The common point in these four comparisons is that all are luminaries. In all four cases, each respective luminary is the focus or center of attention at the hour at hand because it dwarfs its celestial surroundings in majesty and in sheer brilliance. All other celestial objects pale into insignificance in their presence. This would be an appropriate description of her because she alone was the center and focus of his attention. All the other women paled into the background when she was present. Her beauty captured the attention of all that saw her, especially Solomon.


It is difficult to determine whether the speaker in 6:11-12 is Solomon or the Beloved.


It is not clear whether the “valley” in 6:12 is a physical valley (Jezreel Valley?), a figurative description of their love relationship, or a double entendre.


The chapter division comes one verse earlier in the Hebrew text ( BHS ) than in the English Bible; 6:13 ET = 7:1 HT, 7:1 ET = 7:2 HT, through 7:13 ET = 7:14 HT. Beginning with 8:1 the verse numbers in the Hebrew Bible and the English Bible are again the same.


Solomon calls attention to the sandals the “noble daughter” was wearing. While it was common for women in aristocratic circles in the ancient Near East to wear sandals, women of the lower classes usually went barefoot (e.g., Ezek 16:10 ).


The expression אַגַּן הַסַּהַר (’ aggan hassahar , “round mixing bowl”) refers to a vessel used for mixing wine. Archaeologists have recovered examples of such large, deep, two handled, ring-based round bowls. The Hebrew term אַגַּן (“mixing bowl”) came into Greek usage as ἂγγος ( angos ) which designates vessels used for mixing wine (e.g., Homer, Odyssey xvi 16) (LSJ 7). This is consistent with the figurative references to wine which follows: “may it never lack mixed wine.” Selected Bibliography: J. P. Brown, “The Mediterranean Vocabulary for Wine,” VT 19 (1969): 158; A. M. Honeyman, “The Pottery Vessels of the Old Testament,” PEQ 80 (1939): 79. The comparison of her navel to a “round mixing bowl” is visually appropriate in that both are round and receding. The primary point of comparison to the round bowl is one of sense, as the following clause makes clear: “may it never lack mixed wine.” J. S. Deere suggests that the point of comparison is that of taste, desirability, and function (“ Song of Solomon ,” BKCOT , 202). More specifically, it probably refers to the source of intoxication, that is, just as a bowl used to mix wine was the source of physical intoxication, so she was the source of his sexual intoxication. She intoxicated Solomon with her love in the same way that wine intoxicates a person.


The term מָזֶג ( mazeg , “mixed wine”) does not refer to wine mixed with water to dilute its potency, but to strong wine mixed with weaker wine. The practice of mixing wine with water is not attested in the Hebrew Bible. Both מָזֶג and מֶסֶךְ ( mesekh ) refer to strong wine mixed with weaker wine. The rabbis later distinguished between the two, stating that מָזֶג was strong wine mixed with weak wine, while מֶסֶךְ was wine mixed with water (Aboda Zara 58b). However, both types of wine were intoxicating. Mixed wine was the most intoxicating type of wine. In a midrash on the Book of Numbers a comment is made about the practice of mixing strong wine with weaker wine (e.g., Isa 5:22 ; Prov 23:30 ), stating its purpose: “They used to mix strong wine with weak wine so as to get drunk with it” ( Num. Rab. 10:8). See J. P. Brown, “The Mediterranean Vocabulary of Wine,” VT 19 (1969): 154. The comparison of a wife’s sexual love to intoxicating wine is common in ancient Near Eastern love literature. Parallel in thought are the words of the Hebrew sage, “May your fountain be blessed and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful deer – may her love (or breasts) always intoxicate you, may you ever stagger like a drunkard in her love” ( Prov 5:18-19 ).


It is impossible at the present time to determine the exact significance of the comparison of her eyes to the “gate of Bath-Rabbim” because this site has not yet been identified by archaeologists.


The Carmel mountain range is a majestic sight. The mountain range borders the southern edge of the plain of Esdraelon, dividing the Palestinian coastal plain into the Plain of Acco to the north and the Plains of Sharon and Philistia to the south. Its luxuriant foliage was legendary ( Isa 33:9 ; Amos 1:2 ; Nah 1:4 ). Rising to a height of approximately 1750 feet (525 m), it extends southeast from the Mediterranean for 13 miles (21 km). Due to its greatness and fertility, it was often associated with majesty and power ( Isa 35:2 ; Jer 46:18 ). The point of the comparison is that her head crowns her body just as the majestic Mount Carmel rested over the landscape, rising above it in majestic and fertile beauty. See ZPEB 1:755; C. F. Pfeiffer and H. F. Vos, Wycliffe Historical Geography of Bible Lands , 100.


The term דַּלָּה ( dallah , “locks, hair”) refers to dangling curls or loose hair that hangs down from one’s head ( HALOT 222-23 s.v. I דַּלָּה ). The Hebrew term is from a common Semitic root meaning “to hang down,” and is related to Arabic tadaldala “dangle” and Ethiopic delul “dangling curls” (KBL 222-23).


The term תָּמָר ( tamar , “palm tree”) refers to the date palm tree ( Phoenix dactyliferia ) that can reach a height of 80 feet (24 m). It flourished in warm moist areas and oases from Egypt to India. Ancient Iraq was the leading grower of date palms and dates in the ancient world, as today (M. H. Pope, The Song of Songs [AB], 633). There is also a hint of eroticism in this palm tree metaphor because the palm tree was often associated with fertility in the ancient world. The point of comparison is that she is a tall, slender, fertile young woman. The comparison of a tall and slender lady to a palm tree is not uncommon in love literature: “O you, whose height is that of a palm tree in a serail” (Homer, Odyssey vi 162-63) (S. H. Stephan, “Modern Palestinian Parallels to the Song of Songs,” JPOS 2 [1922]: 76).


A Palestinian palm tree grower would climb a palm tree for two reasons: (1) to pluck the fruit and (2) to pollinate the female palm trees. Because of their height and because the dates would not naturally fall off the tree, the only way to harvest dates from a palm tree is to climb the tree and pluck the fruit off the stalks. This seems to be the primary imagery behind this figurative expression. The point of comparison here would be that just as one would climb a palm tree to pluck its fruit so that it might be eaten and enjoyed, so too Solomon wanted to embrace his Beloved so that he might embrace and enjoy her breasts. It is possible that the process of pollination is also behind this figure. A palm tree is climbed to pick its fruit or to dust the female flowers with pollen from the male flowers (the female and male flowers were on separate trees). To obtain a better yield and accelerate the process of pollination, the date grower would transfer pollen from the male trees to the flowers on the female trees. This method of artificial pollination is depicted in ancient Near Eastern art. For example, a relief from Gozan (Tel Halaf) dating to the 9th century b.c. depicts a man climbing a palm tree on a wooden ladder with his hands stretched out to take hold of its top branches to pollinate the flowers or to pick the fruit from the tree. The point of this playful comparison is clear: Just as a palm tree grower would climb a female tree to pick its fruit and to pollinate it with a male flower, Solomon wanted to grasp her breasts and to make love to her ( The Illustrated Family Encyclopedia of the Living Bible , 10:60).


In the ancient Near East the mandrake was a widely used symbol of erotic love because it was thought to be an aphrodisiac and therefore was used as a fertility drug. The unusual shape of the large forked roots of the mandrake resembles the human body with extended arms and legs. This similarity gave rise to the popular superstition that the mandrake could induce conception and it was therefore used as a fertility drug. It was so thoroughly associated with erotic love that its name is derived from the Hebrew root דּוֹד ( dod , “love”), that is, דּוּדָאִים ( duda ’ im ) denotes “love-apples.” Arabs used its fruit and roots as an aphrodisiac and referred to it as abd al - sal ’ m (“servant of love”) (R. K. Harrison, “The Mandrake and the Ancient World,” EQ 28 [1956]: 188-89; Fauna and Flora of the Bible , 138-39).


Her comparison of their love to fruit stored “over our door” reflects an ancient Near Eastern practice of storing fruit on a shelf above the door of a house. In the ancient Near East, fruits were stored away on shelves or cupboards above doorways where they were out of reach and left to dry until they became very sweet and delectable. The point of comparison in this figurative expression seems to be two-fold: (1) She was treasuring up special expressions of her sexual love to give to him, and (2) All these good things were for him alone to enjoy. See M. H. Pope, The Song of Songs [AB], 650.


Song 8:1-2 may be classified as a “a lover’s wish song” that is similar in content and structure to an ancient Egyptian love song in which the lover longs for greater intimacy with his beloved: “I wish I were her Negro maid who follows at her feet; then the skin of all her limbs would be revealed to me. I wish I were her washerman, if only for a month; then I would be [entranced], washing out the Moringa oils in her diaphanous garments. I wish I were the seal ring, the guardian of her [fingers]; then […]” (The Cairo Love Songs, 25-27, in W. K. Simpson, ed., The Literature of Ancient Egypt , 311). The Egyptian and Hebrew parallels display a similar structure: (1) introductory expression of the lover’s wish to be something/someone in a position of physical closeness with the Beloved; (2) description of the person/thing that is physically close to the Beloved; and (3) concluding description of the resultant greater degree of intimacy with the Beloved. In the Egyptian parallel it is the man who longs for greater closeness; in the Hebrew song it is the woman. The Egyptian love song borders on the sensual; the Hebrew love song is simply romantic. The Beloved expresses her desire for greater freedom to display her affection for Solomon. In ancient Near Eastern cultures the public display of affection between a man and woman was frowned upon – sometimes even punished. For example, in Assyrian laws the punishment for a man kissing a woman in public was to cut off his upper lip. On the other hand, public displays of affection between children and between family members were allowed. Accordingly, the Beloved hyperbolically wished that she and Solomon were children from the same family so she could kiss him anytime she wished without fear of punishment or censure.


Continuing the little brother/older sister imagery of 8:1 , the Beloved suggests that if she had been an older sister and he had been her little brother, she would have been able to nurse Solomon. This is a euphemism for her sensual desire to offer her breasts to Solomon in marital lovemaking.


There is a phonetic wordplay (paronomasia) between אֶשָּׁקְךָ (’ eshshaqÿkha , “I would kiss you” from נָשַׁק , nashaq , “to kiss”) in 8:1 and אַשְׁקְךָ (’ ashqÿkha , “I would cause you to drink” from שָׁקָה , shaqah , “to drink”) in 8:2 . This wordplay draws attention to the unity of her “wish song” in 8:1-2 . In 8:1 the Beloved expresses her desire to kiss Solomon on the lips when they are outdoors; while in 8:2 she expresses her desire for Solomon to kiss her breasts when they are in the privacy of her home indoors.


This statement is a euphemism: the Beloved wished to give her breasts to Solomon, like a mother would give her breast to her nursing baby. This is the climactic point of the “lover’s wish song” of Song 8:1-2 . The Beloved wished that Solomon was her little brother still nursing on her mother’s breast. The Beloved, who had learned from her mother’s example, would bring him inside their home and she would give him her breast: “I would give you spiced wine to drink, the nectar of my pomegranates.” The phrase “my pomegranates” is a euphemism for her breasts. Rather than providing milk from her breasts for a nursing baby, the Beloved’s breasts would provide the sensual delight of “spiced wine” and “nectar” for her lover. tc The MT reads the singular noun with 1st person common singular suffix רִמֹּנִי ( rimmoni , “my pomegranate”). However, many Hebrew mss preserve an alternate textual tradition of a plural noun without the 1st person common singular suffix רִמֹּנִים ( rimmonim , “pomegranates”), which is also reflected in the Aramaic Targum. However, LXX ῥοῶν μου ( {rown mou, “the nectar of my pomegranates”) reflects both the plural noun and the 1st person common singular suffix. Therefore, R. Gordis suggests that MT רִמֹּנִי is an apocopated plural with a 1st person common singular suffix: “my pomegranates.”


The imagery of v. 6 is romantic: (1) His mother originally conceived him with his father under the apple tree, (2) his mother gave birth to him under the apple tree, and (3) the Beloved had now awakened him to love under the same apple tree. The cycle of life and love had come around full circle under the apple tree. While his mother had awakened his eyes to life, the Beloved had awakened him to love. His parents had made love under the apple tree to conceive him in love, and now Solomon and his Beloved were making love under the same apple tree of love.


In the ancient Near East חוֹתָם ( khotam , “seal”) was used to denote ownership and was thus very valuable ( Jer 22:24 ; Hag 2:23 ; Eccl 17:22). Seals were used to make a stamp impression to identify the object as the property of the seal’s owner ( HALOT 300 s.v. I חוֹתָם ). Seals were made of semi-precious stone upon which was engraved a unique design and an inscription, e.g., LMLK [PN] “belonging to king […].” The impression could be placed upon wet clay of a jar or on a writing tablet by rolling the seal across the clay. Because it was a valuable possession its owner would take careful precautions to not lose it and would keep it close to him at all times.


It was a common practice in the ancient world to compare intense feelings to death. The point of the expression “love is as strong as death” means that love is extremely strong. The expression “love is as cruel as Sheol” may simply mean that love can be profoundly cruel. For example: “His soul was vexed to death,” means that he could not stand it any longer ( Judg 16:16 ). “I do well to be angry to death,” means that he was extremely angry ( Jonah 4:9 ). “My soul is sorrowful to death,” means that he was exceedingly sorrowful ( Matt 26:38 = Mark 14:34 ) (D. W. Thomas, “A Consideration of Some Unusual Ways of Expressing the Superlative in Hebrew,” VT 3 [1953]: 220-21).


The Beloved’s brothers knew that once a couple is betrothed, sexual temptations would be at their greatest. Thus, in v. 9 they devise a plan to protect the purity of their sister: If she is a virtuous young woman, they would reward her; however, if she is prone to temptation, they will restrain her and guard her from promiscuity.


The simile if she is a wall draws a comparison between the impregnability of a city fortified with a strong outer wall and a virtuous young woman who successfully resists any assaults against her virginity. The term חוֹמָה ( khomah , “wall”) often refers to an outside fortress wall that protects the city from enemy military attacks (e.g., Lev 25:29-30 ; Josh 6:5 ; 1 Kgs 3:1 ; Neh 2:8; 12:27 ; Jer 1:8; 15:20 ).


The term טִירָה ( tirah , “battlement, turret”) refers to the row of stones along the top of a fortress wall, set for the defense and stability of the wall ( Ezek 46:23 ; cf. HALOT 374 s.v. טִירָה ). This structure is connected with military operations set in defense of a siege.


The verb צוּר ( tsur , “to surround, encircle, enclose”) is often used in military contexts in reference to the siege or defense of a fortress city: (1) setting up military positions (siege walls) to surround a besieged city (e.g., Isa 29:3 ); (2) encircling and laying siege to a city (e.g., Deut 20:12, 19 ; 2 Sam 11:1 ; 1 Kgs 15:27; 16:17; 20:1 ; 2 Kgs 6:24-25; 17:5; 19:9; 24:11 ; 1 Chr 20:1 ; Isa 21:2; 29:3 ; Jer 21:4, 9; 32:2; 37:5; 39:1 ; Ezek 4:3 ; Dan 1:1 ); (3) enclosing a city with sentries (e.g., Isa 29:3 ); (4) shutting a person within a city ( 1 Sam 23:8 ; 2 Sam 20:15 ; 2 Kgs 16:5 ); and (5) barricading a city door shut to prevent the city from being broken into and conquered (e.g., Song 8:7 ) ( HALOT 1015 s.v. I צור ).


An interesting semantic parallel involving the “door/bar” motif in ancient Near Eastern texts comes from an Assyrian charm against an enemy: “If he is a door, I will open your mouth; but if he is a bar, I will open your tongue.” Obviously, the line in the Song is not an incantation; the formula is used in a love motif. Cited by J. Ebeling, “Aus dem Tagewerk eines assyrischen Zauberpriesters,” MAOG 5 (1931): 19.


The noun מִגְדָּל ( migdal , “tower”) can refer to the watchtowers of a fortified city ( 2 Kgs 17:9; 18:8 ; 2 Chr 26:9 ), projecting median towers along the fortified city wall which were crucial to the defense of the city ( 2 Chr 14:6; 26:15; 32:5 ), or fortress towers in the countryside set for the defense of the land ( Judg 9:52 ; 2 Chr 27:4 ; Ezek 27:11 ) ( HALOT 544 s.v. I מִגְדָּל ). The Beloved mixes metaphors by describing her breasts with a comparison of sense and a comparison of sight: (1) Comparison of sense: She successfully defended her virginity and sexual purity from seduction, as fortress towers defended the city. (2) Comparison of sight: Just as the fortress towers along a city wall projected out at the corners of the wall, the Beloved’s breasts finally developed into beautiful “towers” (see 8:8 when she had no breasts as a young girl).


The term כֶּרֶם ( kerem , “vineyard”) is used literally in 8:11 in reference to Solomon’s physical vineyard, but in 8:12 it is used figuratively (hypocatastasis) in reference to the Beloved: כַּרְמִי ( karmi , “my vineyard”). Throughout the Song, the term כֶּרֶם (“vineyard”) is used figuratively ( Song 1:6; 2:15; 8:12 ). In 8:12 it is used in reference to either (1) herself, (2) her choice of whom to give herself to in love, or (3) her physical body. In contrast to Solomon’s physical vineyard, whose fruit can be bought and sold ( 8:11 ), she is not for sale: She will only give herself freely to the one whom she chooses to love.


The personified heavens and earth are summoned to God’s courtroom as witnesses against God’s covenant people. Long before this Moses warned the people that the heavens and earth would be watching their actions (see Deut 4:26; 30:19; 31:28; 32:1 ).


The normal word pair for giving birth to and raising children is יָלַד ( yalad , “to give birth to”) and גָּדַל ( gadal , “to grow, raise”). The pair גָּדַל and רוּם ( rum , “to raise up”) probably occur here to highlight the fact that Yahweh made something important of Israel (cf. R. Mosis, TDOT 2:403).


Against the backdrop of Yahweh’s care for his chosen people, Israel’s rebellion represents abhorrent treachery. The conjunction prefixed to a nonverbal element highlights the sad contrast between Yahweh’s compassionate care for His people and Israel’s thankless rebellion.


To rebel carries the idea of “covenant treachery.” Although an act of פֶּשַׁע ( pesha ’, “rebellion”) often signifies a breach of the law, the legal offense also represents a violation of an existing covenantal relationship (E. Carpenter and M. Grisanti, NIDOTTE 3:707).


Having summoned the witnesses and announced the Lord’s accusation against Israel, Isaiah mourns the nation’s impending doom. The third person references to the Lord in the second half of the verse suggest that the quotation from the Lord (cf. vv. 2-3 ) has concluded.


Holy One of Israel is one of Isaiah’s favorite divine titles for God. It pictures the Lord as the sovereign king who rules over his covenant people and exercises moral authority over them.


In vv. 5-9 Isaiah addresses the battered nation (5-8) and speaks as their representative (9).


This verse describes wounds like those one would receive in battle. These wounds are comprehensive and without remedy.


Building on the simile of v. 9 , the prophet sarcastically addresses the leaders and people of Jerusalem as if they were leaders and residents of ancient Sodom and Gomorrah. The sarcasm is appropriate, for if the judgment is comparable to Sodom’s, that must mean that the sin which prompted the judgment is comparable as well.


In the chiastic structure of the verse, the verbs at the beginning and end highlight God’s displeasure, while the heaping up of references to animals, fat, and blood in the middle lines hints at why God wants no more of their sacrifices. They have, as it were, piled the food on his table and he needs no more.


Notice some of the other practices that Yahweh regards as “detestable”: homosexuality ( Lev 18:22-30; 20:13 ), idolatry ( Deut 7:25; 13:15 ), human sacrifice ( Deut 12:31 ), eating ritually unclean animals ( Deut 14:3-8 ), sacrificing defective animals ( Deut 17:1 ), engaging in occult activities ( Deut 18:9-14 ), and practicing ritual prostitution ( 1 Kgs 14:23 ).


This does not just refer to the blood of sacrificial animals, but also the blood, as it were, of their innocent victims. By depriving the poor and destitute of proper legal recourse and adequate access to the economic system, the oppressors have, for all intents and purposes, “killed” their victims.


Having demonstrated the people’s guilt, the Lord calls them to repentance, which will involve concrete action in the socio-economic realm, not mere emotion.


This phrase refers to Israel’s covenant treachery (cf. Deut 28:10 ; Jer 4:4; 21:12; 23:2, 22; 25:5; 26:3; 44:22 ; Hos 9:15 ; Ps 28:4 ). In general, the noun ַמעַלְלֵיכֶם ( ma ’ alleykhem ) can simply be a reference to deeds, whether good or bad. However, Isaiah always uses it with a negative connotation (cf. 3:8, 10 ).


The Lord concludes his case against Israel by offering them the opportunity to be forgiven and by setting before them the alternatives of renewed blessing (as a reward for repentance) and final judgment (as punishment for persistence in sin).


The wordplay in the Hebrew draws attention to the options. The people can obey, in which case they will “eat” v. 19 ( תֹּאכֵלוּ [ to ’ khelu ], Qal active participle of אָכַל ) God’s blessing, or they can disobey, in which case they will be devoured ( Heb “eaten,” תְּאֻכְּלוּ , [ tÿ ’ ukkÿlu ], Qal passive/Pual of אָכַל ) by God’s judgment.


The metaphors of silver becoming impure and beer being watered down picture the moral and ethical degeneration that had occurred in Jerusalem.


Isaiah may have chosen the word for gifts ( שַׁלְמוֹנִים , shalmonim ; a hapax legomena here), as a sarcastic pun on what these rulers should have been doing. Instead of attending to peace and wholeness ( שָׁלוֹם , shalom ), they sought after payoffs ( שַׁלְמוֹנִים ).


See the note at v. 17 .


The rich oppressors referred to in Isaiah and the other eighth century prophets were not rich capitalists in the modern sense of the word. They were members of the royal military and judicial bureaucracies in Israel and Judah. As these bureaucracies grew, they acquired more and more land and gradually commandeered the economy and legal system. At various administrative levels bribery and graft become commonplace. The common people outside the urban administrative centers were vulnerable to exploitation in such a system, especially those, like widows and orphans, who had lost their family provider through death. Through confiscatory taxation, conscription, excessive interest rates, and other oppressive governmental measures and policies, they were gradually disenfranchised and lost their landed property, and with it, their rights as citizens. The socio-economic equilibrium envisioned in the law of Moses was radically disturbed.


The Lord here identifies with the oppressed and comes as their defender and vindicator.


The metaphor comes from metallurgy; slag is the substance left over after the metallic ore has been refined.


The third person reference to the Lord in v. 28 indicates that the prophet is again (see vv. 21-24 a) speaking. Since v. 27 is connected to v. 28 by a conjunction, it is likely that the prophet’s words begin with v. 27 .


Instead of referring to the large plow as a whole, the plowshare is simply the metal tip which actually breaks the earth and cuts the furrow.


This implement was used to prune the vines, i.e., to cut off extra leaves and young shoots (H. Wildberger, Isaiah , 1:93; M. Klingbeil, NIDOTTE 1:1117-18). It was a short knife with a curved hook at the end sharpened on the inside like a sickle. Breaking weapons and fashioning agricultural implements indicates a transition from fear and stress to peace and security.


Judah’s royal bureaucracy had accumulated great wealth and military might, in violation of Deut 17:16-17 .


The cedars of Lebanon and oaks of Bashan were well-known for their size and prominence. They make apt symbols here for powerful men who think of themselves as prominent and secure.


The high mountains and hills symbolize the apparent security of proud men, as do the high tower and fortified wall of v. 15 .


The precise point of vv. 20-21 is not entirely clear. Are they taking the idols into their hiding places with them, because they are so attached to their man-made images? Or are they discarding the idols along the way as they retreat into the darkest places they can find? In either case it is obvious that the gods are incapable of helping them.


This refers to their proud, arrogant demeanor.


This may refer to the prophet or to the Lord.


The vineyard is a metaphor for the nation here. See 5:1-7 .


The rhetorical question expresses the Lord’s outrage at what the leaders have done to the poor. He finds it almost unbelievable that they would have the audacity to treat his people in this manner.


The translation assumes that the direct quotation ends with v. 17 . The introductory formula “in that day” and the shift from a poetic to prosaic style indicate that a new speech unit begins in v. 18 .


This refers to the humiliation of being unmarried and childless. The women’s words reflect the cultural standards of ancient Israel, where a woman’s primary duties were to be a wife and mother.


See 1:21 for a related concept.


Israel, viewing herself as the Lord’s lover, refers to herself as his vineyard. The metaphor has sexual connotations, for it pictures her capacity to satisfy his appetite and to produce children. See Song 8:12 .


It is not certain if the prophet or the Lord is speaking at this point.


See the note at v. 8 .


See the note on the phrase “the Holy One of Israel” in 1:4 .


In this verse the prophet denounces the perversion of moral standards. Darkness and bitterness are metaphors for evil; light and sweetness symbolize uprightness.


They are compared to a flowering plant that withers quickly in a hot, arid climate.


They are like a windstorm in their swift movement and in the way they kick up dust.


That is, approximately 740 b.c.


Some understand “feet” here as a euphemistic reference to the genitals.


Do we take this commission at face value? Does the Lord really want to prevent his people from understanding, repenting, and being healed? Verse 9 , which ostensibly records the content of Isaiah’s message, is clearly ironic. As far as we know, Isaiah did not literally proclaim these exact words. The Hebrew imperatival forms are employed rhetorically and anticipate the response Isaiah will receive. When all is said and done, Isaiah might as well preface and conclude every message with these ironic words, which, though imperatival in form, might be paraphrased as follows: “You continually hear, but don’t understand; you continually see, but don’t perceive.” Isaiah might as well command them to be spiritually insensitive, because, as the preceding and following chapters make clear, the people are bent on that anyway. (This ironic command is comparable to saying to a particularly recalcitrant individual, “Go ahead, be stubborn!”) Verse 10 b is also clearly sarcastic. On the surface it seems to indicate Isaiah’s hardening ministry will prevent genuine repentance. But, as the surrounding chapters clearly reveal, the people were hardly ready or willing to repent. Therefore, Isaiah’s preaching was not needed to prevent repentance! Verse 10 b reflects the people’s attitude and might be paraphrased accordingly: “Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their mind, repent, and be restored, and they certainly wouldn’t want that, would they?” Of course, this sarcastic statement may also reveal that the Lord himself is now bent on judgment, not reconciliation. Just as Pharaoh’s rejection of Yahweh’s ultimatum ignited judgment and foreclosed, at least temporarily, any opportunity for repentance, so the Lord may have come to the point where he has decreed to bring judgment before opening the door for repentance once more. The sarcastic statement in verse 10 b would be an emphatic way of making this clear. (Perhaps we could expand our paraphrase: “Otherwise they might…repent, and be restored, and they certainly wouldn’t want that, would they? Besides, it’s too late for that!”) Within this sarcastic framework, verse 10 a must also be seen as ironic. As in verse 9 the imperatival forms should be taken as rhetorical and as anticipating the people’s response. One might paraphrase: “Your preaching will desensitize the minds of these people, make their hearing dull, and blind their eyes.” From the outset the Lord might as well command Isaiah to harden the people, because his preaching will end up having that effect. Despite the use of irony, we should still view this as a genuine, albeit indirect, act of divine hardening. After all, God did not have to send Isaiah. By sending him, he drives the sinful people further from him, for Isaiah’s preaching, which focuses on the Lord’s covenantal demands and impending judgment upon covenantal rebellion, forces the people to confront their sin and then continues to desensitize them as they respond negatively to the message. As in the case of Pharaoh, Yahweh’s hardening is not arbitrarily imposed on a righteous or even morally neutral object. Rather his hardening is an element of his righteous judgment on recalcitrant sinners. Ironically, Israel’s rejection of prophetic preaching in turn expedites disciplinary punishment, and brings the battered people to a point where they might be ready for reconciliation. The prophesied judgment (cf. 6:11-13 ) was fulfilled by 701 b.c. when the Assyrians devastated the land (a situation presupposed by Isa 1:2-20 ; see especially vv. 4-9 ). At that time the divine hardening had run its course and Isaiah is able to issue an ultimatum ( 1:19-20 ), one which Hezekiah apparently took to heart, resulting in the sparing of Jerusalem (see Isa 36-39 and cf. Jer 26:18-19 with Mic 3:12 ).This interpretation, which holds in balance both Israel’s moral responsibility and the Lord’s sovereign work among his people, is consistent with other pertinent texts both within and outside the Book of Isaiah. Isa 3:9 declares that the people of Judah “have brought disaster upon themselves,” but Isa 29:9-10 indicates that the Lord was involved to some degree in desensitizing the people. Zech 7:11-12 looks back to the pre-exilic era (cf. v. 7 ) and observes that the earlier generations stubbornly hardened their hearts, but Ps 81:11-12 , recalling this same period, states that the Lord “gave them over to their stubborn hearts.”


The derogatory metaphor indicates that the power of Rezin and Pekah is ready to die out.


The address to the “house of David” is designed to remind Ahaz and his royal court of the protection promised to them through the Davidic covenant. The king’s refusal to claim God’s promise magnifies his lack of faith.


The name Immanuel means “God [is] with us.”


Since “two kings” are referred to later in the verse, the “land” must here refer to Syria-Israel.


Initially the prophecy appears to be a message of salvation. Immanuel seems to have a positive ring to it, sour milk and honey elsewhere symbolize prosperity and blessing (see Deut 32:13-14 ; Job 20:17 ), verse 16 announces the defeat of Judah’s enemies, and verse 17 a could be taken as predicting a return to the glorious days of David and Solomon. However, the message turns sour in verses 17 b-25. God will be with his people in judgment, as well as salvation. The curds and honey will be signs of deprivation, not prosperity, the relief announced in verse 16 will be short-lived, and the new era will be characterized by unprecedented humiliation, not a return to glory. Because of Ahaz’s refusal to trust the Lord, potential blessing would be transformed into a curse, just as Isaiah turns an apparent prophecy of salvation into a message of judgment. Because the words “the king of Assyria” are rather awkwardly tacked on to the end of the sentence, some regard them as a later addition. However, the very awkwardness facilitates the prophet’s rhetorical strategy here, as he suddenly turns what sounds like a positive message into a judgment speech. Actually, “the king of Assyria,” stands in apposition to the earlier object “days,” and specifies who the main character of these coming “days” will be.


Swarming flies are irritating; bees are irritating and especially dangerous because of the pain they inflict with their sting (see Deut 1:44 ; Ps 118:12 ). The metaphors are well chosen, for the Assyrians (symbolized by the bees) were much more powerful and dangerous than the Egyptians (symbolized by the flies). Nevertheless both would put pressure on Judah, for Egypt wanted Judah as a buffer state against Assyrian aggression, while Assyrian wanted it as a base for operations against Egypt. Following the reference to sour milk and honey, the metaphor is especially apt, for flies are attracted to dairy products and bees can be found in the vicinity of honey.


Probably made of metal, wood, or leather. See HALOT 193 s.v. גִּלָּיוֹן .


The child’s name foreshadows what will happen to Judah’s enemies; when their defeat takes place, the child will be a reminder that God predicted the event and brought it to pass. As such the child will be a reminder of God’s protective presence with his people.


The phrase “waters of Shiloah” probably refers to a stream that originated at the Gihon Spring and supplied the city of Jerusalem with water. See J. N. Oswalt, Isaiah (NICOT), 1:225. In this context these waters stand in contrast to the flood waters of Assyria and symbolize God’s presence and blessings.


The appearance of the name Immanuel (“God is with us”) is ironic at this point, for God is present with his people in judgment. Immanuel is addressed here as if he has already been born and will see the judgment occur. This makes excellent sense if his birth has just been recorded. There are several reasons for considering Immanuel and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz one and the same. 8:3 is a birth account which could easily be understood as recording the fulfillment of the birth prophecy of 7:14 . The presence of a formal record/witnesses ( 8:1-2 ) suggests a sign function for the child (cf. 7:14 ). As in 7:14-16 , the removal of Judah’s enemies would take place before the child reached a specified age (cf. 8:4 ). Both 7:17-25 and 8:7-8 speak of an Assyrian invasion of Judah which would follow the defeat of Israel/Syria. The major objection to this view is the fact that different names appear, but such a phenomenon is not without parallel in the OT (cf. Gen 35:18 ). The name Immanuel may emphasize the basic fact of God’s presence, while the name Maher focuses on the specific nature of God’s involvement. In 7:14 the mother is viewed as naming the child, while in 8:3 Isaiah is instructed to give the child’s name, but one might again point to Gen 35:18 for a precedent. The sign child’s age appears to be different in 8:4 than in 7:15-16 , but 7:15-16 pertains to the judgment on Judah, as well as the defeat of Israel/Syria (cf. vv. 17-25), while 8:4 deals only with the downfall of Israel/Syria. Some argue that the suffixed form “your land” in 8:8 points to a royal referent (a child of Ahaz or the Messiah), but usage elsewhere shows that the phrase does not need to be so restricted. While the suffix can refer to the king of a land (cf. Num 20:17; 21:22 ; Deut 2:27 ; Judg 11:17, 19 ; 2 Sam 24:13 ; 1 Kgs 11:22 ; Isa 14:20 ), it can also refer to one who is a native of a particular land (cf. Gen 12:1; 32:9 ; Jonah 1:8 ). (See also the use of “his land” in Isa 13:14 [where the suffix refers to a native of a land] and 37:7 [where it refers to a king].)


In these vv. 9-10 the tone shifts abruptly from judgment to hope. Hostile nations like Assyria may attack God’s people, but eventually they will be destroyed, for God is with his people, sometimes to punish, but ultimately to vindicate. In addition to being a reminder of God’s presence in the immediate crisis faced by Ahaz and Judah, Immanuel (whose name is echoed in this concluding statement) was a guarantee of the nation’s future greatness in fulfillment of God’s covenantal promises. Eventually God would deliver his people from the hostile nations (vv. 9-10 ) through another child, an ideal Davidic ruler who would embody God’s presence in a special way (see 9:6-7 ). Jesus the Messiah is the fulfillment of the Davidic ideal prophesied by Isaiah, the one whom Immanuel foreshadowed. Through the miracle of the incarnation he is literally “God with us.” Matthew realized this and applied Isaiah’s ancient prophecy of Immanuel’s birth to Jesus ( Matt 1:22-23 ). The first Immanuel was a reminder to the people of God’s presence and a guarantee of a greater child to come who would manifest God’s presence in an even greater way. The second Immanuel is “God with us” in a heightened and infinitely superior sense. He “fulfills” Isaiah’s Immanuel prophecy by bringing the typology intended by God to realization and by filling out or completing the pattern designed by God. Of course, in the ultimate fulfillment of the type, the incarnate Immanuel’s mother must be a virgin, so Matthew uses a Greek term ( παρθένος , parqenos ), which carries that technical meaning (in contrast to the Hebrew word עַלְמָה [’ almah ], which has the more general meaning “young woman”). Matthew draws similar analogies between NT and OT events in 2:15, 18 . The linking of these passages by analogy is termed “fulfillment.” In 2:15 God calls Jesus, his perfect Son, out of Egypt, just as he did his son Israel in the days of Moses, an historical event referred to in Hos 11:1 . In so doing he makes it clear that Jesus is the ideal Israel prophesied by Isaiah (see Isa 49:3 ), sent to restore wayward Israel (see Isa 49:5 , cf. Matt 1:21 ). In 2:18 Herod’s slaughter of the infants is another illustration of the oppressive treatment of God’s people by foreign tyrants. Herod’s actions are analogous to those of the Assyrians, who deported the Israelites, causing the personified land to lament as inconsolably as a mother robbed of her little ones ( Jer 31:15 ).


The two “houses” of Israel (= the patriarch Jacob) are the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah.


This refers to Shear-jashub ( 7:3 ) and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz ( 8:1, 3 ).


In the Hebrew text ( BHS ) the chapter division comes one verse later than in the English Bible; 9:1 (8:23 HT). Thus 9:2-21 in the English Bible = 9:1-20 in the Hebrew text. Beginning with 10:1 the verse numbers in the English Bible and the Hebrew Bible are again the same.


The statement probably alludes to the Assyrian conquest of Israel in ca. 734-733 b.c. , when Tiglath-pileser III annexed much of Israel’s territory and reduced Samaria to a puppet state.


These three geographical designations may refer to provinces established by the Assyrians in 734-733 b.c. The “way of the sea” is the province of Dor, along the Mediterranean coast, the “region beyond the Jordan” is the province of Gilead in Transjordan, and “Galilee of the nations” (a title that alludes to how the territory had been overrun by foreigners) is the province of Megiddo located west of the Sea of Galilee. See Y. Aharoni, Land of the Bible , 374.


The darkness symbolizes judgment and its effects (see 8:22 ); the light represents deliverance and its effects, brought about by the emergence of a conquering Davidic king (see vv. 3-6 ).


The Lord is addressed directly in vv. 3-4 .


This alludes to Gideon’s victory over Midian ( Judg 7-8 ), when the Lord delivered Israel from an oppressive foreign invader.


The following speech ( 9:8-10:4 ) assumes that God has already sent judgment (see v. 9 ), but it also announces that further judgment is around the corner ( 10:1-4 ). The speech seems to describe a series of past judgments on the northern kingdom which is ready to intensify further in the devastation announced in 10:1-4 . It may have been written prior to the Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom in 734-733 b.c. , or sometime between that invasion and the downfall of Samaria in 722 b.c. The structure of the speech displays four panels, each of which ends with the refrain, “Through all this, his anger did not subside; his hand remained outstretched” ( 9:12 b; 17b; 21b; 10:4 b): Panel I: (A) Description of past judgment ( 9:8 ); (B) Description of the people’s attitude toward past judgment ( 9:9-10 ); (C) Description of past judgment ( 9:11-12 a); (D) Refrain ( 9:12 b); Panel II: (A) Description of the people’s attitude toward past judgment ( 9:13 ); (B) Description of past judgment ( 9:14-17 a); (C) Refrain ( 9:17 b); Panel III: (A) Description of past judgment ( 9:18-21 a); (B) Refrain ( 9:21 b); Panel IV: (A) Woe oracle announcing future judgment ( 10:1-4 a); (B) Refrain ( 10:4 b).


Though judgment (see v. 8 ) had taken away the prosperity they did have (symbolized by the bricks and sycamore fig trees), they arrogantly expected the future to bring even greater prosperity (symbolized by the chiseled stone and cedars).


The metaphor in this line is that of a reed being cut down.


Evil was uncontrollable and destructive, and so can be compared to a forest fire.


The uncontrollable fire of the people’s wickedness (v. 18 ) is intensified by the fire of the Lord’s judgment (v. 19 ). God allows (or causes) their wickedness to become self-destructive as civil strife and civil war break out in the land.


Throughout this section singular forms are used to refer to Assyria; perhaps the king of Assyria is in view (see v. 12 ).


Calneh … Carchemish … Hamath … Arpad … Samaria … Damascus. The city states listed here were conquered by the Assyrians between 740-717 b.c. The point of the rhetorical questions is that no one can stand before Assyria’s might. On the geographical, rather than chronological arrangement of the cities, see J. N. Oswalt, Isaiah (NICOT), 1:264, n. 4.


The Assyrians’ conquests were relatively unopposed, like robbing a bird’s nest of its eggs when the mother bird is absent.


The irrational arrogance of the Assyrians (v. 15 ) will prompt the judgment about to be described.


See the note on the phrase “the Holy One of Israel” in 1:4 .


The twofold appearance of the statement “a remnant will come back” ( שְׁאָר יָשׁוּב , she ’ ar yashuv ) in vv. 21-22 echoes and probably plays off the name of Isaiah’s son Shear-jashub (see 7:3 ). In its original context the name was meant to encourage Ahaz (see the note at 7:3 ), but here it has taken on new dimensions. In light of Ahaz’s failure and the judgment it brings down on the land, the name Shear-jashub now foreshadows the destiny of the nation. According to vv. 21-22 , there is good news and bad news. The good news is that a remnant of God’s people will return; the bad news is that only a remnant will be preserved and come back. Like the name Immanuel, this name foreshadows both judgment (see the notes at 7:25 and 8:8 ) and ultimate restoration (see the note at 8:10 ).


According to Judg 7:25 , the Ephraimites executed the Midianite general Oreb at a rock which was subsequently named after the executed enemy.


Verses 28-31 display a staccato style; the statements are short and disconnected (no conjunctions appear in the Hebrew text). The translation to follow strives for a choppy style that reflects the mood of the speech.


The text mentions David’s father Jesse, instead of the great king himself. Perhaps this is done for rhetorical reasons to suggest that a new David, not just another disappointing Davidic descendant, will arise. Other prophets call the coming ideal Davidic king “David” or picture him as the second coming of David, as it were. See Jer 30:9 ; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-25 ; Hos 3:5 ; and Mic 5:2 (as well as the note there).


Like David ( 1 Sam 16:13 ), this king will be energized by the Lord’s spirit.


The transformation of the animal kingdom depicted here typifies what will occur in human society under the just rule of the ideal king (see vv. 3-5 ). The categories “predator-prey” (i.e., oppressor-oppressed) will no longer exist.


See the note at v. 1 .


Perhaps a reference to Upper (i.e., southern) Egypt (so NIV, NLT; NCV “South Egypt”).


That is, the Red Sea.


Isa 13-23 contains a series of judgment oracles against various nations. It is likely that Israel, not the nations mentioned, actually heard these oracles. The oracles probably had a twofold purpose. For those leaders who insisted on getting embroiled in international politics, these oracles were a reminder that Judah need not fear foreign nations or seek international alliances for security reasons. For the righteous remnant within the nation, these oracles were a reminder that Israel’s God was indeed the sovereign ruler of the earth, worthy of his people’s trust.


The Lord is speaking here (see v. 3 ).


In vv. 4-10 the prophet appears to be speaking, since the Lord is referred to in the third person. However, since the Lord refers to himself in the third person later in this chapter (see v. 13 ), it is possible that he speaks throughout the chapter.


The Lord is definitely speaking (again?) at this point. See the note at v. 4 .


They cannot be bought off, for they have a lust for bloodshed.


When was the prophecy of Babylon’s fall fulfilled? Some argue that the prophecy was fulfilled in 689 b.c. when the Assyrians under Sennacherib sacked and desecrated the city (this event is alluded to in 23:13 ). This may have been an initial phase in the fulfillment of the prophecy, but the reference to the involvement of the Medes (v. 17 ) and the suggestion that Babylon’s demise will bring about the restoration of Israel ( 14:1-2 ) indicate that the fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians in 538 b.c. is the primary focus of the prophecy. (After all, the Lord did reveal to Isaiah that the Chaldeans [not the Assyrians] would someday conquer Jerusalem and take the people into exile [see 39:5-7 ].) However, the vivid picture of destruction in vv. 15-22 raises a problem. The Medes and Persians did not destroy the city; in fact Cyrus’ takeover of Babylon, though preceded by a military campaign, was relatively peaceful and even welcomed by some Babylonian religious officials. How then does one explain the prophecy’s description of the city’s violent fall? As noted above, the events of 689 b.c. and 538 b.c. may have been merged in the prophecy. However, it is more likely that the language is stylized and exaggerated for rhetorical effect. See Isa 34:11-15 ; Jer 50:39-40 (describing Babylon’s fall in 538 b.c. ); 51:36-37 (describing Babylon’s fall in 538 b.c. ); Zeph 2:13-15 ; the extra-biblical Sefire treaty curses; and Ashurbanipal’s description of the destruction of Elam in his royal annals. In other words, the events of 538 b.c. essentially, though not necessarily literally, fulfill the prophecy.


Sheol is the proper name of the subterranean world which was regarded as the land of the dead.


In this line the taunting kings hint at the literal identity of the king, after likening him to the god Helel and a tree. The verb גָדַע ( gada ’, “cut down”) is used of chopping down trees in 9:10 and 10:33 .


In Canaanite mythology the stars of El were astral deities under the authority of the high god El.


Zaphon , the Canaanite version of Olympus, was the “mountain of assembly” where the gods met.


Normally in the OT the title “Most High” belongs to the God of Israel, but in this context, where the mythological overtones are so strong, it probably refers to the Canaanite high god El.


It is unclear where the quotation of the kings, begun in v. 10 b, ends. However, the reference to the “kings of the nations” in v. 18 (see also v. 9 ) seems to indicate that the quotation has ended at this point and that Israel’s direct taunt (cf. vv. 4 b-10a) has resumed. In fact the references to the “kings of the nations” may form a stylistic inclusio or frame around the quotation.


This refers to the typically extravagant burial of kings.


J. N. Oswalt ( Isaiah [NICOT], 1:320, n. 10) suggests that the garrison cities of the mighty empire are in view here.


Having announced the downfall of the Chaldean empire, the Lord appends to this prophecy a solemn reminder that the Assyrians, the major Mesopotamian power of Isaiah’s day, would be annihilated, foreshadowing what would subsequently happen to Babylon and the other hostile nations.


Perhaps 715 b.c. , but the precise date is uncertain.


The identity of this “club” (also referred to as a “serpent” in the next line) is uncertain. It may refer to an Assyrian king, or to Ahaz. For discussion see J. N. Oswalt, Isaiah (NICOT), 1:331-32. The viper/adder referred to in the second half of the verse is his successor.


The question forces the Philistines to consider the dilemma they will face – surrender and oppression, or battle and death.


Shaving the head and beard were outward signs of mourning and grief.


It is unclear who is being addressed in this verse. Perhaps the prophet, playing the role of a panic stricken Moabite refugee, requests the leaders of Judah (the imperatives are plural) to take pity on the fugitives.


The Lord appears to be the speaker here. See 15:9 .


See the note on the phrase “the Holy One of Israel” in 1:4 .


It is unclear how the comparisons in v. 4 b relate to the preceding statement. How is waiting and watching similar to heat or a cloud? For a discussion of interpretive options, see J. N. Oswalt, Isaiah (NICOT), 1:362.


As the rest of the verse indicates, the point of the simile is that the Egyptians will be relatively weak physically and will wilt in fear before the Lord’s onslaught.


The significance of the number “five” in this context is uncertain. For a discussion of various proposals, see J. N. Oswalt, Isaiah (NICOT), 1:376-77.


This probably refers to the coastal region of Philistia (cf. TEV).


The phrase is quite cryptic, at least to the modern reader. Verse 9 seems to indicate that this message pertains to Babylon. Southern Mesopotamia was known as the Sealand in ancient times, because of its proximity to the Persian Gulf. Perhaps the reference to Babylon as a “desert” foreshadows the destruction that would overtake the city, making it like a desolate desert.


This is often interpreted to mean “all the groaning” that Babylon has caused others.


Smearing the shields with oil would make them more flexible and effective in battle. See J. N. Oswalt, Isaiah (NICOT), 1:394.


Seir is another name for Edom. See BDB 973 s.v. שֵׂעִיר .


The “night” probably here symbolizes distress and difficult times. See BDB 539 s.v. לַיְלָה .


Dumah will experience some relief, but it will be short-lived as night returns.


The point of the watchman’s final instructions (“if you want to ask, ask; come again”) is unclear. Perhaps they are included to add realism to the dramatic portrayal. The watchman sends the questioner away with the words, “Feel free to come back and ask again.”


The following message pertains to Jerusalem. The significance of referring to the city as the Valley of Vision is uncertain. Perhaps the Hinnom Valley is in view, but why it is associated with a prophetic revelatory “vision” is not entirely clear. Maybe the Hinnom Valley is called this because the destruction that will take place there is the focal point of this prophetic message (see v. 5 ).


Apparently they died from starvation during the siege that preceded the final conquest of the city. See J. N. Oswalt, Isaiah (NICOT), 1:409.


Perhaps “the hill” refers to the temple mount.


A distant region in the direction of Mesopotamia; see Amos 1:5; 9:7 .


The Elamites and men of Kir may here symbolize a fierce army from a distant land. If this oracle anticipates a Babylonian conquest of the city (see 39:5-7 ), then the Elamites and men of Kir are perhaps viewed here as mercenaries in the Babylonian army. See J. N. Oswalt, Isaiah (NICOT), 1:410.


Perhaps this refers to a royal armory, or to Solomon’s “House of the Forest of Lebanon,” where weapons may have been kept (see 1 Kgs 10:16-17 ).


Apparently the reference to chariots alludes to Shebna’s excessive pride, which in turn brings disgrace to the royal family.


This may refer to a literal insignia worn by the chief administrator. Even so, it would still symbolize the administrator’s authority to grant or exclude access to the king. See J. N. Oswalt, Isaiah (NICOT), 1:422.


The metaphor depicts how secure his position will be.


Eliakim’s authority, though seemingly secure, will eventually be removed, and with it his family’s prominence.


This verse probably refers to the Assyrian destruction of Babylon.


The number seventy is probably used in a stereotypical, nonliteral sense here to indicate a long period of time that satisfies completely the demands of God’s judgment.


Isa 26:21 suggests that the earth’s inhabitants defiled the earth by shedding the blood of their fellow human beings. See also Num 35:33-34 , which assumes that bloodshed defiles a land.


Ancient Near Eastern treaties often had “curses,” or threatened judgments, attached to them. (See for a biblical example of such curses.) The party or parties taking an oath of allegiance acknowledged that disobedience would activate these curses, which typically threatened loss of agricultural fertility as depicted in the following verses.


The judgment will severely reduce the earth’s population. See v. 6 .


The remnant of the nations (see v. 13 ) may be the unspecified subject. If so, then those who have survived the judgment begin to praise God.


The identity of the subject is unclear. Apparently in vv. 15-16 a an unidentified group responds to the praise they hear in the west by exhorting others to participate.


The prophet seems to contradict what he hears the group saying. Their words are premature because more destruction is coming.


The language reflects the account of the Noahic Flood (see Gen 7:11 ).


The prophet speaks here as one who has observed the coming judgment of the proud.


That is, Mount Zion (see 24:23 ); cf. TEV; NLT “In Jerusalem.”


The point of the imagery is unclear. Perhaps the shroud/covering referred to was associated with death in some way (see v. 8 ).


The image of the Lord “swallowing” death would be especially powerful, for death was viewed in Canaanite mythology and culture as a hungry enemy that swallows its victims. See the note at 5:14 .


Moab is addressed.


The literary structure of chap. is not entirely clear. The chapter begins with an eschatological song of praise and ends with a lament and prophetic response (vv. 16-21 ). It is not certain where the song of praise ends or how vv. 7-15 fit into the structure. Verses 10-11 a seem to lament the presence of evil and v. 11 b anticipates the arrival of judgment, so it is possible that vv. 7-15 are a prelude to the lament and announcement that conclude the chapter.


In light of what is said in verse 14 b, the “dead” here may be the “masters” mentioned in verse 13 .


At this point the Lord (or prophet) gives the people an encouraging oracle.


It is not certain whether the resurrection envisioned here is intended to be literal or figurative. A comparison with 25:8 and Dan 12:2 suggests a literal interpretation, but Ezek 37:1-14 uses resurrection as a metaphor for deliverance from exile and the restoration of the nation (see Isa 27:12-13 ).


This implies that rampant bloodshed is one of the reasons for divine judgment. See the note at 24:5 .


This apparently refers to a future population explosion. See 26:18 .


The “east wind” here symbolizes violent divine judgment.


As interpreted and translated above, this verse says that Israel must totally repudiate its pagan religious practices in order to experience God’s forgiveness and restoration. Another option is to understand “in this way” and “this” in v. 9 a as referring back to the judgment described in v. 8 . In this case כָּפַר ( kafar , “atone for”) is used in a sarcastic sense; Jacob’s sin is “atoned for” and removed through severe judgment. Following this line of interpretation, one might paraphrase the verse as follows: “So in this way (through judgment) Jacob’s sin will be “atoned for,” and this is the way his sin will be removed, when he (i.e., God) makes all the altar stones like crushed limestone….” This interpretation is more consistent with the tone of judgment in vv. 8 and 10-11 .


The identity of this city is uncertain. The context suggests that an Israelite city, perhaps Samaria or Jerusalem, is in view. For discussions of interpretive options see J. N. Oswalt, Isaiah (NICOT), 1:496-97, and Paul L. Redditt, “Once Again, the City in Isaiah 24-27 ,” HAR 10 (1986), 332.


The Israelites will be freed from exile (likened to beating the olives off the tree) and then gathered (likened to collecting the olives).


This verse alludes to the coming Assyrian invasion, when the people will hear a foreign language that sounds like gibberish to them. The Lord is the subject of the verb “will speak,” as v. 12 makes clear. He once spoke in meaningful terms, but in the coming judgment he will speak to them, as it were, through the mouth of foreign oppressors. The apparent gibberish they hear will be an outward reminder that God has decreed their defeat.


This message encapsulates the Lord’s invitation to his people to find security in his protection and blessing.


When divine warnings and appeals become gibberish to the spiritually insensitive, they have no guidance and are doomed to destruction.


Sheol is the underworld, land of the dead, according to the OT world view.


“Lie” and “deceitful word” would not be the terms used by the people. They would likely use the words “promise” and “reliable word,” but the prophet substitutes “lie” and “deceitful word” to emphasize that this treaty with death will really prove to be disappointing.


The reality behind the metaphor is not entirely clear from the context. The stone appears to represent someone or something that gives Zion stability. Perhaps the ideal Davidic ruler is in view (see 32:1 ). Another option is that the image of beginning a building project by laying a precious cornerstone suggests that God is about to transform Zion through judgment and begin a new covenant community that will experience his protection (see 4:3-6; 31:5; 33:20-24; 35:10 ).


The bed and blanket probably symbolize their false sense of security. A bed that is too short and a blanket that is too narrow may promise rest and protection from the cold, but in the end they are useless and disappointing. In the same way, their supposed treaty with death will prove useless and disappointing.


This probably alludes to David’s victory over the Philistines at Baal Perazim. See 2 Sam 5:20 .


This probably alludes to the Lord’s victory over the Canaanites at Gibeon, during the days of Joshua. See Josh 10:10-11 .


God’s judgment of his own people is called “his peculiar work” and “his strange task,” because he must deal with them the way he treated their enemies in the past.


Both of these seeds are too small to use the ordinary threshing techniques.


Verses 23-29 emphasize that God possesses great wisdom and has established a natural order. Evidence of this can be seen in the way farmers utilize divinely imparted wisdom to grow and harvest crops. God’s dealings with his people will exhibit this same kind of wisdom and order. Judgment will be accomplished according to a divinely ordered timetable and, while severe enough, will not be excessive. Judgment must come, just as planting inevitably follows plowing. God will, as it were, thresh his people, but he will not crush them to the point where they will be of no use to him.


The meaning of this verse is debated, but it seems to depict a reversal in fortunes. The mighty forest of Lebanon (symbolic of the proud and powerful, see 2:13; 10:34 ) will be changed into a common orchard, while the common orchard (symbolic of the oppressed and lowly) will grow into a great forest. See J. N. Oswalt, Isaiah (NICOT), 1:538.


See the note on the phrase “the Holy One of Israel” in 1:4 .


Legal disputes were resolved at the city gate, where the town elders met. See Amos 5:10 .


Holy One of Jacob is similar to the phrase “Holy One of Israel” common throughout Isaiah; see the sn at Isa 1:4 .


This probably refers to Judah’s officials and messengers.


Zoan was located in the Egyptian delta in the north; Hanes was located somewhere in southern region of lower Egypt, south of Memphis; the exact location is debated.


Recording the message will enable the prophet to use it in the future as evidence that God warned his people of impending judgment and clearly spelled out the nation’s guilt. An official record of the message will also serve as proof of the prophet’s authority as God’s spokesman.


The imagery refers to the way or path of truth, as revealed by God to the prophet.


Crops will be so abundant that even the work animals will eat well.


Light here symbolizes restoration of divine blessing and prosperity. The number “seven” is used symbolically to indicate intensity. The exact meaning of the phrase “the light of seven days” is uncertain; it probably means “seven times brighter” (see the parallel line).


The “name” of the Lord sometimes stands by metonymy for the Lord himself, see Exod 23:21 ; Lev 24:11 ; Pss 54:1 ( 54:3 HT); 124:8 . In Isa 30:27 the point is that he reveals that aspect of his character which his name suggests – he comes as Yahweh (“he is present”), the ever present helper of his people who annihilates their enemies and delivers them. The name “Yahweh” originated in a context where God assured a fearful Moses that he would be with him as he confronted Pharaoh and delivered Israel from slavery in Egypt. See .


This statement appears to have a sarcastic tone. The royal advisers who are advocating an alliance with Egypt think they are wise, but the Lord possesses wisdom as well and will thwart their efforts.


That is, Egypt.


The “fire” and “firepot” here symbolize divine judgment, which is heating up like a fire in Jerusalem, waiting to be used against the Assyrians when they attack the city.


This same phrase is used in 22:2 .


The same statement appears in 29:17 b, where, in conjunction with the preceding line, it appears to picture a reversal. Here it seems to depict supernatural growth. The desert will blossom into an orchard, and the trees of the orchard will multiply and grow tall, becoming a forest.


This new era of divine blessing will also include a moral/ethical transformation, as justice and fairness fill the land and replace the social injustice so prevalent in Isaiah’s time.


Sharon was a fertile plain along the Mediterranean coast. See 35:2 .


Both of these areas were known for their trees and vegetation. See 2:13; 35:2 .


The hostile nations’ plans to destroy God’s people will come to nothing; their hostility will end up being self-destructive.


The people refer to various Assyrian officials who were responsible for determining the amount of taxation or tribute Judah must pay to the Assyrian king.


Judah’s victory over its enemies will be so thorough there will be more than enough plunder for everyone, even slow-moving lame men who would normally get left out in the rush to gather the loot.


has תראה (“[my sword] appeared [in the heavens]”), but this is apparently an attempt to make sense out of a difficult metaphor. Cf. NIV “My sword has drunk its fill in the heavens.” In v. 4 the “host of the heaven” refers to the heavenly luminaries (stars and planets, see, among others, Deut 4:19; 17:3 ; 2 Kgs 17:16; 21:3, 5; 23:4-5 ; 2 Chr 33:3, 5 ) that populate the divine/heavenly assembly in mythological and prescientific Israelite thought (see Job 38:7 ; Isa 14:13 ). As in 24:21 , they are viewed here as opposing God and being defeated in battle.


Edom is mentioned here as epitomizing the hostile nations that oppose God.


The Lord’s judgment of Edom is compared to a bloody sacrificial scene.


The metaphor in v. 11 b emphasizes that God has carefully planned Edom’s demise.


For a discussion of this title see M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB), 229-30.


In v. 10 the chief adviser develops further the argument begun in v. 7 . He claims that Hezekiah has offended the Lord and that the Lord has commissioned Assyria as his instrument of discipline and judgment.


Aramaic was the diplomatic language of the Assyrian empire.


Lair was a city located in northeastern Babylon. See M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB), 235.


Cherubim (singular “cherub”) refers to the images of winged angelic creatures that were above the ark of the covenant.


Zion (Jerusalem) is pictured here as a young, vulnerable daughter whose purity is being threatened by the would-be Assyrian rapist. The personification hints at the reality which the young girls of the city would face if the Assyrians conquer it.


Shaking the head was a mocking gesture of derision.


See the note on the phrase “the Holy One of Israel” in 1:4 .


The word-picture has a parallel in Assyrian sculpture. See M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB), 238.


This refers to crops that grew up on their own (that is, without cultivation) from the seed planted in past years.


The assassination of King Sennacherib probably took place in 681 b.c.


No such Mesopotamian god is presently known. Perhaps the name Nisroch is a corruption of Nusku.


Extra-biblical sources also mention the assassination of Sennacherib, though they refer to only one assassin. See M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB), 239-40.


For a discussion of the imagery employed here, see J. N. Oswalt, Isaiah (NICOT), 1:684.


The implied answer to the rhetorical questions of v. 12 is “no one but the Lord. The Lord, and no other, created the world. Like a merchant weighing out silver or commodities on a scale, the Lord established the various components of the physical universe in precise proportions.


The point is that not even the Lebanon forest could supply enough wood and animals for an adequate sacrifice to the Lord.


Exiled Israel’s complaint (v. 27 ) implies that God might be limited in some way. Perhaps he, like so many of the pagan gods, has died. Or perhaps his jurisdiction is limited to Judah and does not include Babylon. Maybe he is unable to devise an adequate plan to rescue his people, or is unable to execute it. But v. 28 affirms that he is not limited temporally or spatially nor is his power and wisdom restricted in any way. He can and will deliver his people, if they respond in hopeful faith (v. 31 a).


The expression this one from the east refers to the Persian conqueror Cyrus, as later texts indicate (see 44:28-45:6; 46:11; 48:14-16 ).


The point is that they are powerless before Cyrus’ military power and scatter before him.


The mountains and hills symbolize hostile nations that are obstacles to Israel’s restoration.


Apparently this challenge is addressed to the pagan idol gods, see vv. 23-24 .


That is, Cyrus the Persian. See the note at v. 2 .


Verses 1-7 contain the first of Isaiah’s “servant songs,” which describe the ministry of a special, ideal servant who accomplishes God’s purposes for Israel and the nations. This song depicts the servant as a just king who brings justice to the earth and relief for the oppressed. The other songs appear in 49:1-13; 50:4-11; and 52:13-53:12 .


Like the ideal king portrayed in Isa 11:1-9 , the servant is energized by the divine spirit and establishes justice on the earth.


The “crushed reed” and “dim wick” symbolize the weak and oppressed who are on the verge of extinction.


Light here symbolizes deliverance from bondage and oppression; note the parallelism in 49:6 b and in 51:4-6 .


This does not refer to literal physical healing of the blind. As the next two lines suggest, this refers metonymically to freeing captives from their dark prisons where their eyes have grown unaccustomed to light.


This does not refer to hardened, dangerous criminals, who would have been executed for their crimes in ancient Near Eastern society. This verse refers to political prisoners or victims of social injustice.


The imagery depicts the Lord as a warrior who is eager to fight and can no longer hold himself back from the attack.


The imagery of this verse, which depicts the Lord bringing a curse of infertility to the earth, metaphorically describes how the Lord will destroy his enemies.


See the note on the phrase “the Holy One of Israel” in 1:4 .


Seba is not the same as Sheba in southern Arabia; cf. Gen 1:10 ; 1 Chr 1:9 .


In vv. 22-24 the Lord appears to be condemning his people for failure to bring the proper sacrifices. However, this is problematic. If this refers to the nation’s behavior while in exile, such cultic service was impossible and could hardly be expected by the Lord. If this refers to the nation’s conduct before the exile, it contradicts other passages that depict Israel as bringing excessive sacrifices (see, e.g., Isa 1:11-14 ; Jer 6:20 ; Amos 4:4-5, 5:21-23 ). Rather than being a condemnation of Israel’s failure to bring sacrifices, these verses are better taken as a highly rhetorical comment on the worthlessness of Israel’s religious ritual. They may have brought sacrifices, but not to the Lord, for he did not accept them or even want them. See C. R. North, Second Isaiah , 127, and R. Whybray, Isaiah 40-66 (NCBC), 91.


Jeshurun is a poetic name for Israel; it occurs here and in Deut 32:15; 33:5, 26 .


The point seems to be this: If the idols are the mere products of human hands, then those who trust in them will be disappointed, for man-made gods are incapable of helping their “creators.”


The “right hand” is a symbol of activity and strength; the Lord directs Cyrus’ activities and assures his success.


This verses affirms that God is ultimately sovereign over his world, including mankind and nations. In accordance with his sovereign will, he can cause wars to cease and peace to predominate (as he was about to do for his exiled people through Cyrus), or he can bring disaster and judgment on nations (as he was about to do to Babylon through Cyrus).


Verses 9-10 may allude to the exiles’ criticism that the Lord does not appear to know what he is doing.


Restored Israel is depicted here in typical ancient Near Eastern fashion as an imperial power that receives riches and slaves as tribute.


Israel’s vassals are portrayed as so intimidated and awed that they treat Israel as an intermediary to God or sub-deity.


Bel was the name of a Babylonian god. The name was originally associated with Enlil, but later was applied to Marduk. See HALOT 132 s.v. בֵּל .


Nebo is a variation of the name of the Babylonian god Nabu.


The downfall of Babylon is depicted here. The idols are carried off by the victorious enemy; the gods are likened to defeated captives who cower before the enemy and are taken into exile.


Unlike the weary idol gods, whose images must be carried by animals, the Lord carries his weary people.


Reference is made to incantations and amulets, both of which were important in Mesopotamian religion. They were used to ward off danger and demons.


The image is that of a person who has tensed the muscles of the face and neck as a sign of resolute refusal.


See 42:8 .


This probably refers to the idol gods (see v. 5 ).


The speaker here is not identified specifically, but he is probably Cyrus, the Lord’s “ally” mentioned in vv. 14-15 .


See the note on the phrase “the Holy One of Israel” in 1:4 .


The translation above (present tense) assumes that this verse describes God’s provision for returning Babylonian exiles (see v. 20; 35:6; 49:10 ) in terms reminiscent of the Exodus from Egypt (see Exod 17:6 ).


The figurative language emphasizes the servant’s importance as the Lord’s effective instrument. The servant’s mouth, which stands metonymically for his words, is compared to a sharp sword because he will be an effective spokesman on God’s behalf (see 50:4 ). The Lord holds his hand on the servant, ready to draw and use him at the appropriate time. The servant is like a sharpened arrow reserved in a quiver for just the right moment.


This verse identifies the servant as Israel . This seems to refer to the exiled nation (cf. 41:8-9; 44:1-2, 21; 45:4; 48:20 ), but in vv. 5-6 this servant says he has been commissioned to reconcile Israel to God, so he must be distinct from the exiled nation. This servant is an ideal “Israel” who, like Moses of old, mediates a covenant for the nation (see v. 8 ), leads them out of bondage (v. 9 a), and carries out God’s original plan for Israel by positively impacting the pagan nations (see v. 6 b). By living according to God’s law, Israel was to be a model of God’s standards of justice to the surrounding nations ( Deut 4:6-8 ). The sinful nation failed, but the servant, the ideal “Israel,” will succeed by establishing justice throughout the earth.


The question is purely rhetorical; it does not imply that the servant was dissatisfied with his commission or that he minimized the restoration of Israel.


The argument of v. 15 seems to develop as follows: The Lord has an innate attachment to Zion, just like a mother does for her infant child. But even if mothers were to suddenly abandon their children, the Lord would never forsake Zion. In other words, the Lord’s attachment to Zion is like a mother’s attachment to her infant child, but even stronger.


Verse 26 a depicts siege warfare and bloody defeat. The besieged enemy will be so starved they will their own flesh. The bloodstained bodies lying on the blood-soaked battle site will look as if they collapsed in drunkenness.


The Lord challenges the exiles (Zion’s children) to bring incriminating evidence against him. The rhetorical questions imply that Israel accused the Lord of divorcing his wife (Zion) and selling his children (the Israelites) into slavery to pay off a debt.


The Lord admits that he did sell the Israelites, but it was because of their sins, not because of some debt he owed. If he had sold them to a creditor, they ought to be able to point him out, but the preceding rhetorical question implies they would not be able to do so.


The Lord admits he did divorce Zion, but that too was the result of the nation’s sins. The force of the earlier rhetorical question comes into clearer focus now. The question does not imply that a certificate does not exist and that no divorce occurred. Rather, the question asks for the certificate to be produced so the accuser can see the reason for the divorce in black and white. The Lord did not put Zion away arbitrarily.


The present tense translation of the verbs assumes that the Lord is questioning why Israel does not attempt to counter his arguments. Another possibility is to take the verbs as referring to past events: “Why did no one meet me when I came? Why did no one answer when I called?” In this case the Lord might be asking why Israel rejected his calls to repent and his offer to deliver them.


Perhaps the servant here speaks to his enemies and warns them that they will self-destruct.


The imagery may be that of a person who becomes ill and is forced to lie down in pain on a sickbed. Some see this as an allusion to a fiery place of damnation because of the imagery employed earlier in the verse.


The “rock” and “quarry” refer here to Abraham and Sarah, the progenitors of the nation.


Although Abraham and Sarah are distant ancestors of the people the prophet is addressing, they are spoken of as the immediate parents.


The speaker shifts here from God to an unidentified group (note the first person plural pronouns throughout vv. 1-6 ). The content of the speech suggests that the prophet speaks here as representative of the sinful nation Israel. The group acknowledges its sin and recognizes that the servant suffered on their behalf.


The metaphor in this verse suggests insignificance.


The servant is likened to a seriously ill person who is shunned by others because of his horrible disease.


Illness and pain stand by metonymy (or perhaps as metaphors) for sin and its effects, as vv. 11-12 make clear.


Continuing to utilize the imagery of physical illness, the group acknowledges that the servant’s willingness to carry their illnesses (v. 4 ) resulted in their being healed. Healing is a metaphor for forgiveness here.


This verse emphasizes the servant’s silent submission. The comparison to a sheep does not necessarily suggest a sacrificial metaphor. Sheep were slaughtered for food as well as for sacrificial rituals, and טֶבַח ( tevakh ) need not refer to sacrificial slaughter (see Gen 43:16 ; Prov 7:22; 9:2 ; Jer 50:27 ; note also the use of the related verb in Exod 21:37; Deut 28:31 ; 1 Sam 25:11 ).


The “land of the living” is an idiom for the sphere where people live, in contrast to the underworld realm of the dead. See, for example, Ezek 32:23-27 .


The idiomatic and stereotypical language emphasizes the servant’s restoration to divine favor. Having numerous descendants and living a long life are standard signs of divine blessing. See Job 42:13-16 .


The song ends as it began (cf. 52:13-15 ), with the Lord announcing the servant’s vindication and exaltation.


The servant is compared here to a warrior who will be richly rewarded for his effort and success in battle.


See the note on the phrase “the Holy One of Israel” in 1:4 .


The statement is an oxymoron. Its ironic quality adds to its rhetorical impact. The statement reminds one of the norm (one must normally buy commodities) as it expresses the astounding offer. One might paraphrase the statement: “Come and take freely what you normally have to pay for.”


Ideally the Davidic king was to testify to the nations of God’s greatness (cf. Pss 18:50 HT [ 18:49 ET]; 22:28 HT [ 22:27 ET]). See J. H. Eaton, Kingship in the Psalms (SBT), 182-84.


The appeal and promise of vv. 6-7 echoes the language of Deut 4:25-31; 30:1-10 ; and 1 Kgs 8:46-53 , all of which anticipate the exile and speak of the prerequisites for restoration.


The “watchmen” are probably spiritual leaders, most likely prophets and priests, responsible for giving the people moral direction.


The phrase never full alludes to the greed of the leaders.


This apparently alludes to the practice of child sacrifice (cf. TEV, CEV, NLT).


Israel’s devotion to her idols is inordinate, irrational, and self-destructive.


God’s patience with sinful Israel has caused them to think that they can sin with impunity and suffer no consequences.


The nation will experience God’s protective presence.


The prophet speaks on behalf of the sinful nation and confesses its sins.


Light here symbolizes prosperity and blessing.


The nations and kings are depicted as a mother nursing her children. Restored Zion will be nourished by them as she receives their wealth as tribute.


See 1:24 and 49:26 .


In this verse “sun” and “moon” refer to the Lord’s light, which will replace the sun and moon (see v. 19 ). Light here symbolizes the restoration of divine blessing and prosperity in conjunction with the Lord’s presence. See 30:26 .


The speaker is not identified, but he is distinct from the Lord and from Zion’s suffering people. He possesses the divine spirit, is God’s spokesman, and is sent to release prisoners from bondage. The evidence suggests he is the Lord’s special servant, described earlier in the servant songs (see 42:1-4, 7; 49:2, 9; 50:4 ; see also 51:16 ).


The Lord speaks in vv. 7-8 (and possibly v. 9 ). It is not clear where the servant’s speech (see vv. 1-3 a) ends and the Lord’s begins. Perhaps the direct address to the people signals the beginning of the Lord’s speech.


The speaker in vv. 10-11 is not identified, but it is likely that the personified nation (or perhaps Zion) responds here to the Lord’s promise of restoration.


The speaker here is probably the prophet.


As v. 12 indicates, the returning exiles are the Lord’s reward/prize. See also 40:10 and the note there.


Edom is here an archetype for the Lord’s enemies. See 34:5 .


Nations, headed by Edom, are the object of the Lord’s anger (see v. 6 ). He compares military slaughter to stomping on grapes in a vat.


See Isa 59:16 for similar language.


See Isa 49:26 and 51:23 for similar imagery.


The phrase “holy Spirit” occurs in the OT only here (in v. 11 as well) and in Ps 51:11 ( 51:13 HT), where it is associated with the divine presence.


See the note at v. 10 .


In BHS the chapter division occurs in a different place from the English Bible: 64:1 ET ( 63:19 b HT) and 64:2-12 ( 64:1-11 HT). Beginning with 65:1 the verse numbers in the English Bible and the Hebrew Bible are again the same.


Perhaps the worship of underworld deities or dead spirits is in view.


Sharon was a plain located to the west, along the Mediterranean coast north of Joppa and south of Carmel.


The Valley of Achor (“Achor” means “trouble” in Hebrew) was the site of Achan’s execution. It was located to the east, near Jericho.


This hyperbolic statement likens the coming transformation of Jerusalem (see vv. 18-19 ) to a new creation of the cosmos.


A similar statement appears in 11:6 .


These words also appear in 11:7 .


Some see an allusion to Gen 3:14 (note “you will eat dirt”). The point would be that even in this new era the snake (often taken as a symbol of Satan) remains under God’s curse. However, it is unlikely that such an allusion exists. Even if there is an echo of Gen 3:14 , the primary allusion is to 11:8 , where snakes are pictured as no longer dangerous. They will no longer attack other living creatures, but will be content to crawl along the ground. (The statement “you will eat dirt” in Gen 3:14 means “you will crawl on the ground.” In the same way the statement “dirt will be its food” in Isa 65:25 means “it will crawl on the ground.”)


The rhetorical questions expect the answer, “Of course not!”


Chariots are like a windstorm in their swift movement and in the way that they kick up dust.


That is, Lydia (in Asia Minor).


Javan is generally identified today as Greece (so NIV, NCV, NLT).


The translation reflects the ancient Jewish tradition of substituting the word for “Lord” for the proper name for Israel’s God which is now generally agreed to have been Yahweh. Jewish scribes wrote the consonants YHWH but substituted the vowels for the word “Lord.” The practice of calling him “Lord” rather than using his proper name is also reflected in the Greek translation which is the oldest translation of the Hebrew Bible. The meaning of the name Yahweh occurs in Exod 3:13-14 where God identifies himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and tells Moses that his name is “I am” ( אֶהְיֶה , ’ ehyeh ). However, he instructs the Israelites to refer to him as YHWH (“Yahweh” = “He is”); see further Exod 34:5-6 .


This would have been August, 586 b.c. according to modern reckoning.


These three pairs represent the twofold nature of Jeremiah’s prophecies, prophecies of judgment and restoration. For the further programmatic use of these pairs for Jeremiah’s ministry see 18:7-10 and 31:27-28 .


The Hebrew idiom (literally “I will speak my judgments against”) is found three other times in Jeremiah ( 4:12; 39:5; 52:9 ), where it is followed by the carrying out of the sentence. Here the carrying out of the sentence precedes in v. 15 .


Heb “the first fruits of his harvest.” Many commentators see the figure here as having theological significance for the calling of the Gentiles. It is likely, however, that in this context the metaphor – here rendered as a simile – is intended to bring out the special relationship and inviolability that Israel had with God. As the first fruits were the special possession of the Lord , to be eaten only by the priests and off limits to the common people, so Israel was God’s special possession and was not to be “eaten” by the nations.


The context suggests that the question is related to a lament where the people turn to God in their troubles, asking him for help and reminding him of his past benefactions. See for example Isa 63:11-19 and . It is an implicit prayer for his intervention, cf. 2 Kgs 2:14 .


Note how contemporary Israel is again identified with her early ancestors. See the study note on 2:2 .


I.e., made it ceremonially unclean. See Lev 18:19-30 ; Num 35:34 ; Deut 21:23 .


See the study note on 2:6 .


Kedar is the home of the Bedouin tribes in the Syro-Arabian desert. See Gen 25:18 and Jer 49:38 . See also the previous note for the significance of the reference here.


In earlier literature the heavens (and the earth) were called on to witness Israel’s commitment to the covenant ( Deut 30:12 ) and were called to serve as witnesses to Israel’s fidelity or infidelity to it ( Isa 1:2 ; Mic 6:1 ).


The metaphor is intended to depict Israel’s lack of clear direction and purpose without the Lord ’s control.


The metaphor is intended to depict Israel’s irrepressible desire to worship other gods.


The reference to wood and stone is, of course, a pejorative reference to idols made by human hands. See the next verse where reference is made to “the gods you have made.”


This is still part of the Lord ’s case against Israel. See 2:9 for the use of the same Hebrew verb. The Lord here denies their counter claims that they do not deserve to be punished.


There is some irony involved in the choice of the simile since the men guarding a field were there to keep thieves from getting in and stealing the crops. Here the besiegers are guarding the city to keep people from getting out.


The earth and the heavens are personified here and depicted in the act of mourning and wearing black clothes because of the destruction of the land of Israel.


Jerusalem is personified as a helpless maiden.


This is probably a case of deliberate ambiguity (double entendre). The adjective “foreigners” is used for both foreign people (so Jer 30:8; 51:51 ) and foreign gods (so Jer 2:25; 3:13 ). See also Jer 16:13 for the idea of having to serve other gods in the lands of exile.


The verbs are second plural here. Jeremiah, speaking for the Lord , addresses his people, calling on them to make the message further known.


Jerusalem is personified as a young maiden who is helpless in the hands of her enemies.


Jerualem is personified as a young maiden helpless before enemy attackers.


That is, all those who have passed through the gates of the outer court and are standing in the courtyard of the temple.


The place in Shiloh…see what I did to it . This refers to the destruction of Shiloh by the Philistines circa 1050 b.c. (cf. Ps 78:60 ). The destruction of Shiloh is pertinent to the argument. The presence of the tabernacle and ark of the covenant did not prevent Shiloh from being destroyed when Israel sinned. The people of Israel used the ark as a magic charm but it did not prevent them from being defeated or the ark being captured ( 1 Sam 4:3, 11, 21-22 ).


Compare, e.g., 2 Kgs 21:3, 5, 7; 23:4, 6 ; Ezek 8:3, 5, 10-12, 16 . Manasseh had desecrated the temple by building altars, cult symbols, and idols in it. Josiah had purged the temple of these pagan elements. But it is obvious from both Jeremiah and Ezekiel that they had been replaced shortly after Josiah’s death. They were a primary cause of Judah’s guilt and punishment (see beside this passage, 19:5; 32:34-35 ).


There is a play on two different nuances of the same Hebrew word that means “turn” and “return,” “turn away” and “turn back.”


There is a continuing play on the same root word used in the preceding verse. Here the words “turn away from me,” “apostasy,” and “turn back to me” are all forms from the root that was translated “go the wrong way” and “turn around” in v. 4 . The intended effect is to contrast Judah’s recalcitrant apostasy with the usual tendency to try and correct one’s mistakes.


See Jer 6:12-15 for parallels to 8:10-12 . The words of Jeremiah to the people may have been repeated on more than one occasion or have been found appropriate to more than one of his collection of messages in written and edited form. See Jer 36:4 and Jer 36:28 for reference to at least two of these collections.


The people’s cry and the Lord ’s interruption reflect the same argument that was set forth in the preceding chapter. They have misguided confidence that the Lord is with them regardless of their actions and he responds that their actions have provoked him to the point of judging them. See especially 7:4 and 7:30 .


Beginning with 9:1 , the verse numbers through 9:26 in the English Bible differ from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text ( BHS ), with 9:1 ET = 8:23 HT, 9:2 ET = 9:1 HT, 9:3 ET = 9:2 HT, etc., through 9:26 ET = 9:25 HT. Beginning with 10:1 the verse numbers in the ET and HT are again the same.


He will destroy them but not completely. See Jer 5:18; 30:11; 46:28 .


Here Death is personified (treated as though it were a person). Some have seen as possible background to this lament an allusion to Mesopotamian mythology where the demon Lamastu climbs in through the windows of houses and over their walls to kill children and babies.


It is not always clear why verses were placed in their present position in the editorial process of collecting Jeremiah’s sermons and the words the Lord spoke to him (see Jer 36:4, 32 for reference to two of these collections). Here it is probable that vv. 23-26 were added as a further answer to the question raised in v. 12 .


This passage is dripping with sarcasm. It begins by talking about the “statutes” of the pagan peoples as a “vapor” using a singular copula and singular predicate. Then it suppresses the subject, the idol, as though it were too horrible to mention, using only the predications about it. The last two lines read literally: “[it is] a tree which one cuts down from the forest; the work of the hands of a craftsman with his chisel.”


There is an ironic pun in this last line. The Hebrew word translated “skillful workers” is the same word that is translated “wise people” in v. 7 . The artisans do their work skillfully but they are not “wise.”


Compare Jer 6:22 .


The covenant I made with Israel . Apart from the legal profession and Jewish and Christian tradition the term “covenant” may not be too familiar. There were essentially three kinds of “covenants” that were referred to under the Hebrew term used here: (1) “Parity treaties” or “covenants” between equals in which each party pledged itself to certain agreed upon stipulations and took an oath to it in the name of their god or gods (cf. Gen 31:44-54 ); (2) “Suzerain-vassal treaties” or “covenants” in which a great king pledged himself to protect the vassal’s realm and his right to rule over his own domain in exchange for sovereignty over the vassal, including the rendering of absolute loyalty and submission to the great king’s demands spelled out in detailed stipulations; (3) “Covenants of grant” in which a great king granted to a loyal servant or vassal king permanent title to a piece of land or dominion over a specified realm in recognition of past service. It is generally recognized that the Mosaic covenant which is being referred to here is of the second type and that it resembles in kind the ancient Near Eastern suzerain-vassal treaties. These treaties typically contained the following elements: (1) a preamble identifying the great king (cf. Exod 20:2 a; Deut 1:1-4 ); (2) a historical prologue summarizing the great king’s past benefactions as motivation for future loyalty (cf. Exod 20:2 b; Deut 1:5 –4:43); (3) the primary stipulation of absolute and unconditional loyalty (cf. Exod 20:3-8 ; Deut 5:1 – 11:32 ); (4) specific stipulations governing future relations between the vassal and the great king and the vassal’s relation to other vassals (cf. Exod 20:22 –23:33; Deut 12:1 – 26:15 ); (5) the invoking of curses on the vassal for disloyalty and the pronouncing of blessing on him for loyalty (cf. ; Deut 27-28 ); (6) the invoking of witnesses to the covenant, often the great king’s and the vassal’s gods (cf. Deut 30:19; 31:28 where the reference is to the “heavens and the earth” as enduring witnesses). It is also generally agreed that the majority of the threats of punishment by the prophets refer to the invocation of these covenant curses for disloyalty to the basic stipulation, that of absolute loyalty.


Obey me and carry out the terms of the agreement…and I will be your God . This refers to the Mosaic law which was instituted at Sinai and renewed on the Plains of Moab before Israel entered into the land. The words “the terms of the covenant” are explicitly used for the Ten Commandments in Exod 34:28 and for the additional legislation given in Deut 28:69; 29:8. The formulation here is reminiscent of Deut 29:9-14 ( 29:10-15 HT). The book of Deuteronomy is similar in its structure and function to an ancient Near Eastern treaty. In these the great king reminded his vassal of past benefits that he had given to him, charged him with obligations (the terms or stipulations of the covenant) chief among which was absolute loyalty and sole allegiance, promised him future benefits for obeying the stipulations (the blessings), and placed him under a curse for disobeying them. Any disobedience was met with stern warnings of punishment in the form of destruction and exile. Those who had witnessed the covenant were called in to confirm the continuing goodness of the great king and the disloyalty of the vassal. The vassal was then charged with a list of particular infringements of the stipulations and warned to change his actions or suffer the consequences. This is the background for Jer 11:1-9 . Jeremiah is here functioning as a messenger from the Lord , Israel’s great king, and charging both the fathers and the children with breach of covenant.


Cf. Jer 2:28 .


For the argument of this verse compare the condemnatory questions in Jer 7:9-11 . tn Heb “for [or when] your wickedness then you rejoice.” The meaning of this line is uncertain. The Greek version, which reads “or will you escape by these things” (presupposing a Hebrew text אִם עַל זוֹת תָּעוּזִי , ’ im ’ al zot ta ’ uzi ) is far removed from the reading in the MT ( אָז תַּעֲלֹזִי [’ az ta ’ alozi ]; the rest of the Hebrew line has been left out because the Greek reads it with the preceding line) and again appears to be an attempt to smooth out a difficult text. The translation retains the MT but rewords it so it makes better sense in English. The translation presupposes that the phrase “your wickedness” is the object of the verb “take joy” and the adverb “then” refers back to the offering of sacred flesh, i.e., “even then [or at that time]” as a constructio ad sensum . For a similar use of the adverb ( אָז , ’ az ) compare Gen 13:7 . For the use of כִּי ( ki ) meaning “that” after a question see BDB 472 s.v. כִּי 1.f. A possible alternative would be to read as UBS, Preliminary Report , 4:209 do: “When trouble reaches you, then will you exult?” If the text of the whole verse followed here, the more difficult text, is not the original one, the most likely alternative would be: “What right does my beloved have to be in my house? She has does wicked things [reading עָשְׂתָה מְזִמֹּת , ’ ostah mÿzimot ]. Can fat pieces [reading הַחֲלָבִים , hakhalavim ] and sacred meat take away your wickedness from you [reading יַעֲבִרוּ מֵעָלַיִךְ רָעָתֵכִי , ya ’ aviru me ’ alayikh ra ’ atekhi ]? [If it could] then you could rejoice.” It should be emphasized that the text of the verse is uncertain in a number of places and open to more than one interpretation. However, regardless of which text or interpretation of it is followed, the Masoretic as interpreted here, the Greek as given in the notes, or an emended text based on both, the overall meaning is much the same. Judah has done evil and the Lord rejects their superficial attempts to placate him through ritual without change of behavior. The particulars are different; the point is the same.


Invading armies lived off the land, using up all the produce and destroying everything they could not consume.


The Lord is sovereign over the nations and has allotted each of them their lands. See Deut 2:5 (Edom), Deut 2:9 (Moab), Deut 2:19 (Ammon). He promised to restore not only his own people Israel to their land ( Jer 32:37 ) but also Moab ( Jer 48:47 ) and Ammon ( Jer 49:6 ).


The significance of this act is explained in vv. 9-10 . See the notes there for explanation.


It is probably impossible to convey in a simple translation all the subtle nuances that are wrapped up in the words of this judgment speech. The word translated “stupor” here is literally “drunkenness” but the word has in the context an undoubted intended double reference. It refers first to the drunken like stupor of confusion on the part of leaders and citizens of the land which will cause them to clash with one another. But it also probably refers to the reeling under God’s wrath that results from this (cf. Jer 25:15-29 , especially vv. 15-16 ). Moreover there is still the subtle little play on wine jars. The people are like the wine jars which were supposed to be filled with wine. They were to be a special people to bring glory to God but they had become corrupt. Hence, like wine jars they would be smashed against one another and broken to pieces (v. 14 ). All of this, both “fill them with the stupor of confusion” and “make them reel under God’s wrath,” cannot be conveyed in one translation.


The statements are poetic exaggerations (hyperbole), as most commentaries note. Even in the exile of 587 b.c. not “all” of the people of Jerusalem or of Judah were exiled. Cf. the context of 2 Kgs 24:14-16 again.


Compare the threat using the same metaphor in Jer 4:11-12 .