Comments on Isaiah 56 This chapter closes out the four chapter block of rhetorically connected text (ch. 53-56). The rhetorical and textual devices employed in ch. 54 once again appear in this chapter: A - (v. 1-2) Covenant with the righteous B - (v. 3-8) Temple/espousal/progeny C - (v. 9-12) Rejection of the wicked It should be noticed that the theme from ch. 54 is moved from a lineage based covenant system (i.e. Abrahamic and Noachide) to a righteousness based covenant system at both the individual and corporate levels. In doing so, we see a shift in covenant theology that occurs and we would assume this shift is a result of the subject of ch. 53, 55 (the ministry being opened to all nations after the completion of the Lord's mortal ministry would support this as well, cf. Acts 10). Attendant to such a shift where individual culpability would be emphasized, we see a more polarized view of the righteous and the wicked. This is in contrast to the more ambivalent position of ch. 54 as lineage based groups will contain both righteous and wicked persons. Just as an aside, most Christian commentators consider this chapter to be the start of "Trito-Isaiah", or the third author of the book of Isaiah. This chapter is typically treated as a composition of mixed fragments rather than a single unit and they do not generally agree on the method of arrangement. v1-2 It should be noted the tone here is one of admonition. The A portions of the text in 54:1 and 9-10 are more intended to comfort and console. That is not the purpose here, "Happy is the man who does this". v1b-c The WB states, "The probable meaning is, 'act thus, that you may have part in the salvation to come'. But the catchword which makes the connection, 'do sedaqa, for my sedaqa comes', is a strange one, for the same word has a different meaning in the two parts of the sentence." Psalm 1 is cited in support of this interpretation, but does not address the double appearance of the term. Based upon the usage of the identical Hebrew terms, I would guess Isaiah is referring to the Doctrine of Restoration (cf. Alma 41) rather than assume the word means two separate and distinct things. This would render a translation along the lines of "do justice/righteousness, for soon my justice/righteousness comes." v1c-d Note the predictive nature of this statement. The Lord is predicting the revelation of the redeeming act. v2-8 Similar to the substance of 54:2-6 and 11-14, these verses address the temple/espousal/progeny themes. In this case the Temple theme is blatant, where in ch. 54 it was more subdued. The espousal and progeny theme here is subdued, where in ch. 54 it was blatant. One would assume this is because the espousal/progeny theme is a direct result of the Abrahamic Covenant and here where the gentiles are being grafted in by adoption, that particular aspect of the covenant is not so relevant. So much so that the Lord promises the eunuch, who can have no progeny (a typical OT covenant curse), that he will inherit a name greater than the obtaining of sons and daughters (see below for comments on this, v. 5d). The result is a complementary set of text where natural Israel is compared to the nations in regard to covenant theology. v2-4 Note the repeated parallels imbedded in the text: Happy is the man... The man... Who keeps... And stays... Let not the foreigner... Who has attached...Say... And let not the eunuch... Say...Who have chosen... v2 Observing the Sabbath is characterized as the epitome of worshiping the Lord, cp. 58:13-14. Observing the Sabbath is also a sign between Israel and the Lord, cp. Exod. 20:8-11, 31:12-17 and 34:18-24. It is important to note that the Sabbath included more than just Saturday, it also included the three divinely instituted festal ingatherings (i.e. Passover, Weeks, Tabernacles) to the Temple as dictated in Lev. 23. Thus, the Sabbath is intrinsically linked with Temple worship, hence the connections in v. 5-7. v3-4 The quotes attributed to the foreigner and eunuch and the subsequent lifting of the prohibitions in the Law could be used by equation via Lev. 21 and Deut. 23 to say that all persons formerly prohibited under the Law are now admitted. The lifting of these prohibitions obviously assumes the Law of Moses has been fulfilled or superseded, cf. 3 Ne. 15:2-10. v3 The AB states, "There is no Israelite law which generally prohibited the admission of foreigners into the Israelite community. Deut. 23:2-7 places restrictions on the admission of members of certain peoples. A rigorous attitude toward foreigners in the post- exilic community is seen in Ezra 9-10 and Neh. 13. Deut. 23:1 prohibits the admission of men whose sexual organs are maimed." Prohibitions also appear in Lev. 21:16-23 and Neh. 9:2. v3a "foreigner", the Hebrew is "ben-hannekar" variously translated as "foreigner", "alien", "foreigner by birth", "foreign in the nation". The same term appears in 14:1, 60:10, 61:5, 62:8, Zech. 2:11, also cf. Esther 9:27 and Dan. 11:34. v3b "attached", the AB renders this term "joined" and states, "Heb. hannilwah may contain a play on the name Levi; the foreigners are admitted to [temple worship] (v. 7). This would imply that it is the 'joining' that makes the genuine worshipper of Yahweh, not merely carnal descent from Levi." Also cf. 66:21 where gentiles are not only admitted, but are taken as priests and Levites. v3c "The Lord will keep me apart", probably referring to the prohibitions of Deut. 23:1-9 and Lev. 21:16-23. v3e "I am a withered tree", this lament is derivative of Abraham's, cf. Gen. 15:2 and the WB states, "life without posterity is life without blessing". To the Semitic mind, one with no offspring is cursed, cf. 4:1. v4 The specific observation of the Sabbath is joined to the more general allegiance of the covenant are united as requirements of membership. This behavior based requirement eliminates the previous combination of lineage and behavior based requirements enjoined under the Law. It is interesting to note that even in an obviously post-Law of Moses setting the observation of the Sabbath receives such emphasis. One might also consider that the Lord's intent is excluding such groups as the Canaanites, Egyptians and so forth (commonly described as grossly idolatrous and sexually immoral in the Law) was not a result of race or lineage, but rather one of culturally normative behavior. As the Lord so casually dismisses the lineage based institution in favor of a more strictly behavior based institution, it seems likely that behavior was the crux of the issue all along. Given the strong correlation between race and culture (even still reasonably strong today) the easiest method of separating the Israelites from their neighbors was based on lineage. However, with universal apostasy and the subsequent scattering, Israel was no longer a corporate entity. Thus, with the diaspora (and the nearly coincident fulfillment of the Law) the rule which formerly was not arbitrary but now is arbitrary is disposed of in favor of a purely behavior based one. v5 The WB states: The promise made to the eunuch, "I give him in my house a monument (literally, hand) and a name", is explained by reference to 2 Sam. 18:18. The monument (masseba) which Absalom has set up to keep himself in remembrance, since he was childless, was called "Absalom's hand". The excavations at Hazor brought to light a sanctuary with steles symbolizing the members of the royal family (K. Galling, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastinavereins, 75 (1959), pp. 1-13). It is a memorial of this nature that is here designated as "hand". "Monument and name" is to be taken as henidiadys--the name of the person concerned is preserved for the generations to come in the monument erected to him within the precincts of the temple: it is continuously in the mind of the community that speaks of its ancestors and remembers them. The name which thus continues to live for the community is v. 5 says, more valuable than sons and daughters, for it is an everlasting name, which shall not be cut off. This interpretation establishes the historical context nicely, but fails to address the implied Temple liturgy. Note that in both of the supplied references neither of the "monuments" are located in the Temple proper, so the equation is somewhat strained. Thus, we have here the Semitic concept of the imagery associated with the hand as being indicative of an everlasting monument. The WB also fails to recognize that the monument/hand is being established/extended by the Lord and not by some individual in his own behalf as was the case with Absalom. Implied here is the condescension of the Lord in lowering His hand to offer a monument of eternal consequences to the recipient, cf. 40:28-31. The disbursement of a name is similar to that of the ancient tradition where Abram was renamed Abraham, Sara to Sarai, Esau to Edom, and Jacob to Israel. In these cases the intent was to issue a new name that was more characteristic of the person's true nature, especially in the case of Jacob and Esau. See 62:2 and 65:15 for additional references to the obtaining a new name. v5d "Better than sons or daughters", from the eunuch's complaint in v. 3e of "I am a withered tree" and the obvious Temple context we would assume that the temple theme of eternal lives (i.e. the begetting of spirit offspring) is being addressed here. So long as the eunuch abides the temple covenant then he may inherit celestial glory and eternal increase even though he will have no mortal children. This may seem a bit of a stretch, but the numerous references to Abraham/Israel's inheritance and adoption of the gentiles as offspring in the preceding chapter tends to present both a literal physical as well as literal spiritual context to offspring issues. While there is no direct reference to eternal lives here, it may well be implied. We may also develop the interpretation of this being a reference to being a part of natural Israel, i.e. "I will give you a name in My House that is better than naturally inheriting the name Israel by birth". v6 Here the foreigner is allowed into full fellowship based on their willingness to abide by the covenants of the Lord. All membership and participation issues are completely behavior based. Note v. 4-7 is presented as a quote by the Lord and here in v. 6 the Lord is referring to Himself in the 3rd person singular. The usage of 3rd person singular is frequently used by some commentators to argue that scriptural text was not dictated by the Lord. However, it would appear there is evidence to the contrary. v6f-g Observing the Sabbath is equated with holding fast to the covenant by parallel. Once again the observation of the Sabbath is emphasized. v7 was quoted in part in Matt. 21:13, Mark 11:17, Luke 19:46. Jesus' quotation of this in the ears of the Pharisees would have been a stinging rebuke that would also have been incredibly subtle. As ch. 53-56 all deal with the condescension of the Lord (i.e. Jesus' mortal ministry and subsequent exaltation) in bringing about redemption for Israel, they necessarily push the topic of ch. 40-47 and 48-52 where Israel is shown to have failed in its appointed calling to be a light to the nations. Instead, they have forced the Lord into the position of servant for their sins. That they were profaning the Temple by violating the Sabbaths (v. 2) indicates they were being a bad example to the nations, thereby fulfilling the predictions of Isaiah. His quotation also connects himself with the character of ch. 53 and 55. Jesus quoting this verse in the Temple and immediately before the cleansing of the Temple further evidence the liturgical symbols in the chapter that are often overlooked by Christian commentators. v7c-d The WB states: Foreigners are assured that the sacrifices which they bring will be wholly acceptable ([the Hebrew] lerason is a sacrificial term). This makes them members of the community in full standing. In the time of [Isaiah] the offering of sacrifice had also a social and economic aspect. The sacrificial animals represent a portion of the family property. By sacrifice the home has its part in worship. Sacrifice begets blessings and respect in the locality. The acceptance of foreigner's sacrifice means that, properly speaking, they cease to be foreigners. Given the required post-Law of Moses setting, what would the "burnt offerings and sacrifices...on My altar" be? Would we assume a literalistic interpretation on the Ezek. 40-47 Temple sacrifices? Or, would we apply a figurative spiritual interpretation? Or both? v7e-f All nations are allowed to worship at the House of the Lord, cp. 2:2, 54:11-12, 60:4-5, 66:12. Paul got into some trouble over letting gentiles into the Temple, cf. Acts 21:28, ct. Ezek. 44:6-9. v8a-b A common theme reiterated, cp. 11:12, Ps. 147:2. v8c The Lord will gather still more (i.e. gentiles, cf. v. 3-7) to those already gathered (i.e. the remnants of Israel, cf. v8b). Note the JPS presents this a quote of the Lord. That the Lord has to do this once again indicates Israel has not done what the Lord has required of it, cf. 42:6. Rather He must gather up the righteous remnant of Israel and bring the gentiles to them. It also indicates that the gathering of Israel and the subsequent (and coincident) gathering of the other nations is a gradualistic event and not some single overwhelming act. A statement such as this would have been very much in opposition to the conventions of Isaiah's time. v9 The WB states, "God is going to take measure against those charged in v. 10. An enemy is to inflict so grievous a defeat upon them that the corpses lie around and are devoured by wild beasts." This is a typical covenant curse, cf. Lev. 26:22, 2 Kings 2:24, Mosiah 12:2. See ch. 5, 29:1-3 and 34:6-7 for statements concerning the destruction of the wicked in general as well as the wicked at Jerusalem. v10-11 present another series of synthetical parallels where the leaders of Israel/Judah are impeached for their less that zealous behavior, cp. 3:13, Jer. 6:17, Ezek. 3:17, Ezek. 34:1-10. The "watchmen" and "shepherds" appear to be only a stylistic division that corresponds with symbolism from other text, they both refer to the religious leaders of Israel and Judah. The leaders are described as self-seeking and either not knowing or not caring what their responsibilities are. v10a "The watchmen are blind", consider the irony of the symbol here in this verse which is obviously intended to be interpreted in a figurative spiritual manner. v10e "They lie sprawling", as the JPS footnote indicates, the Hebrew here is problematic. The AB renders it "They dream" following the traditional translation of the Hebrew "hozim", and offers an interpretation of it referring to mindless daydreaming as oppossed to inspired visions given the context. v11 For similar statements describing the apostate leaders among Israel, cp. Ezek. 34:1-10, Amos. 6:4-7, Micah 3:1-3. v11e-f The wording here is similar to that of 53:6, but in this case they are deliberately self-seeking as opposed to being ignorantly or naively led astray. Thus emphasizing their willful rebellion. v12 For similar statements, cp. 5:22, 19:11-15, 28:1-7, 29:9, Amos 4:1. Contrast the statement of this verse with that of v. 9. There the animals are summoned to "come and devour" while here we have the people saying "come, I'll get some wine, let us swill liquor". The rhetorical connection of the two in the summons to come and be filled indicates they are linked. The call of the watchmen for drunken debauchery results in the Lord calling for the animals of the field to feast on the carcasses of drunks, cf. Lev. 26:22, Deut. 32:24, 1 Ki. 13:28, 2 Ki. 2:24, Hosea 12:8, Hela. 7:19.