John Hall, BYU professor of Classics and Ancient History presided at this session.

——————

David J. Larsen, PhD student at the University of St Andrews

This is me. As I didn’t take notes during my own paper, I don’t have any to post here. I would post my whole paper, but I am currently trying to clean it up a bit for interested parties who have asked to see it. I will share here the abstract that I submitted to the committee to be selected to present at this session.

Hugh Nibley and the New Year Festival

One of the key features of the late Hugh W. Nibley’s scholarship was his research on and use of the hypothetical annual enthronement festival suggested by scholars to have been celebrated in the ancient Near East (including ancient Israel) annually at the Autumn New Year.  Nibley built on the work of some of the major proponents of this theory in the early 20^th century, including Sigmund Mowinckel, Aubrey Johnson, and S.H. Hooke (of the “Myth and Ritual School”).  Nibley adopted the principles of cultic ritual outlined in the Ancient Near Eastern “patternism” of the time and applied them to many societies, including, ultimately, to cultural/religious gatherings attested in the Book of Mormon.  He suggested at one time that, in his opinion, the rituals of the New Year were “the most convincing evidence yet brought forth for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.”[1] Nibley even suggested that this pattern of ritual preserved in numerous ancient societies may be a prototype, as well, for the great gathering at Adam-ondi-Ahman in the last days.[2]

Nibley’s work on the New Year Festival has greatly inspired succeeding generations of LDS students and scholars, leading many to do further research on the topic, both in its ancient settings in the Old World, and in relation to our understanding of the Book of Mormon. Some of these scholars include John Welch, John Tvedtnes, Stephen Ricks, and many others.  Their valuable contributions to LDS scholarship on this subject have been based on the assumption that arguments for the annual New Year Festival are valid.

I propose to address the status quaestionis of the suggested New Year Festival in ancient Israel. To what extent is it reasonable to use this theory as a basis for argumentation? In the last few decades, biblical scholarship has largely distanced itself from the conclusions of the “Myth and Ritual School” and condemned ideas of a universal pattern of ritual across ancient cultures. However, a number of scholars, including John Day, Margaret Barker, J.J.M. Roberts, and Patrick D. Miller, have recently argued in favor of the validity of the general theory.  I will explore what is being said about the New Year Festival in today’s scholarship, and will present an evaluation of Nibley’s work on the subject in light of this analysis.

[2] Hugh Nibley, The Ancient State: The Rulers and the Ruled, edited by Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks (Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1991), 100.

———————————————-

Please click on “Read More” below to see the rest of the notes!

Frederick M. Huchel, The Frithurex Athenaeum

“How the Lights Went Out: The Loss of the Temple in both Testaments”

Adam and Eve were put in the Garden as the culminating act of the Creation. Adam built an altar — an open-air altar is the temple itself reduced to its essence. Before the ancient temples were built, there were open-air altars.An example is the  open air altar/temple at the Parowan Gap.

The ancient idea behind temple-building is that in doing so, the people would become ben Adam — sons of Adam.

What is a temple? The temple is the house of God. The Greek word for house is “oikos.” (the word also has reference to the household, and the family) The “oikonomia” referred to the management of the house, and also of the environment. We see that this is also the root of ecology — oikologia.

Hugh Nibley talked about “Dispensationism” — a dispensation is a return of revelation, a restoration. The holy order of things cannot survive without revelation from God. Joseph Smith taught that: unto Adam was first given a dispensation, and unto Noah, Abraham, Moses, Elias, John the Baptist, Jesus (Peter, James, John), and finally the dispensation of the fullness of times.

Oikonomia is the administration of everything we do. What is received by revelation is always the same order–the celestial order, the order of Enoch, the only order acceptable to God.

The Temple is present at each dispensation. The temple often begins as an outdoor altar. Temples, whether good or bad, are a scale model of the universe — a sort of observatory.

In the word temple: tem = cutting, crossing point, where the four cardinal regions combine — this is the sacred precinct.  This indicates harmony between terrestrial and celestial realms — an intellectual image of the celestial pattern.

Cosmos = orderly arrangement — from the root meaning to tend, provide for — it relates to man’s dominion. The Cosmos is God’s dominion — he cares for the earth and the heavens. The Cosmos of Scripture/Temple is the ideal universe, God’s universe.

We are given a stewardship — this is man’s dominion. Adam was put in charge of things and commanded to replenish the earth and subdue it — replenish the storehouse of life and take care of the creatures over which he has dominion. Later we read that Adam began to “till” the earth and have dominion — “till’ in place of “subdue”.

What is dominion? Adam is lord over the whole earth — the term “lord” is from “loaf weardian” or “keeper of the bread” — this is the head of the household and is a rendering of Latin dominus — It has to do with the property, the ownership of the lord of the household. Lordship and dominion are the same thing — the head of the household is responsible for the care and comfort of his guests. The lord cooperates with nature as a diligent husbandman.

Adam’s dominion was nothing less than the priesthood — the power to act in the place of God. God created man to be in charge — to act as God had acted before.

Man’s dominion is to become ben Adam, to assume the role of Adam, and covenant to bless the earth and all its creatures — it is a holy calling and responsibility. We live in a stable world and should take only what we need for our own sustenance. Man’s rule ceases where life ceases. The opposite is the dominion of Cain, which entails converting life into property. Whenever we take something living and kill and make it something to sell, we are entering Cain’s dominion. We have a responsibility to take care of creation — this is the work of the temple, to take care of creatures and help them to fulfill their purpose and have joy.

The Temple is the place of creation and the source of life. The structure of the temple was meant to represent the days of creation. The Temple’s importance is in its form and function — it’s form has to do with creation –description of how the world is continually formed and created anew — the ancient Chaos is overcome by God and the ordered Cosmos is created. Anciently, the Temple maintained the creation by renewing it daily — we learn that the great “abomination of desolation” resulted from the altering of the rites of the temple.

Isaiah had a similar vision — the people had broken the everlasting covenant and brought upon themselves destruction – a curse devours the Earth due to disobedience.

Huqqah — “statute, ordinance” — Hebrew for “something engraved, established” — the ordinances of heaven hold the cosmos together. The ordinances of heaven are the ordinances of the temple. The planets cannot deviate one jot nor tittle nor iota from the ordinances or they fall from heaven. They have remained in orbit for millions of years because their ordinances have not changed. This is an example for us.

Barker — By means of the “cosmic covenant” the creation is held in place — it is held in place by a great oath– the oath keeps the sea in check, the sun in its course, etc. They function through a great binding force — a cosmic eternal covenant.  Breaking the covenant releases forces of Chaos.

The German word “Bund” has reference to a binding oath. In Hebrew, bara means “to create” — berit (“covenant”) is associated with binding — Barker argues that the process of creation is a process of binding in the apocalyptic genre. In the Similitudes of Enoch, things are bound by the power of the Name — this is Temple material.

Hugh Nibley knew both the rituals and underlying mythology behind this understanding. God set the ordinances to be the same for ever and ever and set Adam to watch over them. The Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood and New and Everlasting Covenant — this is the same covenant as previously mentioned. This “binding” needs to be realized in a temple.

Malachi 4:6 – Heb. shiyb = “turn” — to restore, renew — related to atonement. Atonement = renew, bind together. The Oath and Covenant secure the order of creation, they secure not only the sea, etc., but bind animals, etc., and all of God’s creations together. Malachi said that this must be done or a curse would come upon the earth.

Lord repeated this warning in 1835 — “Ye have strayed from mine ordinances and broken the everlasting covenant”

“Consumption decreed” to make a full end of all nations — this is a return toward Chaos — see the War Revelation to Joseph Smith.

Every creature participates in the great Oath and Covenant — Adam is the guardian of the covenant — he keeps the seals, binding them through his priesthood. If this doesn’t happen, the world turns back towards Chaos.

In the Enoch tradition, Semihaza used the secrets of Creation for wrong purposes and brought Chaos.

Each time the truth is lost, the covenant must be restored — ancestors and posterity are able to be linked together again.

How will the end come? “If the ordinances depart from before me…” — the loss is tied to the behavior of the children of Israel, the keepers of the ordinances — when they change the ordinances, they bring upon them the darkness. We can see in history that the guardians of the temple, like King Josiah, are the ones responsible for changing the ordinances and bring destruction. The earth is defiled because they have transgressed the laws, broken the covenant.

Hugh Nibley became unpopular for speaking out against turning life into money — he taught that this will lead to destruction. We can see this with Josiah, and with the Jews at the time of Jesus — they were selling sacrificial animals in the precincts of the temple itself.

It was the changing of the ordinances and the resulting breaking of the covenant that caused the lights to go out. The Babylonian destruction was the result of God abondoning the people because the leaders of the Jews changed the ordinances and broke the everlasting covenant. Jesus may have been speaking out against the changes in the temple itself (not just money-changing). The Shekinah flickered out because of the stewards of the temple changing its rituals.

Nibley was optimistic about the future — there would be a New Heaven and New Earth — the New Jerusalem. God will come to dwell with his people and wipe away all tears. ”I will make all things new” — the New Jerusalem will be built, Christ will reign, and earth will be renewed — the cosmic covenant will be made anew and the earth will be restored.

————————————————————-

Dana Pike, BYU Professor of Ancient Scripture

Formed in and Called from My Mothers Womb

(Unfortunately, my computer’s batter again went out during Dr. Pike’s presentation. I had to switch to hand-written notes and lost some of the flow of his argument. I really need to get a computer with longer batter life!)

Jeremiah 1:5 — This verse is not merely figurative, which is the common scholarly interpretation. There is a parallel in this verse between “consecration” and “pre-birth knowing” of God.

Btn/rhm — two Hebrew words for “womb.” Rhm is only for females — btn can be for both females and males (signifying “belly”).

God creates people “in the womb” — Ps. 139:13. God opens or closes the womb. God “brings forth” from womb — signifying “causing to live.”

Passages that contain phrase “from the womb”:

Psalm 71:6 — individual is assisted by YHWH from within the womb

–People can be wicked from before birth — Psalm 58:4

(I though I had more notes from Dr. Pike’s paper, but perhaps not… Pike ended up arguing that we should understand Jeremiah 1:5 to mean that God knew Jeremiah before he was created in the womb, but that he was not consecrated until he was actually in the womb. We should not conflate the two ideas to mean that he was both known and consecrated in the pre-mortal realm. I won’t expound on this, but I wonder what would happen to our understanding of this verse if we took “womb” to represent the Holy of Holies, as Margaret Barker does. To be consecrated in the womb, then, would signify being anointed in the Holy of Holies, perhaps sitting on a throne therein. An anointing in this temple setting could be seen as an anointing in heaven. Being brought forth from the womb could signify coming out of the Holy of Holies. I’m not saying that this is definitely how we should understand it, but it would perhaps resolve some of the apparent discrepancies that Pike brings up.)

——————————————————-

Michael Biggerstaff, MA student at Vanderbilt University

Bloodles Sacrifice and the Fulfillment of the Mosaic Law of Sacrifice

In the Book of Mormon, we are told that the Law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ, and that there were to be no more animal sacrifices. If there were to be no more sacrifices, what were the Nephites to make of Jesus’ command for them to sacrifice a broken heart and contrite spirit? Was the law fulfilled or not?

I argue that Christ did not entirely do away with the requirement to sacrifice altogether, but only the material sacrifices were to cease. We are still required today to sacrifice — to become completely sanctified and fulfill Jesus’ command to “become holy even as I am holy.” We need to be holy both with God and with our fellow man.

The true sacrifice was always to be willing to give all to the Lord. We should give to the Lord without grieving — be willing to to give whatever was needed to help the other covenant members of society. We should be willing to sacrifice our time, energy, and strength.

Sacrifice is not just about worship, but also about relationships. Take, for example, the trespass sacrifice — this was meant to reconcile the sinner to God and also the person that they offended. It was meant to repair and maintain relationships.

Isaiah 1 — The people had lost the meaning and purpose of the sacrifice — they needed to return to the Law.

We understand that Christ was identified with the trespass sacrifice. He came to reconcile us to God and to our fellow man. Reconciliation with our neighbor is still a principle that we need today.

—————————————————-

Dustin Naegle, PhD student at Brite Divinity School — Texas Christian University

Approaching Isaiah: Hugh Nibley’s Use of Isaiah in Approaching Zion

There is intense reverence for Isaiah among Latter-day Saints. The Savior directly commands us, in the Book of Mormon, to read the words of the prophet Isaiah. Isaiah warns us against the following:

1. The corrupting influence of wealth
2. Ecology
3. War

These are the same things that Nibley warns us against in Approaching Zion. These topics are offensive themes to some, but since Nibley was retiring, he thought it time to share his feelings on them.

Nibley works with the dichotomy of Zion vs. Babylon — Isaiah is key to this imagery.

In the 10th article of faith we are told that we must build up Zion.  However, as depicted in Isaiah 47, we are always falling into the ways of Babylon.

Babylon is Lucifer — he rules over the polluted lands.

We can’t a foot both in Zion and in Babylon.

Wealth and riches are evil — Babylon is against equality. We can’t equate goods with blessings.

Nibley assumes a unity of Isaiah — but we can see that all Scriptures have these common themes. Isaiah does contain many themes that support Nibley’s views. “You cannot serve God and Mammon.” Nibley follows the principle of “liken the scriptures” — in line with many modern scholars.

(Dustin’s paper was excellent and I really don’t do it justice with my scanty notes here. Dustin showed how masterfully Nibley applied the words of Isaiah to our own situation today. Instead of taking a historical approach to the text, as one might expect from Nibley, he applied Isaiah directly to us today.)

————————————————

John Welch and Stephen Ricks, Brigham Young University

Hugh Nibley and the Continuing Pursuit of the 40-Day Literature

(Welch and Ricks, as the last presenters, were left with very little time and had to cut their presentation very short — unfortunate as this is a very important topic and I love to hear both of them speak.)

There has been no significant work done on the 40-Day literature since Nibley’s work on it.

We (Welch, Ricks, BYU) are putting together a collection of the available 40-day literature and want to make them available to those interested.

We have found 58 texts that mention this period. They are often related to liturgical themes.

Acts 1:3 — this is the only canonical information we get about Christ’s 40-day ministry.

In the extra-canonical literature, we get the following themes, for example:

• apostolic authority
• missionary service
• prophecies of the suffering of the apostles
• evidences for the resurrection
• prayer circles, gestures of approach and embrace
• understanding that the ritual were going to be altered
• Church in trouble, fragmenting
• pre-mortal existence
• creation
• marriage
• sacred vestments
• Adam & Eve typological
• deification/apotheosis
• heavenly ascent
• harrowing of Hell, redemption of dead

The idea of the 40 day ministry is known in the apocryphal Christian writings. Many scholars avoid this material because they simply don’t like the story — or they don’t take it literally. But this period had top priority among early Christians. The 40-day teaching was known to be lost.

We are looking for people to help us with this project!

.

The End of the Presenters

I don’t think I’d be able to list all those who I met and talked with (I’m afraid I’d inadvertently leave someone out), but I’ll try to share here what sessions I attended and who I heard give presentations. I hope to follow this up in the near future with what notes I took from these sessions. Unfortunately my notes are not especially extensive this year as the capacity of my laptop’s battery is apparently decreasing (it lasts only 1.5 hours on low-power setting).

You should also check out Jim Davila’s PaleoJudaica.com, where he posts his “RANDOM SBL 2010 REFLECTIONS AND LINKS” — he has links to a number of other blogs by scholars who were at the conference.

Some of the best sessions that I attended were those of the Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism group. I have attended the sessions of this group since my first SBL in San Diego (2007), following the lead of my MA advisor, Andre Orlov, and my current supervisor, Jim Davila.  The group’s first session, Saturday morning, focused on reviews of two books: Peter Schafer’s The Origins of Jewish Mysticism and Guy Williams’ The Spirit World in the Letters of Paul the Apostle – I have read neither of these books, but after listening to the reviews at the session, I am very interested in both.  Although Peter Schafer himself was not there, we heard some well-written reviews from Jim Davila and Seth Sanders. Rebecca Lesses was there, but didn’t give a presentation — not sure what happened there. I posted a link to the text of Davila’s review here.  As I said there, the review was awesome and really took Schafer to task for taking lightly the possibility of real experience/praxis as a background to what was going on in these texts. Davila asked: “Why was Hekhalot literature written?” He explained that it consists of manuals that readers can use to obtain divine revelations, mystical experience, mastery over spirits–ritual practices that were intended to be used. He argued that we must grasp this notion in order to understand these texts–this was point of his book Descenders to the Chariot. Schafer minimizes these elements of the text.

The theme of the Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism’s Sunday session was: “Possible Provenances of Merkavah Mysticism.”

• The first paper was Jonathan Knight’s on “The Transformation of Merkabah Mysticism in Early Christianity” (read by Silviu Bunta). Knight argues that the early Christian text “The Ascension of Isaiah” was written in the early 1st Century CE, likely before the Gospel of John, and must have had influence on the early Christians’ Christology. This text is like the Jewish merkabah mystical texts and this tradition was very influential for Christians. In the text, Isaiah ascends to the seventh heaven, gaining greater glory as he passes each heaven. He is temporarily transformed into an angelic glory in order to be able to behold the vision. In the highest heaven, he sees three Divine Beings, including the Beloved One and the Holy Spirit (seen in angelic form). In one recension of the text, Isaiah even briefly glimpses the Great Glory (the Father). This text gives us a good example of an early mainstream Christian view — the text is not secondary or peripheral to the Christian tradition.
• After this paper, Bunta then read his own, entitled “The Convergence of Adamic and Merkabah Traditions in the Christology of Hebrews.” This was a great paper — Bunta argues that the Book of Hebrews describes a temple ritual in which Christ takes his followers to the heavenly sanctuary to participate in heavenly cult (heavenly ascent). He described how the text depicts Jesus as behind the veil of the temple. Jesus leads worshipers through the temple curtain and into the Holy of Holies, the rest of the Lord, where the throne of God and that of the Eternal High Priest are set. All of this is done as part of the early Christians’ ritual praxis — a ritual ascent to heaven. Bunta argues that many of the references to Christ draw on ancient Adamic traditions — Adam is the High Priest, the Son of God, the image of God, the Kavod, the one who sits on the Throne.  The angels were ordered to worship Adam (Testament of Adam, compare Heb. 1:6). Christ is the Heavenly Adam that became the earthly Adam.
• Jack Levison then gave a generally positive review of Bogdan Bucur’s (a Marquette grad) book, Angelomorphic Christology. The main idea in this complex, but important study is that many early Christians attributed to the Holy Spirit angelic characteristics (for example, in the Ascension of Isaiah, the Spirit looks like an angel). Also, the Spirit works through, or manifests itself in the angels (especially the seven principal ones) — according to Clement, these angels represent the Holy Spirit.

Sunday evening, the Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism group held a gathering/reception for Hebrew University Professor Rachel Elior. It was a nice, informal meeting (there were 8-10 of us there initially) in which Prof Elior was presented with a Festschrift in her honor, celebrating her influential work in Jewish studies, including Jewish mysticism.  Elior was very kind and gracious — someone who has a big heart, who loves the subjects of her research and loves to share with and help others.  I was able to speak with her and expressed my thanks to her for her influence on me through her book, The Three Temples. Another LDS PhD student, Matthew Grey, was also there — his work on post-70 AD Jewish priestly circles has also been influenced by her research. The Festschrift was put together by Andre Orlov and Daphne Arbel and contained contributions from many great scholars in the field. For more on this, see Rebecca Lesses blog post, here.

As it is very late and I am still rather jet-lagged, I will have to continue this report later (hopefully soon).

In 1979, a biblical scholar named John Eaton published a work entitled Festal Drama in Deutero-Isaiah. Eaton, following the work of Ivan Engnell and others, saw in the “Servant Songs” and other themes of chapters 40-55, 60-62 of Isaiah allusions to the themes of the Ancient Israelite New Year Festival (which I’ve so often mentioned on this blog). He argued that these passages formed a “prophetic re-modelling” of the pre-exilic temple rituals performed during the festival.  Essentially, these chapters apply the themes of the festival, which were repeated annually, to actual historical events.

In order for us to recognize these “festal” themes in the book of Isaiah, it is necessary to be familiar with the motifs that are associated with the hypothetical New Year festival. While I can’t go into them fully here, I will share a brief outline. The basic idea behind the festival is that it is a time for the celebration of the divine kingship of Yahweh, and includes a dramatic representation of Yahweh’s victory over the Chaotic Sea and/or Dragon, his ascension to his Temple and enthronement there, his judgment of the nations, and inauguration of his reign of peace as king over the whole earth. According to Eaton’s theory, the festival also included parallel rituals involving the Davidic king, which included his (mock) battle against evil nations (sometimes depicted as chaotic waters or terrible beasts), his suffering and (near) death at the hands of these enemies, his redemption/resurrection by God’s aid, his victory over all enemies, triumphal procession and enthronement.  These descriptions are based on scholars’ interpretations of the Psalms, with comparisons to what we know of the New Year/Enthronement festivals of other Ancient Near Eastern cultures. If you’ll bear with me, I’ll provide here some of the further proposed details of the festival, as proposed by Eaton:

• Pilgrimage/Procession — Israelite worshipers travel from the outlying regions (the wilderness) to Jerusalem and its temple to participate in the festival; they “ascend” up the holy way, the processional road that leads to the temple; they anticipate a time of rain and fertility after months of dry weather; this pilgrimage is ideally for all nations, who are now subordinate to Yahweh (Psalms: 84; 122 (cf. 29; 18:32; 47:10; 65:3; 76:11-13; 87; 96:8-9))
• Cleansing/Atonement — As the pilgrims anticipated a close encounter with God at the festival, there was a need for purification and forgiveness of sins. Eaton argues that there likely took place rituals akin to the post-exilic Day of Atonement, and that these purifying rituals were likely led or even performed by the Davidic king.  (Psalms: 15; 24; 51; 65 (cf. Pss. 85:2-4; 102; 103; 130; Lev. 16))
• Ritual Battle — A dramatic representation or retelling of the battle of Yahweh against the forces of Chaos (the Sea, Dragon, Leviathan, Rahab, etc.) was enacted; the rebellious gods and nations are subdued; Yahweh is triumphant and his victory is acclaimed by all. (Psalms: 29; 46; 48; 68; 74; 76; 82; 89; 93; 95; 96; 97 (cf. Pss. 2; 110))
• Victorious Procession/Ascension — Yahweh’s victory is celebrated by a glorious procession where He and his followers (his hosts) approach the temple grounds from the East (from Mt. of Olives/Kidron?) and ascend up the mount via the holy way to the temple grounds; there is much music and dancing; the procession is preceded by messengers who bring the good news; the procession is imagined as an ascent to heaven. (Psalms: 24, 68, 47 (cf. Pss. 18; 29; 65; 114; Ex. 15; Josh. 2-6; Isa. 35; 57; 62; Ezek. 8; 10; 11; 43; 2 Sam. 15-20; Zech. 14))
• Enthronement of Yahweh — After his ascension, Yahweh is enthroned in radiant glory above the heavenly ocean in his Temple on Mt. Zion; His glory and holiness shine out; His kingship is acclaimed with shouts, clapping, trumpets, strings, psalms of praise, and cries of “Yahweh has become King!” (Psalms: 9; 29; 93; 96-99)
• Yahweh’s Speech — Reminiscent of the events of the Sinai narrative, Yahweh speaks to his people from Mount Zion through a prophetic minister as their Covenant-Lord; He reveals words of promise and commandment, as well as warnings against disobedience, to his people as part of the renewal of their covenant with Him. (Psalms: 50, 81, 85, 95)
• Judgment — Yahweh’s throne is a judgment-seat, from which he arraigns, judges, and sentences rebellious gods, kings/nations, and sinners. At the festival, a judgment scene was imagined: The judgment-seat is placed, an assembly gathers, complaints of the oppressed are heard, accusations are made, and the guilty are punished. (Psalms: 9; 75; 76; 82; 96-99 (cf. Pss. 8; 10; 13; 50; 58; 94; 149))
• Creation/Re-Creation — Yahweh’s primeval deeds were relived during the festival: (as depicted in Ps. 74) the conquering and cleaving of the water-monsters, the provision of sweet-water sources, the division of day and night, creation of the sources of light, of the land, ordering of seasons; Yahweh’s words put Creation in order, his voice regulates the elements; he numbers the stars, commands the storm, and brings rain. Yahweh’s festal advent brings renewal, restoration, and rebirth. Both worshippers and the king sing a “new song” in response to this renewal of Yahweh’s salvation. (Psalms: 29; 65; 74; 93; 96; 98; 104; 147 (cf. Pss. 33; 85; 126-28; 149))
• Renewal/Repair of the City and Temple — The city of Zion and its Temple are also made new; in some sense, there is a “building up” of the walls and city and a restoration of the bars and gates as part of the rituals of atonement and festal concept of renewal; Yahweh restores/rebuilds Zion and the Temple; there was likely a rite which involved a survey of the city’s new impregnable state by a procession of worshippers around the city walls. (Psalms: 48; 51; 102; 147)
• Zion as Mother, Wife, and Queen — Zion, Yahweh’s holy city and mountain, was loved by both festal worshippers and Yahweh; Zion was mother to the people of Israel, wife to Yahweh, and Queen; She is the “Perfection of beauty” and the “Joy of the whole earth”; Yahweh’s coming during the festival as King to his dazzling bride may be an echo of the “sacred marriage” aspect of some other ANE New Year festivals (e.g., in Sumeria). (Psalms: 46; 48; 65; 84; 87; 122; 132; 147; 149 (cf. Ps. 2; 9; 50; 110; Isa. 62:4–5))

The above motifs are described by Eaton as part of the celebration of Yahweh’s kingship. He also argues, as I mentioned, that there were parallel (if not identical) rites that celebrated the enthronement of the Davidic monarch. As they are thought to be quite similar, I will only share here some of the details Eaton includes for the dramatized battle against evil that Eaton envisions for the king, especially because it applies so well to these chapters of Isaiah. Keep in mind that Eaton interprets the king to be the “servant” of the Lord and the “messiah” (anointed one), and that Isaiah is drawing on these royal ideals when describing his messianic “suffering servant.”

Drama of Davidic Kingship – Seen as an extension of the kingship of Yahweh, the office of the divinely-appointed Davidic king was also celebrated at the festival in similarly dramatic fashion, but likely in a distinct series of rites; the royal drama conceivably included the following:

1. The king faces (symbolically) rebellious princes, prepares for war, and warns them of Yahweh’s judgment (Pss. 75; 2; 20).

2. The king pleads for Yahweh to save him from the death-powers (144).

3. His enemies apparently have their hour of triumph; the king is bereft of his symbols of office and pleads for Yahweh’s help, stressing Yahweh’s fidelity to his promises (89) and righteous rule (101).

4. The king sinks deeper into the realm of the Underworld, depicting the horrors of death that envelop him; he describes the mockery of the man of Yahweh’s favor (22A).

5. He is rescued from this fate by Yahweh, who comes riding on a cherub to save him from Death (18), and is rehabilitated to be able to return to lead a festal celebration of Yahweh’s salvific power (22B); he testifies of the power of the Shepherd who proved stronger than the powers of the valley of death/Sheol (23; cf. 49:15). He had been brought to the lowest state, as a worm, no longer a man (22), but was now exalted to be head of the nations (18).

6. The king is able to conquer all his enemies by invoking the name of Yahweh (118).

(Psalms: 2; 21; 72; 101; 110; 132; 18; 20; 22; 23; 51; 75; 89; 91; 118; 121; 144 (cf. Pss. 9; 10; 40; 49; 71))¹

With this, we can have some idea of what the people of Judah had come to believe and expect that their God and his Messiah would do for them.  Of course Eaton is working with the assumption that this festal theology is pre-exilic, so that these themes would have been repeated annually at the festival and thus be well-known to the people. Furthermore, the thought is that the people understood these rituals to represent what happened in the past (the Creation, Exodus, etc.) and also what he would yet do for his people. Yahweh shows his power to save in the past, present, and future.

Isaiah 50

So how do we apply all of this to these chapters of Isaiah? Keep the above in mind as you read and see what similar themes appear.  I haven’t gone into all the details proposed for the festival, and there is imagery in the text that was probably never part of it, so there will be things that we can’t place in that context.  While I won’t be able to analyze everything,  I will try to point out a few items of interest.

There is a lot of interplay in these chapters between the Lord and Zion and also the servant figure.  Zion, as mentioned above, is a personification of the city of Jerusalem as a woman, wife of Yahweh and mother of the people, Israel.  She is, more specifically, the mother of the king/messiah (who we can speculatively identify with the servant), who represents the people as a whole.

The discussion of the mother’s divorcement in the first verses of this chapter is continuing from previous chapters. There was a feeling in Israel that the Lord had “forsaken” and “forgotten” Zion (Isa. 49:14). In effect, it appeared that the Lord had “divorced” his wife, Zion (Isa. 50:1).  While this idea can be historically applied to the Exile and other trials Israel had to endure, the ancient festival perspective was likely based on the idea that during the months of drought, Yahweh must have abandoned his people. As Yahweh was the bringer of rain and fertility, during the summer it is possible that he was thought of as being distant, being asleep, or having somehow neglected or forsaken his people (some argue that He was thought to be dead and in the Underworld). We can see this motif in many of the psalms and in Isaiah, where the Lord is called upon to “Awake!” or when speaking of his “return” from somewhere (see, e.g.,  Isa. 51:9; Pss. 7:6; 35:23; 44:23; 59:5; 90:13; 68:1; etc.).

Here in Isa. 50, the Lord explains that he has not forgotten his people, but it has only appeared so because of their transgressions.  He has always had power to save them if they would only turn to him.  Compare verses 2 and 3, and better yet, Isa. 51:9–10, with Psalm 74:11–17:

11 Why withdrawest thou thy hand, even thy right hand? pluck it out of thy bosom. 12 For God is my King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth. 13 Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters. 14 Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness. 15 Thou didst cleave the fountain and the flood: thou driedst up mighty rivers. 16 The day is thine, the night also is thine: thou hast prepared the light and the sun. 17 Thou hast set all the borders of the earth: thou hast made summer and winter.

Note here the themes of the New Year festival, as described above: the primeval battle of Yahweh against the sea, dragons, and leviathan; the power over the waters; the creation of the heavens and earth and the setting of the orders and seasons. The great salvific wonders that God worked for Israel in the past are remembered. God has stayed his hand for a while and the people anxiously await the return of the divine intervention.

Verses 4-9 present a change of speaker, moving from the Lord speaking to the Servant. This section is one of Isaiah’s “Servant Songs” that are interpreted by Christians to refer to Christ.  As Margaret Barker mentions in her Isaiah commentary for Eerdmans,² unlike earlier Servant Songs, this one does not mention the Servant directly, but he is assumed to be the speaker.  Barker also notes that the suffering described here in verse 6 has been compared to the suffering of the king in the New Year festival, as outlined above. She makes specific mention of the Mesopotamian akitu festival rites in which the king was “dragged by the ears and struck on the face in front of the God Bel before being reinvested with his regalia…” She also points out that this motif is to be found in the Day of Atonement ritual of the scapegoat, where the goat for Azazel, as it was being sent forth into the wilderness, bearing the sins of the people, would be spitted upon and have its hair pulled as it passed through the crowd of worshipers (mishnah Yoma 6:4; Barnabas 7).

Isaiah 50:6 I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.

Isaiah 51

Isaiah 51:3 recalls the festival motif of the coming of the Lord to bring rain and fertility to the dry lands. The festival took place in the Fall, the time of the harvest, when the rains came after months of drought. The expectation was that the desert areas would soon turn green and abundant fertility would be restored. Thus we see the promise here that “he will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the LORD”.  We can also see the eschatological expectation that when Jesus Christ returns, he will convert the world back to its paradisaical state.  See the themes of Re-Creation and Renewal above. See also v. 16 on this theme.

Verse 4-5 can be compared to the festal themes of Yahweh’s Speech and Judgment.

Verses 9-10 (see also v. 15), as I explained above, are reminiscent of the Ritual Battle of the festival in which Yahweh conquers the Waters of Chaos and its monsters.  This myth, although essentially describing events that took place before the Creation of the world (think: War in Heaven), was often historicized as the parting of the waters and victory over Egypt at the Exodus. That is likely why we get the line at the end of verse 10: “that hath made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over”.

Verse 11 remembers the theme of the Pilgrimage in which the dispersed children of Israel return to Zion to worship and be blessed by the Lord (at the festival).

Isaiah 52

At the beginning of this chapter we again get the image of Zion, now being called to awaken and put on her beautiful garments. She has been freed from captivity and is now permitted to make preparations for the joyful celebration of the Lord’s coming. Again, this imagery personifies the city of Zion as the Bride of Yahweh, and she prepares herself for the festal celebrations, which likely included the idea of her marriage (covenant relationship) to the Lord. Verse 2 has some interesting images, and I couldn’t say exactly what is meant here, but the picture of one rising from the dust and then being asked to sit down also reminds me of the rituals of kingship. Some scholars have noted that this type of language is often used in connection with the elevation of a person to kingship — the idea that the person is abased to the level of dust (as if dead) and then exalted to a high throne.³ I’m speculating wildly here, but perhaps this is the idea that is being referred to in verse 2.  There is a certain parallel between the figure of Zion and that of the Servant, and so we see in verse 13: “Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.”

The famous verse 7 in which the messenger that brings good tidings to Zion is praised for his beautiful feet can be understood in light of the festival as well.  The Victorious Procession of Yahweh that comes from the Ritual Battle and up to the city from the East would have been preceded by messengers who proclaimed the arrival of their triumphant Redeemer. It is possible that the messenger was the king/messiah himself, coming to proclaim the good news of the salvific acts of God on behalf of Zion. Why his feet are beautiful, I’m not quite sure, but the people most certainly saw beauty in the message he brings in haste to the city.  The watchmen on the towering walls of the city, upon seeing the messenger, cry out to the people of the city, announcing the arrival of their King (v. 8). This is a time of great jubilation for the redeemed city (v. 9). The Lord has redeemed Zion from the powers of the wicked nations and has shown all the world that the God of Israel remembers and saves his people (v. 10). The cry of “Yahweh has become King” or “Yahweh reigneth” rings through the city (see Psalms 93; 97; 99).

Isaiah 53

According to Barker, Isa. 52:13 to 53:12 is the last of the four “Servant Songs” in this section of Isaiah.  This song, she notes, became the greatest prophecy for Christians of the death and exaltation of Jesus.⁴ It was also seen as a messianic prophecy in early Judaism, as the Targum of Isaiah reads “my Servant the Messiah” in 52:13. In the RSV, we read that the Servant “shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.” Again, this idea is reminiscent of kingship language, and Barker reminds us that this is also similar to the description of the Lord in Isa. 6:1 and also of the Son of Man in the Gospel of John.⁵

In 52:14, we get the idea that the Servant surprises the kings of the nations because of his “marred” appearance (the NJB has “he was so inhumanly disfigured that he no longer looked like a man”). However, as Barker points out, the great Isaiah Scroll found at Qumran has a very slightly different Hebrew word in place of “marred” — mshty in place of msht – which provides a possible translation of “I have anointed him”. Barker takes the passage to mean that the Servant was anointed, and that this anointing caused a transformation of his appearance into something beyond normal humanity. She compares this imagery to the story of Enoch in 2 Enoch 22-24, where Enoch ascends to heaven and, standing before the heavenly throne, is anointed and transformed into a brilliant angelic being. While the “marred” description would seem to fit well with the idea of the “suffering servant”, the anointing of the Servant at this point fits the context of the Servant’s ascension/exaltation more perfectly.  The kings of the earth would truly be astonished at the glorious, shining appearance of the Servant after his anointing.  The “sprinkling” of the nations is a high priestly act, when the blood of the atonement was sprinkled upon the worshipers at the Day of Atonement rites, imparting to them purity and new life.⁶

The last part of 52:15 should be connected to the beginning of chapter 53.  Barker points out that the “arm” of verse 1 should likely be read as “seed” or “son”, as the words are very similar in Hebrew.  Thus, she argues, the revelation that was hidden from the kings (52:15), which astonished them so much, was a revelation of the seed/son of the Lord. Barker explains that the revelation of the Chosen One is a recurring theme in 1 Enoch. ((Ibid.)) Compare this to the revelation of the newly crowned king as the son of God in Psalm 2:7, an event which caused the kings of the nations to tremble with fear.

Starting in verse 3 we again see the “suffering” Servant motif, reminiscent of the suffering that the Davidic king symbolically was put through at the hands of the evil forces of the world.  The Messiah was expected to suffer on behalf of the nation — he bore the grief, diseases, and sins on behalf of the whole.  This suffering, which is so vividly depicted in many of the psalms (see, e.g., Pss. 18; 22; 40; 89; 118), served to heal (v. 5), justify (v. 11), and intercede (v. 12) for the people of Israel.

N.B. — In verse 5, the word translated in the KJV as “wounded” can also be rendered “pierced” and “bruised” is better translated as “crushed”.

Barker goes into a lot of interesting detail in her analysis of this chapter, but the main thrust of her conclusions is that the Servant being described here was likely originally “the royal high priest on the Day of Atonement, symbolically offering his own blood to cleanse and heal the land, bringing judgment on his enemies and rescuing his own people (cf. Deut. 32:43).⁷ The royal high priest (which in the First Temple was likely the king himself), offered himself up as a sacrifice — he allowed himself to be killed on behalf of the people, but was later resurrected, bringing new life to all the Creation. Of course the king/high priest didn’t actually die, but an animal was killed in his place, as a substitute.  This would have taken place during the rites of the New Year Festival.

An interesting aspect of Barker’s explanation is the idea that the Servant, the royal high priest, served to intercept and absorb the wrath of God that is released when the people break the covenant.  She cites as an example the story of Aaron “making atonement” to stave off the plague in Numbers 16.  The breaking of the covenant released the wrath of the Lord in the form of a plague.  Aaron stood between the dead and the living, made atonement, and the plague was stayed.  When the Servant is “made an offering for sin” (v. 10), Barker explains that he will be recognized as the royal son (the seed) in whom God is pleased, and his days will be prolonged.⁸

To understand all of this talk of the Servant in a narrative context, Barker recommends looking at 1 Enoch 46-50, which can be accessed here. Note that when you read this translation of the text, when “the righteous” is mentioned, as in 47:1, this would be better translated as “Righteous One” — it is the blood of the Righteous One that ascends to heaven. See also the relevant discussion by my PhD supervisor, Jim Davila, here.

1. Adapted from Eaton, J. H. Festal Drama in Deutero-Isaiah. London: SPCK, 1979.
2. In Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (Eerdmans Publishing, 2003), 553, accessed online here
3. See, e.g., Brüeggemann, Walter, “From Dust to Kingship.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84, no. 1 (1972): 1-18
4. Barker, Eerdmans Commentary, 534
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid., 535, emphasis in original.
8. Ibid.

I present here my notes from her lecture.  As always, please realize that these are my own notes and do not fully represent the material that Dr Tiemeyer presented. She is publishing a much larger work on this topic (unfortunately I didn’t catch the title).  Please bear with the incomplete nature of these notes.

———————————————–

Dr Lena Sophia Tiemeyer on Isaiah 40-55

 Challenging the concept that one person wrote Isa. 40-55 during the Exile in Babylon

 –She is arguing that it was written in Judah during Exile

 Do the scholarly claims support a Babylonian setting? She argues that they only presuppose it — nothing necessitates a Babylonian-based author

 Methods: Shemaryahu Talmon’s four principles for comparative studies:

1) priority of biblical parallels over extra-biblical

2) proximity in time and space: contemporary societies should be used for comparisons

3) correspondence of social function: examples in Judah over outside

4) holistic approach vs. atomistic

Examples in biblical texts should be sought before Mesopotamian examples

Barr offers these guidelines for comparisons:

1) sources nearer to the Hebrew Bible in time

2) geographic closeness

3) Semitic sources

———

Because of their conquests of the region, we should expect to find a great degree of Mesopotamian influence over Judah during the time of Exile. Mesopotamian rulers lived in Judah — so it would be natural that we should see their influence there. Judahite scribes and possibly even regular people had a good idea of Mesopotamian religious ideas and practice since 6th-7th Century BCE.

–So there is not a good argument for the Assyrian/Babylonian elements in the Bible to have actually come from those places –such usage would have been known in Judah.

It is possible to detect Akkadian (Assyro-Babylonian language) influence in Deutero-Isaiah — however, we would need to see if there are more Akkadian loan-words than are found in other texts.

–Kittel compares 2Isaiah to cuneiform literature (Akkadian) — lists parallels betwn Babylonian texts and 2Isa.

–there are similarities in vocabulary between these texts – but these could be cognates — we should look for inner-biblical parallels first

–we can also find many similarities between Isa. 60-62 and Babylonian texts although scholars wouldn’t claim authorship of these chapters in Babylon

–You didn’t need to be living in Babylon to know name of Cyrus

–Regarding some of the thematic elements in 2Isa: It is more likely that authors were influenced by Book of Exodus rather than Babylonian texts

Most texts in Hebrew Bible have Akkadian influence (not just 2Isa) — Amos has a large number of Akkadian loan words, but no one argues that Amos was in Babylon

–Akkadian was the politically dominant language of the time — it had significant influence on the local languages — it is natural that we find Akkadian elements throughout the Bible.  Language cannot be used to argue for a Babylonian setting — there are no more loan words in 2Isa than in the rest of the Hebrew Bible

–Ezekiel claims to have been written in Babylon, but has less loan words than Isa. or Jeremiah!

–we should note that there are also Ugaritic cognates in 2Isa — Dahood even argued that parts of 2Isa were written in Phoenicia!

–Akkadian was not even the major language during the Neo-Babylonian period — Aramaic was more used

–There would have been no need for the authors of 2Isa to know Akkadian if they were not part of the Babylonian royal court or cult

The presence of Akkadian cognates in the Heb. Bible is not evidence of the author’s presence in Babylon, but that loan words were known in Judah – evidence of Assyrian influence over conquered city-states

–”Self-Predication Formula” (“I am YHWH — the First and the Last”, etc.) — scholars argue that this comes from Babylonian influence — they argue that this is reminiscent of Sumerian hymns learned in Babylon

–again we should give precedence to biblical parallels — the authors likely drew from their own already existing self-presentation formula in their scriptures — maybe it ultimately stems from Sumeria, but can be found in Hebrew prophetic texts — the influence is likely pre-exilic Palestine

– There is no evidence of Assyrian prophetic texts having an influence in Babylon — there must have been earlier interaction between the people of Marduk and people of YHWH

–Isa 40-55 follows the pattern of earlier Isa chapters — We cannot conclude (from the above linguistic arguments cited) that authors must have been residents of Babylon

Another argument is that the passages in 2Isa that refer to religious practices (instructions for making of idols, etc.) are claimed to be related to Babylonian practices. –There are direct references to Babylonian deities

–tendency to worship idols is not novel to the Babylonian period  — you don’t have to be living in Babylon to know about their gods and practices

–all the terms used are attested to elsewhere in the  Heb. Bible — there are no details that would lead us to conclude that authors knew anything beyond what was commonly known

–no local features or local individuals are mentioned — a prophet in Judah would have been able to envision all of this

–Isa 46:1–2 — the picture of Babylonian gods depicted here does not fit the picture of what was going on in Babylon — King Nabonidus was replacing Marduk with moon-god Sin — this is not mentioned in 2Isa

–There is nothing in this material to warrant the conclusion that author of 2Isa was in Babylon — Jews would have known the customs of their conquerors.

The following tidbits come from the Q&A period after her presentation. I did not take note of the questions asked.

— There are many differences between the theology of 2Isa and the theology of Ezekiel — how could they come from contemporaries in the same group in Babylon?

– Evidence for the conflict between those who remained and exilees comes mainly from later texts, not contemporary

–***She says: We should first go to Psalter before we start considering Mesopotamian sources for these things*** (She said this subsequent to my asking if she had considered parallels between 2Isa and the biblical Psalms)

–Flora and fauna mentioned (plus coming of rain) — (e.g. Isa. 41:18–19) — seem to fit Israel/Judah better than Mesopotamia (In response to a question from Prof N.T. Wright) 

—Isa 48:11–12; 52 — talk about return from Babylon — but the majority of such passages in 2Isa talk about return from worldwide diaspora — so not necessarily written from perspective of those in Babylon

– The implications of this study are important. If 2Isa was written in Palestine, this changes a lot about how we understand these chapters and their relationship to other biblical literature written in the same period. If all chapters of Isaiah were written in Palestine, this has implications for our understanding of the unity of the Book of Isaiah as a whole (in response to a question by Allen Jones regarding what this research ultimately means for our understanding of 2Isa)

Sorry for the dearth of posts recently — the semester at St Andrews has now started up and I have found myself overwhelmed trying to set a new schedule and routine for myself.  Among the various things I’m doing this semester, I am very excited about sitting in on Jim Davila’s Book of Daniel course, which has been highly stimulating so far, and we haven’t really gotten into the good stuff yet!  I hope to post my notes from the class (what notes I take) here on the blog, perhaps closer to the time we are to be looking at Daniel in the Sunday School curriculum.

As I’ve been unusually busy for the past week or two (listening to General Conference was a nice change of pace), I haven’t been able to do as much as I’ve wanted with this SS lesson from Isaiah. I hope to share some few thoughts that are of some use.

Isaiah 40

Chapter 40 of Isaiah begins a section of the book (chapters 40-55) labeled by scholars as “Deutero-Isaiah” or “Second Isaiah” because, according to popular theory, this section was not written by the original prophet Isaiah, but by an author that wrote during the Babylonian captivity.  Although there are a number of reasonable arguments for this perspective (see some of them here on Wikipedia), we can perhaps assume that one of the main reasons behind this designation is the fact that so many modern biblical scholars do not accept a traditional faith-based view of prophecy — that prophets could accurately predict (see in vision) future events.  Of course this point of view does not sit well with most Latter-day Saints, whose theology takes this traditional view for granted.  Furthermore, the Book of Mormon cites chapters from “Deutero-Isaiah” with the assumption that this were written by the original Isaiah, or at least that they were written before the time Lehi left Jerusalem, which was before the Babylonian Exile.  I’m afraid I’m not going to have time to go into this topic further, but I encourage you to look at the following articles, both of which give possible solutions to this apparent discrepancy.

Marc Schindler, “Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon”: http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Deutero-Isaiah_in_the_Book_of_Mormon.html

Keven Christensen, “Open Questions and Suggestions Regarding Isaiah in the Book of Mormon”: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=6&chapterID=53

On to the content of the Ch. 40…

As inferred by the title of this lesson, we can expect to see in these chapters many passages that can be interpreted as being Messianic — descriptive of the expected  life and mission of Jesus Christ. They also emphasize the idea that Israel saw Yahweh as their Redeemer and incomparable Savior.

If you are a fan of Handel’s timeless work, The Messiah, several of the verses here will be familiar to you. I have taken the liberty of posting a YouTube video here of Jerry Hadley singing “Comfort Ye My People” and “Every Valley” — it is very inspiring.

I would also mention, on this aesthetical note, that many verses from this chapter are quoted by Eric Liddell in the film Chariots of Fire. I post a video from that film as well.  Liddell teaches a great lesson here about keeping the Sabbath Day holy and the film clip shows Liddell preaching in church on Sunday while his teammates in the Olympics are out competing (and largely failing) in their Sunday races. The verses he quotes from Isaiah 40 emphasize God’s power over all mankind and the fact that he will support those who are faithful to him.

31 But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.

Chapter 41

This chapter starts off with a description that has always given scholars problems.

2 Who raised up the righteous man from the east, called him to his foot, gave the nations before him, and made him rule over kings? he gave them as the dust to his sword, and as driven stubble to his bow.

3 He pursued them, and passed safely; even by the way that he had not gone with his feet.

The question is: who is this passage talking about? There has been much debate over this, and the usual candidates are Abraham, Cyrus of Persia, and Christ. Let’s look at these three possibilities.

• Abraham — Many ancient and early modern commentators saw the “righteous man from the east” as Abraham. The verses do seem to be referring to a historical character.  The idea is that Abraham could be seen as being called from the east and led by God to the land of Canaan and that he was given power to conquer foes (he defeated the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah to save Lot — Gen. 14).  Furthermore, starting in verse 8, the Lord mentions specifically Abraham and his chosen descendants in Israel. The problems commonly cited with this interpretation are that Abraham didn’t really come from the “east” of Canaan (he came more from the north-east); it is a bit of a stretch to consider Abraham’s military victories a fulfillment of v. 2′s “gave the nations before him, and made him rule over kings.”
• Cyrus — By far the most popular modern scholarly opinion is that this verse refers to the Persian king Cyrus who conquered Babylon and freed the Jews.  Cyrus certainly came from the east (see Isa. 46:11, which is understood to refer to Cyrus); the Jews saw him as being called of God — a messianic (anointed of God) figure; Isaiah mentions Cyrus by name only a few chapters later (see Isa. 44:28; 45:1). In my opinion, Cyrus fits the bill very well, being a righteous man (he must have been — he freed God’s people!) from the east who was brought by God to Palestine, conquering nations and ruling kings.
• Christ — There are some who see this passage as a messianic prophecy of Christ. The passage does have messianic overtones in line with what many Jews may have expected in a Messiah-Savior.  Parry, Parry, and Peterson argue for this view, noting: “Jesus Christ, who is righteous, will come from the east at his second coming and will rule over kings and nations.”¹ Although not necessarily, the term “raised up” in v. 2 can be interpreted as a reference to resurrection.  Many early Christian thinkers, such as Jerome, Eusebius, and Theodoret believed that this passage referred to Christ. However, many modern critics have argued that the description doesn’t fit Jesus of Nazareth well — he was born in Bethlehem, not the East; he was a pacifist, not a great warrior; the prophecy expected an imminent savior, not a future one.
• I tend to agree with the authors of Understanding Isaiah on this — that the verse can be interpreted as referring to both Cyrus and to Jesus Christ.  We can see this as an example of the frequently observed “dual” or “multiple” fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecies.  It seems quite clear that Cyrus could be the realization of the given description, but I think we can just as easily see a “type” or “expectation” of Christ here, when his Second Coming instead of his First is considered — He will come from the East with great power and glory to subdue the nations and rule over the earth’s kings.

Moving on through the chapter, you may note that verse 10 is used in a verse of the hymn “How Firm a Foundation.” In keeping with the media-friendly tone of this post, I wanted to put up another video. This is the choir and congregation at LDS General Conference singing.

From verse 10 through the rest of the chapter, we see themes from the ancient Israelite New Year Festival pop up again.  The idea that God would come to save Israel from their powerful enemies at the last moment when hope is waning; the idea of God saving by his right hand or taking the redeemed by the right hand (Isa. 41:13) comes up a number of times in the psalms, some of which may have been part of the festival (see Pss. 17:7; 18:35; 20:6; 48:10; 60:5; 63:8; 73:23; 108:6; 138:7; 139:10); also the motif of water/fertility (Isa. 41:17–20) is important, as the festival took place at the end of the dry season when all were anxiously awaiting the coming of rain from the Lord; we also see the common festival elements of the care of the poor and needy and judgment of the wicked nations — all of these themes were well known to the Judahite people through the rituals and traditions of the New Year/Harvest Festival. These ideas were repeated annually representing not only God’s salvific acts of the past, but also what He would do for his people in the future.  The prophet and people knew that Yahweh would come to save them after this miraculous fashion described in these verses — even if they didn’t know when it would finally occur.

In verse 25 we have a prophecy that is similar to that in verse 2. The main difference is that this deliverer is described as coming from the North. Again, we should probably see a reference here to Cyrus, who although he was from the East, came conquering from Media, which was to the North of Babylon. The “rising of the sun” is probably a reference to his coming from the East. Some have argued that Cyrus was pagan and therefore doesn’t meet the description “shall he call upon my name”, but in Ezra 1:2 Cyrus does express the idea that he was called by the God of Israel to liberate the Jews.

To Be Continued…

1. Understanding Isaiah, 352