:6) b. The swallowing up of death and the wiping away of tears, and the removal of the reproach of his people (25:8)

4. Two Prospective Responses 25:9–26:5

1. GLADNESS AND REJOICING IN GOD’S SALVATION (25:9–12): a. The long years of waiting for God to act are over. Now God has acted for their salvation; b. Salvation will mean that the hand of the Lord will put a complete end to Moab’s prideful hostility.
2. SONG OF JOY AT THE AWARENESS OF THE SECURITY OF THEIR STRONG CITY AND THE PROTECTION OF SALVATION (26:1–5): a. Entry into the gates of the city for the righteous that keep truth b. A mind at perfect peace through settled trust in the Lord c. The awareness of God as an everlasting rock as a result of his dealing with the enemy

5. The Spiritual Exercise of the Righteous During the Waiting Period 26:6–21

1. Their awareness that their feet shall one day tread on the defeated enemy (26:6; cf. Rom 16:20)
2. But that means that in the meanwhile God who is upright must train and guide his people in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake (26:7)
3. They have accepted that this period of training in righteousness has turned the waiting period into a waiting and desire for God, a seeking for his rule and righteousness, all through the night (26:8–9)
4. For this is how the inhabitants of the earth learn the righteousness of God (26:9; cf. 2 Thess 1:4–7)
5. Granted that the wicked will not learn righteousness this way, even though the kindness of God was meant to lead them to repentance; they will persist in their unrighteousness (26:10–11; cf. Rom 2:4)
6. But they will see God’s zeal for his people and be ashamed when his fire consumes them (26:11; cf. 2 Thess 1:6, 8–12)
7. The certainty that God will ordain peace for his people at that time is based on the fact that it is God who has wrought all their works for them (26:12; cf. Phil 2:13)
8. Now the righteous remnant reviews their national history; i.e. their bondage in Egypt and the various captivities in the days of the Judges (26:13–15). But . . . a. By God’s help they have retained faith in the one true God (26:13) b. Their enemies have perished: God has destroyed them and obliterated the memory of them (26:14) c. God has enlarged the nation, extended their borders and glorified himself in so doing (26:15)
9. But now they bemoan the fact that during this time of God’s chastisement of them, the pain seems all to have been in vain and ineffectual: it has not brought about any deliverance in the world (26:16–18)
10. THEN COMES GOD’S REPLY (26:19–21): a. There will be a bodily resurrection or a spiritual rebirth of Israel (26:19; cf. Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones, ch. 37) b. There must first come a time of indignation from which they must hide themselves (26:20) c. Then the Lord will come and punish the earth and its inhabitants (26:21)

6. Results of the Coming of the Lord 27:1–13

1. The punishment of the principalities and powers, the serpents and the dragon (27:1)
2. The re-establishment of Israel as God’s vineyard (27:2–6): a. To be defended by God from all injury b. The effect of Israel as the restored vine: they shall fill the face of the world with fruit (cf. Rom 11:12–24)
3. A contrast between God’s chastisement of Israel and his judgment on the ungodly, unbelieving, and impenitent world (27:7–11): a. God’s chastisement of Israel, though severe, has not been so severe as his punishment of those who tried to destroy Israel (27:7–8) b. God’s chastisement of Israel has led to his repentance, the acknowledgement of his sin and unbelief, and the abandonment of all idolatry (27:9) c. But with Israel’s enemies it is different. Though God is their creator too, their persistence in deliberate, organized, ignorant hostility, not only to Israel but to Israel’s God, will result in merciless punishment (27:10–11).
4. THE INGATHERING OF ISRAEL (27:12)
5. THE COMING OF THE SAVED FROM AMONG THE GENTILES TO WORSHIP THE LORD IN THE HOLY MOUNTAIN AT JERUSALEM (27:13; cf. Zech 14:16–21)

10: Part 3B - The Folly of Rejecting God and his Word and Putting One’s Faith in Human Wisdom, Religion and Strength Independent of God

Preliminary Remarks

1. The background to these chapters is still Sennacherib’s final attempt to take Jerusalem (see 29:3–8; 30:31–33; 31:8–9).
2. Emphasis is laid on the folly of going down to Egypt for help, when only the Lord can save (see 30:1–18; 31:1–3).
3. In several passages reference is made to the defeat of Assyria, and also to the Lord’s coming and the setting up of his kingdom. But when we look at the contexts surrounding these passages, we shall have to decide once more whether all the passages in this Part 3B follow each other in chronological order or not.
4. We must also ask how much of the language used to describe God’s deliverance of Jerusalem from the attack of Sennacherib goes beyond this historical event to foreshadow what will happen when the Lord comes to destroy the armies of the beast.
5. We shall also notice a heavy emphasis on the word of God, the book (scroll), teachers and teaching, and the right and wrong interpretation of Scripture; and on how the rejection of God’s truth leads to judicial blindness and inability to make sense of Scripture. To see the relevance of this theme to the serious situation that faced Ephraim and Judah in the time of Sennacherib’s invasion of Palestine and siege of Jerusalem, it will be helpful to notice the context of Matthew 23, and of John 12:35–50.

1. The First Woe 28:1–29

A. Concerning Ephraim (28:1–13)

1. The crown of pride of Ephraim’s drunkards shall be destroyed by God sending the Assyrians against them.
2. It shall be replaced by another crown and diadem for the remnant, namely the Lord of Hosts, who will impart a spirit of true judgment to Ephraim’s judges, and strength to their defenders (28:5–6).
3. The fault of the Ephraimites: alcohol has perverted their senses, their judgment, and their vision (28:7–8).
4. Their scornful rejection of the prophet’s teaching: ‘Whom does he think he’s teaching? This is kindergarten stuff!’ (28:9–10).
5. The prophet’s reply (28:11–13): a. God will speak to them by letting them hear the barbarous foreign language of their conquerors; b. Because they have refused the offer of rest to the weary (cf. Matt 11:28–30), God’s own word, however simple, will make no sense to them, with the result that they are ensnared and fall (cf. Mark 4:10–12).

B. Concerning the People of Jerusalem (28:14–29)

1. The people of Jerusalem are just as scornful of God’s word as the Ephraimites (28:14).
2. They have put their faith in a covenant which they have made—the covenant which Hezekiah made with the king of Assyria (2 Kgs 18:13–16)—and they imagine that it will save them when the Assyrian armies come through Judah (28:15). But . . . a. It was a compromise with the forces of evil; b. It was a pack of lies on the part of the murderous Assyrian; c. The only sure basis for security is the sure foundation stone, the tried and precious cornerstone, which the Lord God has laid in David’s Jerusalem. He who believes will not dash here and there in panic (28:16; cf. 1 Pet 2:6); d. God will judge with the plumb line of righteousness, and their covenant with death and hell will prove to be a refuge of lies and no protection; when they get the message it will be sheer terror (28:17–20); (e) For the Lord will intervene with his divine supernatural power as he did at Baal-perazim for David (2 Sam 5:19–20), and at Gibeon for the besieged Gibeonites and for Joshua (Josh 10:5–14). But it will be a strange act; for this time, when God intervenes with his consummating judgment, he will destroy the very king and army with whom the Jerusalemites have made their agreement. In the hour of God’s judgment, then, with whom will the Jerusalemites be found to be bound by covenant? With God’s enemy, or with God (28:21–22)?

C. A Parable From Agriculture (28:23–29)

1. A farmer does not plough and harrow incessantly just for the sake of ploughing and harrowing. He ploughs and harrows so that he can stop both operations and sow the field with seed (28:24–25).
2. When he threshes his crops after harvest, he has to use different tools and methods according to the size and nature of the corn (28:27–28).
3. The farmer’s practical wisdom comes from God his creator; and therefore serves as an insight into the wisdom of God’s own ways in chastising his people. God would allow the Assyrians to defeat, capture and deport the ten tribes (Ephraim); but Jerusalem he would rescue at the last moment. But both these methods would be aimed at getting the maximum harvest (28:29).

2. The Second Woe 29:1–14

A. God’s Announcement of his Chastisement and Then of his Deliverance (29:1–8)

1. Addressed to Jerusalem, but here called: a. Ariel = altar-hearth (see Ezek 43:16), i.e. the place where the fire never went out; b. The place where David encamped, i.e. David’s city.
2. God announces that at some time in the future he will distress the city and humble it to the dust by bringing upon it the besieging Assyrian armies (29:2–4).
3. But then God, who brought the armies to Ariel, will suddenly thunder on them, with earthquake, noise, whirlwind, tempest, flame and fire (29:5–6).
4. The result: a. The armies will be gone like a dream at daybreak (29:7); b. And as far as these armies are concerned, the spoil that they thought they were in process of grasping will prove to have been a dream-like illusion (29:8).

B. God and Jerusalem’s blindness (29:9–14)

1. God’s judicial blinding of the people (29:9–12): a. The people are indecisive, blind, drunk (but not literally), with self-induced blindness and torpor; b. The Lord has poured out on the people a spirit of deep sleep, and has closed the people’s eyes, i.e. their prophets; and has covered the people’s heads, i.e. the seers (cf. Isa 6:9–10 and Acts 28:25–27); c. The result: this whole vision (i.e. revelation through the prophet) has become like the words of a book which no one can read: the learned, because it is sealed; the unlearned, because he cannot read anyway (29:11–12).
2. God’s reaction (29:13–14): a. This blindness and inability to understand Scripture has been caused by the fact that, while outwardly religious and paying lip service to God, their hearts are far from God; and their so-called fear of, or reverence for, God is in fact nothing but a man-made commandment taught by religious tradition (see Matt 15:7–9); b. So God will proceed to do a marvellous work and wonder, that will annihilate the so-called wisdom and understanding of their wise men (see 1 Cor 1:19).

3. The Third Woe 29:15–24

A. The Nonsense of Virtual Atheism (29:15–16)

1. It acts as if there were no God who could see them and their behaviour.
2. It turns the actual facts upside down: a. They treat God as though he were but matter worked up by man, instead of being the creator of matter and man; b. They are creatures; they didn’t make themselves, yet they claim that no God made them; c. Being themselves God’s creatures, they say that the creator has no intelligence or understanding!

B. God’s Response is to Cite Counter-Evidence (29:17–21)

1. The soon coming transformation and glorification of nature (29:17)
2. The fact that the spiritually deaf shall hear and understand Scripture, and the blind see after years of darkness (29:18)
3. The meek and poor will find their joy in the holy one of Israel increase (i.e. the humble whose faith and hope is in God, 29:19; cf. Matt 5:5; the disciples of Christ, Luke 5:20)
4. And the reason for this: evil, arrogant, tyrannical, corrupt men, who have perverted justice in the legal system in order to oppress true believers will be cut off (29:20–21; cf. Luke 11:37–52; Matt 23; the operators at the trial of Christ; the high priests in Acts 4–5; the high priest, Ananias, who manipulated Paul’s trial, Acts 23–26)

C. The Result (29:22–24)

Abraham and Jacob, the fathers of God’s people, shall no longer be ashamed by the behaviour of their progeny; but seeing their children, God’s workmanship, they shall sanctify God’s name and stand in awe at the holy one of Jacob, the God of Israel. And even the erring and rebel shall come to understand and learn doctrine (29:22–24).

4. The Fourth Woe 30:1–33

A. The Embassy to Egypt (30:1–17)

1. An act of rebellion against the Lord (30:1)
2. The outcome of human scheming, not of God’s counsel
3. Seeking a protection, but not God’s Spirit
4. Therefore an addition to their sinning!
5. Very deliberate determination to go to Egypt, without first consulting God, to gain strength rather from Egypt and to put trust in Egypt’s (protecting) shadow (30:2; contrast 32:2)
6. All in vain: not only can Egypt not help—but Egypt will be a cause of shame and reproach (30:3–5)
7. An oracle concerning the pack-animals of the Negev. Enormous distress and danger and wearisome work carrying the vast amount of treasure necessary to obtain Pharaoh’s support: but all a waste of effort and money: Egypt can and will do nothing to help (30:6–7)

B. A Lesson to be Inscribed in a Book for the Profit of all Generations to Come (30:8–17)

1. The cause of this fatal error: rejection of God’s word, law, truth: a demand to hear not what is right, but what is pleasant even if untrue: a rejection of God’s prophets, and a demand that the holy one of Israel get out of their way (30:8–11).
2. The result of despising God’s word in general: the whole scheme shall fall apart from the inside and be shattered (30:12–14).
3. The result of rejecting God’s particular exhortation in this crisis: that to stay put, to rest, to have confidence in God, is the source of strength; and insisting on fleeing to Egypt for help; the result will be that they shall indeed flee and be decimated by their pursuing enemies (30:15–17).

C. God’s Plan for the Blessing, Deliverance and Healing of his People (30:19–26)

1. Because of their false trust in Egypt rather than in God, God will have to wait. Before he delivers them they must learn the disastrous results of trusting Egypt rather than God (30:18).
2. Yet God will hear the cry of his people in Zion and answer them (30:19).
3. They will have to endure affliction and adversity; but now they will see their teachers, will hear God’s word to guide them, and as a result abandon all their idols (30:20–22).
4. The result: a. Prosperity, supply and satisfaction (30:23–24) b. When the towers fall, a more than adequate supply of water on the hills (30:25) c. And light above sun and moon when God heals the hurt and wounds of his people (30:26)

D. The Means God Will Use to Deal with the Assyrian (30:27–33)

Noticeable in this passage are the terms used:

God’s:

1. Lips, tongue, (30:27)
2. Voice (30:30–31)
3. Breath (30:28, 33; cf. 2 Thess 2:8)

God acts to vindicate his name; and his judgments are his speaking, his expression of his character by his holy wrath and indignation (30:27; cf. Rev 19:13: ‘his name is called The Word of God’). This expression of God’s character by his speaking emphasizes the folly of those in Jerusalem who had rejected his word, and his speaking through his prophets.

1. His dealing with the nations: his judgments will act as a sieve of destruction, sorting out the bad; and as a bridle that restrains and controls all people (30:28).
2. The effect of this revelation of God’s character on his people: festive joy and worship (30:29 cf. Rev 19:1–6).
3. God’s dealing with the Assyrian: (30:31–33): a. God will break him with his voice: he used the rod to smite Israel; now God will break him (30:31) b. Each stroke by God, expressing God’s righteous character, shall evoke his people’s praise (30:32) c. The ‘funeral pyre’ which consumes the king was long ago prepared by God, and God’s ‘breath’ will ignite it (30:33)

5. The Fifth Woe 31:1–9

Another denunciation of trusting in Egypt to deliver Jerusalem from Assyria.

A. The Nature of Egypt’s Strength (31:1–3)

1. The Egyptians are mere men and not God
2. Their horses are mere flesh and not spirit
3. To trust them instead of trusting God is folly: God has only to stretch out his hand, and those who help and those who are helped fail and fall together.
4. Mere human strength is not enough to deal with the anti–God Assyrian

B. God as the Protector of Zion (31:4–5)

1. Like a lion coming down the mountain unafraid of the shepherds, however many they be (31:4)
2. Like birds flying, the Lord will pass over Jerusalem (31:5; cf. the Passover: ‘I will pass over you’ Exod 12:13)

C. God’s Appeal to the Israelites

To turn from the rebellion against God; for in that day they shall throw their idols away as useless (31:6–7).

D. The Defeat of the Assyrian

It will be not by man, but by God (31:8–9)

6. The Nature of the Coming King’s Rule and the Behaviour of his Subjects. The Series of ‘Woes’ is Here Interrupted in Order to Give a Description of the Values and the Style of Behaviour That Will Obtain in the Kingdom of the Coming King 32:1–20

The relevance of this in this context is twofold:

1. Hope of the coming king and his kingdom will strengthen people to trust in, and stand for, God against the Assyrian;
2. But a realistic understanding of what standards of behaviour the king will demand then will surely imply that those who hope to be in that kingdom will begin to behave like that in the here and now.

A. The Nature of the King’s Rule (32:1–8)

1. Both the king and his princes shall rule righteously (32:1)
2. A man (the king himself) shall act as a protection from hostile powers; as a source of water in a dry place, and as the refreshing cool of a great rock in a weary land (32:2)
3. New ability to understand and to speak forth the truth (32:3–4)
4. Complete reversals of the world’s values and standards of behaviour (32:5–8)

B. Meanwhile, an Appeal to the Women (32:9–15)

To abandon their self-centred, idle, careless attitude, and to get concerned about the serious state to which the nation’s sin has reduced the people, and the disasters that will yet happen, for which there is no cure apart from God’s Spirit.

C. The Prospective Effects of the Pouring Out of the Spirit (32:16–20)

1. Justice and righteousness, and as a result peace, quietness, confidence, secure dwellings (32:16–18).
2. But the reality of the immediate future at the time when the Assyrian is destroyed: the city of Jerusalem shall be utterly laid low (32:19).
3. Nevertheless afterwards: blessing and prosperity in all areas (32:20).

7. The Sixth Woe 33:1–24

This is the last woe, and it concentrates on the difficulties which Israel will experience in the final days of the Assyrians. Dramatically the prophet describes alternately the outward distress and desolation, and then the remnant’s faith and exultation in the Lord.

1. Confident assertion that the treacherous Assyrian will himself be destroyed (33:1)
2. The godly pray night and day for God’s grace and preservation in their time of trouble (33:2)
3. The nations flee at the falling of God’s judgments, and God gathers their spoil (33:3–4)
4. The godly in Zion delight to see the Lord exalted, filling Zion with judgment and righteousness, with the resultant stability, abundant salvation, wisdom and knowledge, and the fear of the Lord as their treasure (33:5–6)

A. God’s Judgments on the Nations (33:7–12)

1. First, the bitter shock when Hezekiah’s ambassadors in the negotiations with Sennacherib realize that he has deceived them and broken the treaty and has no regard for cities, nor for human life (33:7–8).
2. Throughout the country there is complete desolation and no travel (33:9).
3. Then the Lord intervenes, to show his power and exalt himself (33:10–12). Under his judgments: a. The nations’ own purposes and plans are the means of their destruction; b. God’s fire shall destroy them.

B. The Effect on the Inhabitants of Zion (33:13–34)

The fiery judgments of God on the Assyrian and the nations, when pondered by far and near, and the realization of the greatness of his power and holiness, have the following effects (33:13):

1. At 29:1 Jerusalem was called the altar-hearth, on which the fire of God’s holy sacrifices never went out. Now the fire of God’s holiness has consumed the Assyrians. The sinners in Zion perceive the implication and are afraid: ‘Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire . . . the everlasting burnings?’ (33:14; cf. Heb 12:28–29).
2. The answer is given in terms of the character and behaviour required. How that behaviour is produced is not here explained (33:15; cf. Ps 15).
3. The blessings of dwelling with the everlasting burnings of God’s holy presence: a. Security, and no more unsatisfied hunger and thirst (33:16) b. Seeing the king in his beauty—in a large land with unrestricted vistas (33:17) c. The ability to look back without fear, but rather with ever deepening gratitude, on the terror they once experienced but which has now passed away for ever (33:18–19) d. The resultant ever increasing enjoyment of the religious feasts and of Jerusalem city, never to be uprooted (33:20) e. The constant presence of the Lord in majesty (33:21) f. Therefore a place of broad rivers, yet without any danger of providing access for men-of-war battleships or deceitful pirates or traders (33:21) g. The Lord is judge, lawgiver, king—but also our Saviour, as is seen by this (33:22):

   i.  Jerusalem as a city was a completely disabled ship-of-state, a virtual wreck; yet, through God’s power, the spoil of the enemy was given to the lame (33:23);
   ii.  The inhabitants of Jerusalem will know no sickness; they shall enjoy complete forgiveness (33:24).

8. The Coming of the Lord in Power to Execute Judgment on the Nations 34:1–17

1. The woes now give way to the coming of the Lord (just as in the Revelation) amidst cosmic convulsions and the stripping away of the heavens (34:1–4; cf. Rev 6)
2. The great blood-shedding and sacrifice in Bozrah is described again in Isaiah 63 and Revelation 19:11–18 (34:5–7)
3. It will be the time which settles the centuries-long dispute over Jerusalem, and avenges God’s people (34:8–11; cf. Luke 18:7–8)
4. The effect of that judgment: the complete and permanent removal of the nobles and princes of Edom: nothing left but desolation and the sinister animals and scavengers (34:12–15)
5. The exhortation to read what Isaiah has written by the inspiration of God in his scroll concerning these animals and the desolation of Edom (34:16–17)
6. Edom was Israel’s inveterate enemy, opposed to God’s purposes through Israel. It may well represent all such nations and people that seek to oppose and thwart the purposes of God in the earth.

9. The Return of the Ransomed to Zion 35:1–10

1. They shall see the glory of the Lord, the excellency of our God in transformed nature (35:1–2; cf. Rom 8:21–23)
2. This sure and certain hope gives strength to God’s people as they wait for God to avenge them (35:3–4)
3. Physical and spiritual limitations shall be a thing of the past; and all barrenness shall be replaced by living streams (35:5–7)
4. For the way back to Zion there shall be provided the highway of holiness—even fools will not stray on this road (35:8)
5. No ravenous beast shall be on it: but the redeemed shall walk in it (35:9)
6. And the ransomed of the Lord shall return to Zion, with singing, gladness and joy, and never again know sorrow and sighing (35:10).

11: The Second Movement of Isaiah

Chapters 36–39

Chapters 36–37

Part 4: Hezekiah’s stand against the Assyrians

Chapter 38

Part 5: Hezekiah’s illness and recovery, and his writing after he recovered

Chapter 39

Part 6: Hezekiah’s intrigue with the king of Babylon and his rebuke by Isaiah

12: Part 4A - Hezekiah’s Stand Against the King of Assyria

The First Challenge 36:1–37:7

Issued by ‘the great king, the king of Assyria’ to Hezekiah

1. The dire situation: Sennacherib had captured all the fortified cities of Judah: only Jerusalem was left (36:1)
2. Rabshakeh came with an army and, standing outside the city walls, addressed high officials in the presence of the people and gave them a message from Sennacherib for Hezekiah (36:2–3): a. You have rebelled against me, putting your trust in Egypt; but Pharaoh will let you down (36:4–6) b. Useless to trust in Jehovah when Hezekiah has taken away his altars and high places and made everyone come to his temple in Jerusalem. As a pagan, Sennacherib would not have understood Hezekiah’s reforms (36:7) c. An offer of two thousand horses, if Hezekiah will renew his pledge of loyalty to Assyria (36:8) d. How can you (without horses) repulse even one of my officers and put your trust in Egypt for horses? (36:9) e. The Lord himself has brought me up to destroy your land. Had Sennacherib heard what God had been saying to Judah through Isaiah (36:10)?
3. Rabshakeh’s appeal to the ordinary citizens: a. Don’t let Hezekiah deceive you: he cannot save you (36:14) b. Don’t let him make you trust in the Lord (36:15) c. Don’t listen to Hezekiah; for if you make peace with me, I will allow you to leave the cramped conditions in the city and return to your houses, until I come and take you away to a far better land (36:16–17) d. Don’t let Hezekiah persuade you that the Lord will deliver you. No other gods of any other country have delivered any city out of my hands. Neither will your God—he is no different from all the other gods (36:18–20) e. The people did not reply or try to argue. Hezekiah had wisely forbidden them to do so (36:21)
4. Hezekiah’s reaction (37:1–7): a. In dire consternation Hezekiah went himself into the house of the Lord (37:1); b. Then he sent his officials to Isaiah asking him to pray for him and the people in their helplessness, on the ground that (37:2–5):

   i.  The king of Assyria had reproached the living God;
   ii.  Therefore God himself might be expected to rebuke the king.

5. God’s reply through Isaiah: ‘No need to fear. The king’s blasphemies have been noted. I will put a spirit in him: he will hear a rumour and return to his own land; and I will cause him to die by the sword in his own land’ (37:6–7).

13: Part 4B - Hezekiah’s Stand Against the King of Assyria

1. The Second Challenge 37:8–13

Issued by ‘the great king, the king of Assyria’ to Hezekiah when the king had heard a rumour and was obliged to go and meet another enemy (37:8–9):

1. Let not your God in whom you trust deceive you (37:10–11);
2. None of the other gods of the nations has delivered them from the Assyrians. Your god will prove to be no exception (37:12–13).

2. Hezekiah’s Response 37:14–20

He went to the house of the Lord, spread the letter before the Lord and appealed to God on these grounds (37:14–15):

1. God’s uniqueness: You are the one and only true God in all the kingdoms of the earth (37:16);
2. You are the creator of heaven and earth;
3. You are the God who sits enthroned upon the cherubim: (you have unlimited executive power);
4. Regard Sennacherib’s blasphemous reproach of the living God (37:17);
5. Admittedly the Assyrians have devastated all the other lands and destroyed their gods; but they were no gods, only man-made idols (37:18–19);
6. And with that Hezekiah comes to the real issue at stake: Save us from his hand, THAT ALL THE KINGDOMS OF THE EARTH MAY KNOW THAT YOU ARE LORD, EVEN YOU ALONE (37:20).

3. God’s Answer to Sennacherib Through Isaiah 37:21–29

1. The virgin daughter of Zion (untempted by Sennacherib to yield to his offers and be disloyal to God), has despised you (37:22).
2. You have reproached no less than the Holy One of Israel to his face (37:23).
3. You have boasted of all your conquests, as if they were owing to your own powers. In fact, I, God, brought it about, and that is why none was able to resist you (37:24–27).
4. Because of your arrogant rage against me, I will put my hook in your nose . . . and turn you back by the way you came. The metaphors God uses of this boasting, God-defying man, treat him as a mere animal (37:28–29).

4. God’s Word to Hezekiah Through Isaiah 37:30–35

1. A sign to confirm God’s promise: though the land outside the city had been devastated by Sennacherib’s armies, upon the departure of those armies, the Jerusalemites, leaving the city and returning home, would find enough to eat from self-sown corn for two years running; and then from the third year they would be able to sow and reap, etc. And thus the remnant of Judah would take root again in the countryside. This would be the result of God’s zeal for his people (37:30–32).
2. The Assyrian would not be allowed into the city, nor to shoot at it, nor to build siege-works. He would have to return the same way he came (37:33–34).
3. God would defend Jerusalem for David’s sake and the covenant made with David (37:35; see 2 Sam 7).

5. The Sequel 37:36–38

1. An angel smote the Assyrian army with a plague, with great loss of life (37:36)
2. Sennacherib went back to Nineveh (37:37)
3. As he was worshipping in the temple of his god his two sons assassinated him (37:38)

14: Part 5A - Hezekiah’s Nearly Fatal Illness and His Recovery

1. The Lord’s Sentence: Hezekiah Will Die 38:1
2. Hezekiah’s Distress and Prayer 38:2–3 Note the grounds of his pleas: his perfect devotion and good works. But it was only half-true!
3. God Answers his Prayer 38:4–8 But note the purpose God had in mind: God was the Lord, the God of David, Hezekiah’s royal ancestor and founder of David’s royal dynasty. True to his covenant with David, God would for David’s sake raise up Hezekiah and: a. Deliver him and the city out of the hand of the king of Assyria; b. Defend this city; c. A miraculous sign would confirm his promise: the shadow that had gone down on the dial of Ahaz would go back ten steps.
4. Comment: This was undoubtedly a miracle; (cf. God’s command to Ahaz to ask a sign either in the depth or in the height above, 7:11) but it surely also carried a message: Hezekiah, in his stand against Assyria through his faith in God, recovered the royal house of David from the disastrous condition into which king Ahaz had brought it.

15: Part 5B - Hezekiah’s Writing After His Recovery

1. He recalls his distress at the thought of his premature death and all that it would deprive him of (38:9–12).
2. He recognized God’s hand in his illness (38:12–13).
3. In his uncontrollable chatter and mourning, however, he besought the Lord to be his surety, to stand bail for him (38:14).
4. That very request was a confession of his sins (very different from his earlier claim on the basis of his devotion and good works). And God answered that plea and acted as his surety. He cast all Hezekiah’s sins behind his back—and eventually paid for them at Calvary (38:17).
5. Hezekiah’s response: a. Awareness that his recovery was all God’s work according to God’s promise (38:15); b. His bitter experience would work a change of attitude in him for the rest of his life (38:15); c. Awareness now that this experience of God, and of his forgiveness, is the very heart and secret of life (38:16); d. Recognition that God’s chastisement was for his good and led to true peace with God and health (38:17); e. New life given leads to praise, and the motive for making known God’s truth, which he had personally experienced, to the next generation of his royal house (38:18–19).
6. Because the Lord was all for saving him, therefore he would lead others in song to the Lord in his house all the days of his life (38:20).
7. Postscript:Though it was the Lord who healed Hezekiah, it was not without the use of the medical cures of the day (38:21).

16: Part 6A - The Embassy from the King of Babylon to Hezekiah

1. Ostensibly to give Hezekiah a present and congratulate him on his recovery from his illness.
2. But Merodach-baladan, king of Babylon, was a vassal king under the emperor, the king of Assyria; and he was notorious for fomenting political alliances with the surrounding smaller nations to join him in rebelling against the king of Babylon.
3. He would therefore have been very pleased to hear that Hezekiah had recovered; and doubtless saw in him a potential ally in the next revolt against Assyria.
4. Hezekiah showed the ambassadors all the treasures and all the armaments in the storehouses of the royal palace. It was hardly a guided tour round an art-museum. It made the king of Babylon aware of all the resources which he could contribute to supporting a revolt against Assyria.

17: Part 6B - Isaiah’s Rebuke of Hezekiah

1. Obviously Isaiah interpreted Hezekiah’s act as a seriously wrong move, and not just part of the normal entertainment of distinguished visitors. Witness the solemn consequences that Isaiah said would eventually follow (39:3–5): a. One day all the treasures, which the successive kings of the house of David had laid up in the royal palace, would be carried away to Babylon (39:6); b. His royal sons, of David’s line, would also be carried captive to Babylon, and become eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon. There would be no future line of kings from them (39:7).
2. Hezekiah’s astonishingly complacent reply: The word of the Lord through you is good—there will be peace and truth in my days—and that apparently was all that mattered to Hezekiah: he had little concern for the future of the house of David (39:8).
3. Comment: It seems that Hezekiah was entrapped by the kind of thinking that has captured many evangelicals nowadays: that, in the fight against atheism in society, it is good to join in alliances with other churches, so long as they believe in God; never mind how idolatrous they are and how they deny the gospel.

---