Comments on Isaiah 43 This chapter and the next one use the theme presented from the preceding chapter and expound upon it an a rather clever way. In chapter 42 we had a parallel account of two aspects of the same person (i.e. the incarnate Jesus Christ, and the transcendant Lord of Hosts). The first was the merciful aspect (referred to below as the "M" aspect) and the second was the judgmental aspect (the "J" aspect). Here, in chapter 43 we have a repetition, and therefore emphasis, on the aspects of the two characters through their relationship with Israel. The structure is as follows: M - 42:1-12 Merciful aspect of character introduced J - 42:13-25 Judgmental aspect of character introduced M - 43:1-7 J - 43:8-13 M - 43:14-21 J - 43:22-28 M - 44:1-5 J - 44:6-20 Summary of relationship between Judgmental aspect of the character and Israel M - 44:21-28 Summary of relationship between Merciful aspect of the character and Israel Note that between the introduction and summary falls three sections dealing with mercy and two section dealing with judgment. In the Hebrew language a double repetition is an emphatic and a triple repeat is a superlative. Thus, Isaiah is stressing that the merciful aspect of the character is more prominent than the judgmental aspect, but the judgmental aspect is not to be ignored. Note the text is structured so that it starts, centers and ends on the mercy aspect. Note each judgement theme section of text uses legalistic language as well as references to blindness which are derivative of the chapter 41 lawsuit. One could easily arrange the text in a synthetical chiasm, but it would be too big to fit on the page after all of the indenting. Plus, all of the internal alternating sections (43:1-44:5) are independent antithetical chiasms anyway, so that's enough chiasms for now. On separating the text into chapters, one could easily argue that 44:1-5 should be included with chapter 43 instead. I suspect the reason it was stuck with chapter 44 was because of the similarity between 44:2 and 44:24. However, if I were calling the shots, I would have stuck 44:1-5 onto the end of 43 and had 43 as the complementary series of chiasms and 44 as the concluding summaries. v1-7 is the first section of mercy theme text arranged in a chiasm as follows: A - (v. 1) Jacob's Creator blesses him with election B - (v. 2) Israel divinely protected during exodus Ca - (v. 3) The Lord is Israel's Savior Cb - Nations ransomed for Israel Ca - (v. 4) Israel is loved by the Lord Cb - Peoples exchanged for Israel B - (v. 5-6) Scattered Israel gathered from all directions A - (v. 6) Jacob's Creator creates him for His own glory Overall, this passage is an emphasis on the love the Lord has for Israel and His desire to redeem them. v2a "through the water", the Anchor Bible (AB) says, "Hebrew can be read 'bemo yam', 'through the sea', instead of 'through the water[s]'. This would be an even more explicit allusion to the Exodus." Also recall Assyria is called the Sea, cp. 5:30, 8:7-8. See my comments on 24:14c for references for the eschatological Sea being made a highway. Consider the symbolism Isaiah invokes here. These literal descendants of those who passed through the sea during the ancient Exodus are now to "pass through the sea", i.e. the eschatological Assyria, again to inherit their ancestral lands. v1f "You are Mine", this statement by the Lord states that since He redeemed Israel from Egypt, He owns them. Compare the Law of Redemption found in Lev. 25:23-55, esp. v. 55. v2 Water and fire are generally presented as a danger in Ps. 66:8- 15, and Ps. 121. There is also an obvious spiritual interpretation of baptism of water and of the Holy Ghost, cp. 1 Cor. 10:1-4. v2e-h Probably a comment on the statement of 42:25 with the subject of 33:10-16 implied, but in this case since it is the merciful aspect it is only implied and not stated. That this passage is so close to that of 44:25 and so nearly opposite in meaning shows the contrasting nature of the two aspects of mercy and judgement. v3b "your Savior", the Hebrew word here is "mosia' ", similar to the BofM name "Mosiah". v3c-d The reference to exchanging Egypt for Israel may be derivative of Ezek. 29:17-20 where Ezekiel promises Nebuchadnezzar Egypt for Tyre. It is probably more likely a reference to the subject of ch. 13-23 in general where the Gentile nations are doomed and ch. 18-19 in specific where Egypt and the lands beyond Cush are doomed. In these chapters, Israel is the one redeemed when all of the Gentiles are cast off on the Day of the Lord. v4a-b presents the Doctrine of Election in the most simple and straightforward manner possible. v4c "men", the AB says, "'Lands', [Hebrew] 'adamot' has been suggested instead of Hebrew 'adam'. Either word furnishes a good parallel to 'peoples'." v5a "fear not", cf. 41:10 for meaning. v7-8 Israel is being redeemed not because of their righteousness, but for the covenant's sake and for the sake of preserving the Lord's name (v. 7, 25). Israel is blind and deaf and remains rebellious (v. 8) but the Lord must work with them despite it all, cp. 41:8, 48:9-11. v7c This tells us Israel was created for the Lord's glory. In 40:2 we are told Israel is forgiven, in 43:1-6 we are told Israel will be redeemed and gathered, and in 40:31 we are told that Israel may be exalted like the Lord. Compare Moses 1:39. This idea that Jesus' work was for the glory of the Father is also treated at length in the Gospel of John. v8-13 forms the second chiasm in this chapter and the first section on the judgement theme: A - (v. 8-9) Summon blind (i.e. rebellious) Israel as a witness of the many works the Lord has done B - (v. 10) Israel has seen that there is no god but the Lord C - (v. 11a) No idols exist independently as does the Lord C - (v. 11b) No idols can do works as does the Lord B - (v. 12) The Lord has established that there is no god but Him A - (v. 13) The Lord's independence and works establish Him as God This section is also a popular piece for anti-mormons who say it proves the LDS teaching concerning the separate nature of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost argues for three Gods instead of one and this passage says there is only numerically one. That kind of usage is blatantly acontextual given this is contrasting the Lord with idols and in no way comments on anything except man made idols. To establish the context as such cp. 37:20, 40:18-20, 46:1- 7, Deut. 6:4, Deut. 32:21-42. v8 "Blind...deaf", cp. 6:9-10, 35:5, 42:18-21. v9-10 In a rather ironic twist, Israel is summoned as a witness of the Lord against the Gentiles. The problem is when Israel testifies against the Gentiles that the Lord is God and no other igol god is real they are condemning themselves as well for resorting to idols rather than the Lord. v10-15 The Lord uses the first person "I" quite a bit in these verses. This is an important feature of the OT, as it reflects the Lord's name-title "YHWH", or "I AM THAT I AM", a proclamation of divinity and independence, cp. Exod. 3:14. The Lord does not require men to create him like they create idols in order to exist, He stands independent of them. This kind of emphatic usage of the term "I AM" is also common to the Gospel of John as well. v10 addresses the exclusive nature of the Lord of Israel and necessarily precludes the existence of any other of these idolatrous gods outside of the works made by men's hands. The Lord is the Lord of all the earth and over all peoples, not just of Israel. And, all idols regardless of who made them were false and dead. v11 Compare D&C 76:1 for a similar statement. v12 is a direct reference to Deut 4:1-40 invoking the history of the Lord's redemption of Israel from Egypt and the numerous miraculous acts performed as a witness of His power. Israel saw these many miracles first hand, and they were to be His witnesses. It is also a veiled attack on idolatry as the Israelites know the Lord from the multitude of saving acts performed for them, and the lack of action on the part of the Egyptian gods as well as the gods of other nations Israel conquered in the wandering in the wilderness and subsequently obtaining the Promised land. No other god has revealed himself to his people in the manner that the Lord has to His people. v13a "Ever since day was", the Septuagint (LXX) has "eternity" instead of "day". I consider this a reference to the first day of Creation, which I also consider to be the War in Heaven, cp. Gen. 1:1-5, John 1:1-5, D&C 6:21, D&C 88:6-7, D&C 95:7. If this is a reference to the War in Heaven then it is an authority claim by the Lord to be the sustained Lord of Hosts (i.e. we are the hosts that sustained Him so we already are witnesses of His divinity; which is the antithesis of the opposite portion of the chiasm in v. 8-9 where the rebellious Israel is the witness). v14-21 is the second mercy theme section and is also arranged in a chiasm: A - (v. 14-15) Babylon laid low for Israel's sake B - (v. 16-17) A way is made through the waters of destruction C - (v. 18) Forget the past misery and banishment C - (v. 19a-c) Recognize the new glory B - (v. 19d-20) A way is made to the waters of salvation A - (v. 21) Israel elected for the Lord's purpose v14b "Redeemer", the AB renders this term "avenger". In the preceding section and the following one the Lord is the accuser, here He is the redeemer/avenger/advocate. The Lord is the enemy of the unrepentant and the friend of the repentant. We determine which aspect of His face is turned towards us by our actions. v14c-e This section of text is problematic. There are various interpretations by various persons all of which are a little different. But, all agree that the overall subject of the passage is the release of Israel and the imprisonment/fall of Babylon. As this theme is common to Isaiah its not a big issue, cp. 23:13, 47:1-6. v16-17 are obvious references to the ancient Exodus from Egypt. v17d "quenched like a wick", cp. 42:3. v18 Another obscure verse. It seems to be saying that Israel should forget the past and just pay attention to this new and astounding act that the Lord is to perform. But, Isaiah keeps referring to these past historical events where Israel is redeemed, like the Exodus from Egypt. Thus, I would suspect what Israel is to forget here is specifically their past blunders and disasters and repent and return to the Lord in full fellowship as He has forgiven their sins. It is also possible that the verse is an allusion to the greatness of the upcoming act and therefore foreshadows it as being so amazing and awe inspiring that it will loom over all of the Lord's previous overt saving acts. Given passages like 35:6-10, 40:3-4, and 41:18-19 this seems pretty plausible. Finally, interpreting the verse from the chiasm we would see it as referring to the righteous remnant being gathered and told to forget their servitude to Babylon and the rebellion that put them in that position in the first place. They are now being gathered out from Babylon after its fall to Zion where they may rejoice. v20 This new event provides water in the desert similar to the Exodus where drinking water was provided for Israel out of a rock that was split. However, here the miraculous act is not simply the providing of drinking water, but is the transformation of the landscape into a garden where even the animals living in the area are benefitted by the abundance of water. See my comments on 35:6- 7 for references to the Millennial Garden of Eden. v22-28 presents the last judgement theme chiasm. This is the only trial speech/judgment theme in the 40-47 block that directly attacks Israel rather than the idolatrous nations (cp. 50:1-3 for the only other one in the book of Isaiah). The chiasm is arranged as follows: A - (v. 22) Jacob did not seek the Lord B - (v. 23-24b) Hypocritical sacrifices C - (v. 24c-d) Lord forced into role of expiation by Israel C - (v. 25) Lord expiated Israel's sins for His own sake B - (v. 26-27) Disobedient idolaters A - (v. 28) Jacob delivered to destruction v23-24b Another obscure set of verses. In 1:10-17, Amos 5:21-25 and Micah 6:1-8 we have the Lord rejecting Israel's sacrifices because they are offered hypocritically. And Jer. 7:21-22 seems to deny that the Lord imposed any kind of Law of Sacrifice, but the subject there is that of 1 Sam. 15:22. So, we have some kind of new treatment here where we are told that the sacrifices Israel does offer are not to honor the Lord and then some of them are not even commanded of the Lord. First, we should recall there are three types of sacrifice offered under the Law of Moses: burnt offerings, sin offerings and peace offerings. Then we can notice that there are three clauses here: 23a-b, 23c-d, 24a-b. Note that 23c-d uses "burdened" and "wearied" as does 24c-d. In 24c-d the burden is the Lord's and is a result of Israel's sins. Thus, we can assume by rhetorical connection that 23c-d is referring to the sin offering. The Lord created a rule for sin offerings, but it was Israel who sinned thereby requiring the sacrifice. The Lord did not compel them to sin and thereby did not impose sacrifices for sin offerings on them. They imposed them on themselves by sinning. Note the treatment applied to the other two phrases does not imply a conditional, but rather addresses them as hypocritical sacrifices akin to those referenced in 1:10-17. Thus we can assume that these are two are referring to burnt and peace offerings, and therefore compulsory. Some consider v. 23c-d to be a reference to the abolition of sacrifice with the sack of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzer, and the by Rome shortly after Christ's death, or the end of the Law of Sacrifice. I have some difficulty with these as it is framed by text that does imply that sacrifices are being made in hypocrisy, so how can this be a reference to there being no sacrifices? v24a "have not bought Me fragrant reed", the AB says, "there is a wordplay on the words 'buy' (kanah) and 'reed' (kaneh)." This may be a veiled reference to Judah's rebellion from the Lord in relying on alliance with Egypt against Assyria as Egypt is called a "reed" in 36:6. Also, cp. 28:14-15, 30:1-17, 31:1-3 where Judah is faulted for relying on diplomacy instead of the Lord. v24c "Instead, you have burdened Me with your sins", the WB renders this line, "You have made me serve--with your sins". The WB states: [Israel's] charge against Yahweh [is], "yet we truly served you with our sacrifice". [The Lord] answers this by saying, "you did not really serve me. In actual fact you made me into a servant." This, however, is no more than a clumsy rendering of the Hebrew, which turns on the two forms of the same verb " 'abad" (to serve or work) in [v. 23c] and [v. 24c]: "lo' he'ebadtika" and "ak he'ebadtani": I did not make you work (serve) and you made me work (serve). This key passage for [Isaiah's] proclamation contains an echo of the catchword of the servant songs ('ebed, from 'abad). In order to understand this connection, we must realize the words-- and it is [the Lord] who speaks them--"you have made me serve (made me into an 'ebed) with your sins" are offensive to, if not indeed impossible for, the Old Testament concept of [the Lord]. [The Lord] is lord; in all semitic religions what constitutes the nature of divinity is lordship. If [the Lord] is made into a 'ebed, if he is made to serve, he has his divinity taken from him. Thus, the Lord is being forced to be a servant, abed, for their sins, He Himself will blot them out, for His own sake per v. 25. We can then go to 53:10-11 and see that it is the servant, ebed, that is made into a sin offering, bears the iniquity of others, and thereby justifies the many. And so we have a clear equation between the Lord here and the servant there. Here it says the Lord will expiate their sins, and there it says the servant will expiate their sins, so they are one and the same. Also note the sacrifical theme common to both passages. v24d "You have wearied Me with your iniquities", contrast this with 40:28 where the Lord is said to never grow weary, only mortals grow weary. I consider this a reference to the incarnation of the Lord and His expiative acts committed in mortality. v25 For similar statements cp. 38:17, 40:1-2, 44:22, 63:8d-9. v26 invokes the theme of the previous trial speeches where the subject was always idolatry. Thus, Israel is accused of following the nations in their idolatry. A fact born out by history. In this passage, the Lord is assuming something of a sarcastic, possibly even mocking, tone when he asks the idolaters to present their case and help Him remember. As 40:28-31 presents the faultless nature of the Lord in contrast to the faulty nature of man, this is a case of the Lord indicating the more grossly faulted nature of a mortal who is doubly corrupt through idol worship. This may be an example of the "mockery" mentioned in v. 28c. Also cp. 41:21-24 for a similar attack on the Gentile idolaters. v27 The earliest ancestor referenced herein is probably Jacob (cf. Hosea 12:2-4) and the spokesmen is probably referring to the various political leaders of Israel including the recent ones like Ahaz and Hezekiah. The intent of the verse is to establish the generally rebellious nature of Israel all through history. But, if you want to push for a historical rather than contemporary or eschatological interpretation, you could say the spokesman who sinned are the 10 of the 12 advance scouts of Israel who delivered the bad report of the Promised Land, cf. Num. 13. v28 contrasts the subject of 44:1-5 very well. v28a "the holy princes", assuming this is the best reading (cp. JPS emendation offered in footnote), it is probably referring to the practice of the complete slaughtering of a people, cp. Josh. 6:16- 24.