To preach deliverance to the captives (Isaiah 58)

Isaiah chapter 58 is apparently the first chapter of this book where the SAB finds something that it likes, and I certainly agree that the messages of this chapter is very positive. This chapter talks a lot about fasting, which is the practice of denying oneself of food for a time. Many religions practice fasting as a religious discipline, believing that it draws one closer to God for various reasons, and Judaism has a few assigned fasts. Here in Isaiah, God is suggesting that simply denying oneself of food, is not enough, but that one should deprive oneself while seeking justice. God says to "let the oppressed go free,...deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him." So, people who don't have freedom, food, housing, and clothing should be given those things by those who do. I definitely believe that this should be the focus of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and those who don't are missing the real heart of God. I think it's a great shame that the people in America who claim that we are a Christian nation are more concerned with persecution of LGBTQIA people and immigrants than actually helping their fellow Americans who are in need when we have millions of people who are homeless and/or facing food insecurity. There's my soapbox for today, but it leaves an issue unaddressed here.

Does God approve of slavery? Although I talked a lot about Hebrew slavery back in Exodus, and Roman slavery in Luke chapter 17, there may be issues concerning slavery that I have not addressed. In particular, any instances of slavery before the giving of the Law of Moses most likely didn't follow those rules, and as the SAB notes, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all had slaves, with Abraham and Jacob in particular having slave girls that were forced to bear children for their masters. The Bible doesn't give any commentary on the moral value of this, but in not doing so seems to give tacit approval. Jesus does tell a handful of parables that involve slavery, but I don't think you can assume that means he approves; Jesus's parables are often very strange stories where the moral message is far from clear. The verse from Leviticus 25 is one I actually did address, but let me repeat it to be clear: in the year of Jubilee, all slaves are given their freedom, without exception. The passage from Mark ten is not saying that people who are Christians won't exercise authority over each other, but rather that those who are humble and serve will be considered to be the greatest. So what does the Bible teach in the end about slavery? I think there's no easy answer to this question. The concept of slavery in the Bible differs from culture to culture and situation to situation, and it's not an absolute evil because of this. "Slavery" is very morally relative, and while the Bible certainly endorsed certain forms of it, none of them were quite like the chattel slavery of the United States in the 18th and 19th centuries. In my opinion, it was right for the U.S. to end slavery, but even there, there are nuances. The Emancipation Proclamation effectively freed zero slaves at the time of its issuance. The end of the Civil War ended some slavery legally, but it wasn't in full effect until Juneteenth. The 13th Amendment actually did not end slavery in the United States (read the fine print!), and it is still practiced to the present day, because capitalism thrives on cheap labor. I strongly believe that we should amend the 13th Amendment to actually, completely end slavery in our country, and work to see that it is ended worldwide. Do I believe God would approve of this position? I do, because I believe that modern slavery is so much worse than what was practiced in Biblical times. I guess that's a different, but related soapbox.

Which go a whoring after their idols (Isaiah 57)

Isaiah chapter 57 has a lot of notes on it, one of which I know I addressed before, but I'm having a hard time finding. No matter, I can address the question of Has there ever been a righteous person? by referring to my post on 2Samuel 22 where I explained that the word "righteous" is used a bit loosely in the Bible overall and can mean different things. However, the question of Will the righteous flourish? is really not a contradiction, as even those who do flourish will eventually die; that's just life. I think the verse here is just saying there's something sad about the perishing of the righteous in particular.

Verse three addresses the "sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the whore." Yeah, it's harsh, although I'm not really clear on why this is a verse to be marked with the "women" icon; I suppose sorceresses and whores are women (checking the Hebrew, "adulterer" is also feminine, so I don't know why it isn't "adulteress"), but the issue with them is not their femininity. I mean, since we're apparently addressing the "sons" of these women, it's not like you get to choose your parentage, but perhaps these are metaphorical "sons" who are engaged in similar behaviors? It does go on to talk about idolatry in verses five through eight, where the sexual imagery may be metaphorical or literal, as some idols were of sex goddesses, but sexuality and spirituality are often closely linked in scripture. Verse nine is probably closely related to these verses, with the idea of seducing the king into idolatry as well. I addressed the subject of Is it OK to use perfume? in John chapter 12, where I suggested it's a stretch to call it a contradiction.

The rest of the chapter is perhaps a bit opaque, as it's not fully clear who it's being addressed to, but I'm guessing Israel, with respect to the idol worship. God calls them to remember how he is faithful, and how idols are not. Verse 15 is interesting because it talks about how God lives "in the high and holy place" with those who are humble; could this be an Old Testament reference to Heaven as an afterlife? I don't know; it could be talking about the Temple, possibly. The chapter ends with a warning that there is no peace for the wicked.

For there are some eunuchs (Isaiah 56)

Isaiah chapter 56 is apparently the beginning of "Trito-Isaiah", which I still don't completely understand. Having just finished Deutero-Isaiah, I certainly saw that the tone of many of the chapters was different, but it doesn't quite seem disconnected from the first part. We'll see how the last part plays out.

Is it necessary to keep the sabbath? I certainly touched on this back in Exodus 16, although I don't know if I had a better answer elsewhere; I think it's a good enough one. May a eunuch enter the congregation of the Lord? I think I addressed this best in Acts chapter eight, where I pointed out that the New Testament verses are definitely talking about a separate issue. It's really only this verse here in Isaiah that really presents the possibility of contradiction, but is it one? Well, the Leviticus passage is really saying that a eunuch (among others) cannot serve as a priest. The Deuteronomy passage is really the definitive verse about the "congregation", but is Isaiah really contradicting that? I think it's saying God accepts them, just not into the formal "congregation", whatever that may be.

The rest of the chapter is pretty much talking about the blessings of God, although there's a little sidetrack in verses ten and eleven, talking about someone's watchmen and guard dogs, but it's not clear at all whose. It's pretty clear it's not Israel's, but beyond that, who knows?

And ye shall be redeemed without money (Isaiah 55)

Okay, I am getting back to Isaiah chapter 55! I have been doing a terrible job of making these posts regularly, and while I'm pretty sure there's almost nobody reading these as I post them (maybe not even Steve Wells, who I send links to every time I publish), there's also the principle that I fully intended these to be a form of spiritual discipline for myself, and I wanted them to be close to daily. Run-on sentences aside, I've been having a lot of health problems lately, and I've been letting it distract me from regular Bible studies, which isn't good. I need to be in the Bible more often, and a nice fluffy, positive chapter like this one is a good refresher, so let's get into it.

Verse one, as the SAB notes, seems to be talking about a cashless society, perhaps. People without money are urged to buy food, milk, and wine without price. While this is a prophecy of some time in the future, it's not clear whether we're talking about the afterlife, or the end times, or perhaps just a time in Israel's history when food and drink will be plentiful enough it is given away. However, the very next verse talks about money again, and seems to warn against spending one's money and/or labor on things that don't satisfy, which doesn't sound much like advice for a person in a cashless society. So the larger context is a bit confusing, perhaps. It may be that verse one is describing the future, and in light of that future, verse two admonishes the listeners in the present to be wise. Verses three and four talk about the covenant of David, and how "he" will be a witness to the people of the world. It's not clear whether this unnamed witness is the Messiah or perhaps the nation of Israel itself, but nations that Israel have never heard of will call on Israel because of "him". The reader is urged to seek God, and God will pardon unrighteousness. In verses eight and nine, God says that his thoughts and ways are different from those of humans, and that they are much higher. The SAB takes issue with this, supplying a few choice passages from the Bible that it feels counter such a claim. The thing about it though, is that (as far as I can see) this simply indicates that the SAB doesn't understand these passages, which is sort of the point. If you don't understand something, that doesn't automatically make that thing stupid or wrong. While I certainly get why the passage about the bear mauling is troublesome, why would a story about a donkey that was made able to talk be an indication of the supposed poor morals of God? I think that actually there is a common thread running through the three passages anyway, and that is that proper spirituality is important. I'm sure I've talked about it before, but I really feel that when God touches on this topic, it's not for selfish reasons, like he needs people to follow him, but that actually, people need God in a funny way, because he is truth. Anyway, pretty much the rest of the chapter is an odd metaphor for the value of God's word. It contains the funny verse about trees clapping their hands, which I was sure the SAB would mark as absurd, but for some reason it's left without note.

Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not (Isaiah 54)

Isaiah chapter 54 doesn't have a lot of notes, but it's still quite interesting. A large portion of this chapter is addressed to barren women. The SAB has a page about What the Bible says about barren women which is not quite complete, as it doesn't include the passages about specific barren women (oh, it's on a separate page where it notes it's always women and never men, but Sarah, Rachel, and Hannah's husbands all had children with other women), all of whom I happen to have covered already. It's not a big deal, though, because all of those women were temporarily barren, as God eventually gives each of them a son (never a daughter). I might as well talk about the cultural significance of barrenness, because it's important to understand. In ancient Israel, women were primarily valued as a vessel for giving men sons so they can have an inheritance to pass on. That's unfortunately rather misogynistic, but it's also worth noting that none of the husbands of barren women divorce them; I don't know if it simply wasn't grounds for divorce (although my understanding is that divorce was pretty easy for men in that culture) or if those men just loved their wives for who they were and not just the children they could bring. Anyway, many of these verses tell barren women that they are better off than women who bare children, which is certainly a cultural reversal. Some, like the one here in Isaiah, say that even though they are barren, they will somehow be mothers. It's not clear to me what the significance of this claim is; perhaps somehow they will raise the offspring of other women. In the Luke passage, Jesus is simply prophesying that a time is coming when women with children will have a difficult time.

I already answered What is God's name? in Isaiah 42.

By whose stripes ye were healed (Isaiah 53)

So, as I said in my last post, Isaiah chapter 53 is considered by most Christians to be a prophecy of Jesus's death. (It is considered by many Jews to be a prophecy of the Holocaust, and I don't want to diminish that, because it's a very reasonable interpretation; the Holocaust was unimaginably horrible and the Jews of Europe paid a tremendous price for fascist antisemitism. I can definitely see that interpretation, and even the possibility--as I have said elsewhere--that this is a prophecy about two completely separate things. However, I'm going to focus on how this fits Jesus's death.)

Verse three says:

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

This is fulfilled in how Jesus was eventually rejected by his own people and sent to be crucified:

Mark 15:12 And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews? 13 And they cried out again, Crucify him. 14 Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him.

Verses four through six talk about how Jesus died for the sin of the world, as summed up in 1 Peter 2:24 "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." Perhaps Peter is actually quoting Isaiah 53:5 here.

4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Verses seven and eight:

7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

This is quoted in Acts chapter eight:

Acts 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. 32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: 33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Verse nine:

And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

This is prophetic of Jesus's burial, as he died between two thieves but was laid in the tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea:

Matthew 27:57 When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple: 58 He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. 59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

The last three verses are reemphasizing that all that Jesus suffered was so he could be a sin offering:

10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

As Paul says:

Ephesians 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

So all of that (and probably more) is why Christians believe this passage is about Jesus.

How beautiful are thy feet (Isaiah 52)

Isaiah chapter 52 is a short chapter, but it has a few verses that really belong with the next chapter, which is a controversial prophecy. The SAB calls this chapter boring, and indeed, there's not a lot going on here. Verse one says "henceforth" no uncircumcised people will come to Jerusalem, which the SAB notes is not true if you take henceforth to mean from the time of the writing of the prophecy; however, that may not be what it means. It may be referring to a time in the future, or perhaps even "uncircumcised" is poetic, meaning something more akin to the other term here, "unclean". Verse seven talks about "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings," which the SAB calls absurd, but clearly this is poetic, implying that the good tidings are what make the feet beautiful, not any actual physical characteristics of the feet. Verse ten is also marked as absurd, but I'm not at all sure why; I'm not sure what this verse really means, but it's clearly poetic as well, as really most of this chapter is. (I don't think watchmen will really be singing, which seems like a funnier picture to me than God's arm.)

Verses 13-15 really belong with the next chapter's narrative, which I'll deal with in my next post, but suffice it to say that Christians take this passage to be prophetic of the day of Jesus's death. Verse 14 talks about a person more beaten up than just about anybody, and Jesus was scourged and beaten in the face by soldiers. Jews believe this prophecy is about the Jewish people, many particularly the Holocaust. I'll perhaps discuss both of these views next time.

Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed (Isaiah 51)

Isaiah chapter 51 has a few notes of interest and there may be some things that I noticed myself when I read it. The majority of the SAB notes are absurdity. Verse one has some interesting imagery of Israel being hewn from a rock and "digged" from a pit that I guess does sound strange, and I'm not at all sure what the meaning may be. There is also the supposed absurdity in berse nine of God defeating "Rahab" (some sort of sea monster) and "the dragon" (almost certainly not the meaning of the Hebrew word as I discussed in Isaiah chapter 27); I don't know whether we're intended to take this literally, or if it's just a poetic way of talking about God's power.

The SAB marks verse six with violence, injustice, and science, which I find a little strange. I mean, science tells us that the earth won't last forever, and that has nothing to do with God being cruel, but rather the sun will either go supernova or burn out, and either way, the earth will either be destroyed or not fit for supporting life. I suppose we're meant to take this as an act of God sometime before the death of our sun, but even so, it's inevitable. The SAB asks What is God's name? which I answered in Isaiah chapter 42.

The thing I found interesting in this chapter was the comparison of verses eight and 17. God says in the former, "but my righteousness shall be for ever, and my salvation from generation to generation." In the latter, we hear, "Awake, awake, stand up, O Jerusalem, which hast drunk at the hand of the LORD the cup of his fury; thou hast drunken the dregs of the cup of trembling, and wrung them out." Do you see it? God's fury is limited, because Jerusalem finished it all, but God's salvation is limitless. I think that's the real point of this chapter, and a recurring theme throughout the Bible.

Behold, he withholdeth the waters, and they dry up (Isaiah 50)

Isaiah chapter 50 is a very short one with very few notes. I don't really know what to make of the talk of "your mother's divorcement"; perhaps the idea here is that God divorced Israel when he sent them into exile? The next bit is definitely about the exile, where God talks about the people of Israel selling themselves into slavery to pay for their sins. Perhaps the part in verse two about him coming to call and finding nobody home is about the people turning away from God, so nobody was looking for him to save them; he emphasizes that he was always able to save them, so it's strange they didn't call. The bit about drying up waters until there are nothing but stinking fish may be a judgment that happened to the land of Israel. God also talks about making the sky black, but I don't know what this would refer to (maybe an eclipse?). Isaiah talks about his own righteousness, and how God has blessed him with wisdom and bravery in the face of adversity. I believe there are some who take verse six as a prophecy of what happened to Jesus right before his crucifixion, but it's not clear, and I don't remember it being quoted in the New Testament.

All the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him (Isaiah 49)

Isaiah chapter 49 doesn't have a lot of notes, but let's see what's there. Mostly, there's a lot of verses marked absurd, and as is often the case, it's not really clear to me what's supposed to be absurd about them. The first two verses are marked, and it may be because Isaiah speaks to "islands", but as I said previously when this happened, this just means Isaiah is addressing the inhabitants of island nations. Verse two talks about Isaiah's mouth being like a sword; this sort of imagery is used throughout the Bible as a way of saying that in their own way, words can cut. In verse 16, God says he has engraved Israel on the palm of his hand, and I suppose this sounds absurd, but seeing as God doesn't have physical hands, I believe it's a figure of speech to say that God is always looking out for Israel, and keeps them in his mind constantly. Verse 23 talks about kings being "nursing fathers" which is definitely odd imagery, but I think the point is that Israel is going to be provided for. This verse also talks about kings and queens licking dust off of Israel's feet, which I assume is just saying that even the leaders of foreign nations will be humbled before Israel.

Going back to verse six, God says that even the Gentiles will be blessed through Israel because God will give them a "light" for salvation to all the earth. Of course, a Christian is going to assume that the "light" is Jesus, but whatever it is, this is a recurring theme going back to Abraham, that the descendants of Abraham will bring a blessing to the world. Verse seven talks about "the Holy One of Israel", who is going to be rejected by the nation, but people will worship him, once again very Jesus-like imagery. The name "Sinim" in verse twelve appears nowhere else, so nobody knows what it refers to. In verse 14, Israel says that God has forsaken them, but the next few verses assure that this could never happen (including the verse about Israel being engraved on God's palm).

The final verse is marked for harsh language, injustice, and intolerance. It is pretty harsh, but this is talking about nations that oppress Israel, so there's an understanding that they are evil.

I am the first and the last (Isaiah 48)

Isaiah chapter 48 once again has a lot to say about idolatry and false gods. The chapter opens addressing the nation of Israel as the people "which swear by the name of the LORD," provoking the SAB to ask, Is it OK to swear? which I answered in Genesis chapter 21, where I said the real issue isn't whether oaths are okay, but rather whether you are being sincere. God emphasizes here that unlike false gods, he is able to tell people what will come to pass in the future, and he does so specifically so that people can't say, "My idol told me." Closing off this section, God refers to himself as, "I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." This provokes the SAB to ask Who is the first and the last?, which is not really a contradiction, because Jesus is God; once again, it's a Trinity issue, and you could say this of the Holy Ghost as well, even though the Bible doesn't.

The SAB has a couple issues with verse 13, "Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together." Apparently it's unscientific and absurd. I think you have to understand what is being said here. Saying "laid the foundation of the earth" is saying God is the creator. Saying "my right hand hath spanned the heavens" is just saying God is bigger than you can imagine. The last little bit is just implying that God is also in complete control of the universe. Verse 14 is marked as cruel and unjust, but I don't think "his arm shall be on the Chaldeans" implies violence; I think it's about control (which I suppose could still be considered unjust, but God's in control of everything and that's just the way it is). Verse 19 is marked absurd, and there's definitely something to be said about this. This really sounds like God is saying the promise he made to Abraham has already been fulfilled in the time frame of this chapter, but whether it's pre- or post-exile, the idea of the Jews being "like sand" (i.e., virtually uncountable) is something I don't think has ever been fulfilled. Some have suggested that this promise is fulfilled in the sum total of all adherents to Abrahamic religions, but that can't be the case for this time frame, so maybe absurd, but I don't know the reason it's marked that way, as is so often the case. Verse 21 is also marked absurd, but that's just a call back to the miracle in Exodus 17, as the SAB itself notes.

His arm shall be on the Chaldeans (Isaiah 47)

Isaiah chapter 47 has a lot of symbolic language, but it's not clear (to me at least) what the level of symbolism is. There's a lot of talk in the beginning addressed to the "virgin daughter of Babylon," which could mean Babylon as a whole, or perhaps the women of the conquered empire of Babylon, or maybe even the queen or a princess of Babylon. The SAB marks verses two and three for "Sex" because it talks about her nakedness, but once again (especially if it's referring to the nation) this could be simply symbolic of the shame of being conquered, although if it's referring to actual women, it could be literal.

Verse one mentions Chaldeans, which is worth a moment of reflection. (This name hasn't come up prominently in anything I've covered except tangentially in the fact that Abraham may have been a Chaldean, as he came from Ur, see Genesis chapter eleven.) The thing is, "Chaldeans" can refer to four different groups of people, which all have some overlap. 1) People who live in the lower Tigris and Euphrates region, 2) various subjects of the Babylonian Empire, 3) people trained in the art of divination (this comes up mostly in Daniel), and 4) a specific ethnic group from the region in (1). These are used pretty interchangeably. Anyway, it's not clear which sense of the word is being used here, as there's stuff in the chapter alluding to all of them, but I thought it was worth discussing.

Verses 13 and 14 are marked for injustice, intolerance, and cruelty, and they come at the end of a larger discussion of Babylon's arrogance and reliance on sorcerers of various sorts. I suppose you could say the SAB has a point here, but the point Isaiah is trying to make is that the Babylonians themselves were cruel, and didn't rely on God, and at least the former is something skeptics should understand. I think the language here about "the fire shall burn them" is likely not meant to be literal, but simply is using fire as a metaphor for the level of destruction that would come upon Babylon. See this post for general reflection on the topic of people being burned to death in the Bible.

Turn ye not unto idols (Isaiah 46)

Isaiah chapter 46 is a short one, pretty much all about idolatry. God points out that when you make an idol, it becomes a literal burden, because you or your pack animals have to carry around this hunk of metal, but a hunk of metal can't answer prayers. On the other hand not only can the God of Israel answer prayers, but in times of weakness, he carries you. Speaking briefly about "the man that executeth my counsel from a far country" he's probably referring to Cyrus again. The SAB asks How many gods are there? which I answered in Exodus chapter twelve.

Even those did Cyrus king of Persia bring forth (Isaiah 45)

Isaiah chapter 45 is mainly a message to King Cyrus, and opens by calling him "anointed one". Yes, as the SAB notes, this is "messiah", but this isn't a challenge to Jesus's status as Messiah; there simply happen to be many in the Bible who have such a title, as many had been anointed to serve God in a special way. (Really, if you look back, the priests were anointed, and so were all kings, including Saul, and it's sort of implied that even Abimelech was anointed in Judges nine.) Anyway, God talks about all the things he's doing for Cyrus, including naming him in this prophetic book that was supposedly written a long time before Cyrus was even born.

God says that he is the only God, prompting the SAB to ask How many gods are there?, which I answered in Exodus chapter twelve. God says he creates everything, including evil, prompting the question Is God the creator of evil? which I pretty much addressed in Isaiah chapter 31, but that was technically a different page, so I should expand here. Actually, it's surprisingly simple "yes", as I don't think either of the verses in the "no" section are saying that. I mean, just because evil doesn't dwell with God doesn't mean he can't create it on earth. It presents a big theological issue, however, because those who follow the God of the Bible believe he is thoroughly good, so how can a good God create evil, right? I've said before that such questions are really out of the scope of this blog's purpose, but when I came to this before, I felt it should be addressed nonetheless, so I examined it elsewhere.

In verse twelve, God says, "I made the earth with my hands, and stretched out the heavens." The SAB marks this with absurdity and science, but I'm not sure why. All it's really saying is that God is the creator of the universe, which is pretty basic theology, and there's nothing really unscientific here. If it's the stretching that's the issue, science says that the universe is expanding, so there is a very real sense in which the heavens are "stretched out".

Does God help in times of need? the SAB asks, which I answered in 1Samuel chapter eight. In verse 22, God says, "Look unto me, and be ye saved," which prompts the SAB to bring up the topic of salvation. This is a big subject to delve into, and some day I hope to make a post about that page, but for here, let it suffice to say this is about being saved from enemies, not eternal salvation. The SAB asks Is it okay to swear?, which I answered in Genesis chapter 21, where my answer was that yes, you can swear, but you need to be sincere.

The Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus (Isaiah 44)

Isaiah chapter 44 has some interesting things to say about idolatry and generally a very pleasant chapter. God talks about the restoration of Israel, calling it "Jeshurun" which is sort of a nickname (I don't know why it's spelled without the h here in the KJV, because it's always spelled the same in Hebrew); it means something like "upright". The Lord talks about how he is the only God, which prompts the SAB to ask "How many gods are there?" which I addressed in Exodus chapter twelve.

There's a big section in the middle making fun of idolatry. It talks about a metalsmith working so hard he gets tired from making an idol. It also tells a story about a man who cuts down a tree, burns part of it for heat, burns part of it for cooking, and then he takes the leftover wood and fashions an idol and worships it. I'm pretty sure this is intended to be ironic, in case you missed it.

The SAB asks who created heaven and earth, which I answered in John chapter one (it was both Jesus and the Father). There's also a lot of stuff marked absurd, but I don't know what to say about it. Cyrus was God's "shepherd" because he helped the Israelites return to their land.

All things are become new (Isaiah 43)

Isaiah chapter 43 seemed pretty simple when I gave it a read through, but the SAB has a lot of notes, so let's see what's up.

First of all, in verse two, God says that the Israelites will walk through fire without getting burned, which the SAB calls absurd. Of course it's absurd, because it's describing a miracle, and perhaps it's referring to the event in Daniel chapter three where three Jewish men are thrown into a furnace but remain unharmed. It could be a more general statement about protection from fire, but I also think it could be a metaphor for protection from trouble during difficult times, which Israel definitely goes through before, during, and after the exile period.

In verses three and four, God talks about how Egypt, Ethiopia (a.k.a. Cush), and Seba were given as a "ransom" for Israel, which the SAB assumes means that these nations were sacrificed on Israel's behalf. I don't know if there's some historical context suggesting this that I'm missing, but it seems to me this could be referring back to the Exodus, when Israel was freed from slavery in Egypt (at which time Cush and Seba may have been united with Egypt, as they're all in the same general area), and Egypt suffered as a result.

The SAB asks "How many gods are there?" which I addressed at length in Exodus chapter twelve, where the answer was complicated. Verse eleven says, "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." This provokes the SAB to ask about Jesus, but once again, I say it's a Trinity thing, and Jesus is the Lord, for all intents and purposes.

Verse 19 provokes the SAB to ask, What's new? because Ecclesiastes says nothing is new. I think there are two ways to look at the claim in Ecclesiastes, and both are correct. First of all, there was nothing "new" at the time Ecclesiastes was written, but all of these other verses were about times afterwards. Secondly, I think it's fair to say that there's a lot of hyperbolic language in Ecclesiastes, and this is some of it; there are always new things. New people being born, new words being said, new buildings being built, but there's also a sense in which these are not new because they are similar to things that have come before, and that's the point. So the answer to "What's new?" depends on the sense in which you are asking.

I talked about mythological beasts in Isaiah chapter eleven, and talked about whether God gets tired in Isaiah chapter 40.

This is my name for ever (Isaiah 42)

Isaiah chapter 42 doesn't have a lot of notes in the SAB, and I don't think I have much to say about it. There's some odd imagery here, so let me see if I can sum it up. There is a lot more talk about God's servant here, and it's said he will judge the Gentiles, restore sight to the blind, and release captives from prison. It talks about God going to war and destroying...something? Perhaps the unrighteous? It talks about the shame of those that trust in idols, and seems to be calling them blind and deaf. It also however says the servant is blind and deaf, and that the people who receive his message will not see or hear it. It talks about how Israel has been plundered and has fallen in a hole, amd how this is because they were disobedient to God.

The SAB asks What is God's name? I'm going to give pretty much the same answer I gave in the case of Jesus: they all are! It just happens that all three persons of the Trinity are known by several names throughout scripture for whatever reason. Maybe it's a bit strange, but that's the way it is. In actuality, this list could be a heck of a lot longer, if you really seek the names out, although most of them are variations on "YHVH".

And thou shalt make the staves of shittim wood (Isaiah 41)

Isaiah chapter 41 is mostly nice stuff, but there are a few notes here. First of all, there are a couple verses marked as absurd, both having to do with "islands"; I think it's intended to be understood that these are referring to the inhabitants of said islands, which hopefully makes them less absurd. Whether or not there was ever a righteous person was addressed in Genesis chapter 15 where I explained that there are different types of righteousness. Verse four has God referring to himself as "the first and the last", which the SAB compares with Jesus calling himself that in Revelation; Jesus is God, so really, there's no problem with this.

In verse eight, God refers to Israel as his "servant", which the SAB notes as significant because there are prophecies about a servant in Isaiah that Christians view as being about Jesus. Now, I'll readily admit that the SAB is right about Israel being God's servant in Isaiah, however it's also true that there are passages in the Bible that have more than one layer of meaning to them. Probably the most well-known is Daniel 8:13, often referred to as "the abomination of desolation"; it was understood to have happened in the 2nd century BCE when King Antiochus Epiphanes profaned the second Temple by offering a sacrifice of a pig to Zeus during the time of the Maccabees. However, Jesus talked about "the abomination of desolation" as though it was yet to be fulfilled in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 (and possibly Luke 21:20), and Christians believe he was talking about the destruction of the second Temple in 70 CE by the Romans. All that being said, Israel could still be the servant of God in Isaiah, and at the same time, one or more of those prophecies could be also referring to Jesus.

So God says that he will protect Israel, and that all who try to attack Israel will be destroyed. The SAB marks this as unjust, but I think there are a couple things to consider; this is about protection from attack, and I think it's clear from the larger context of the book (and history) that this is conditional based on Israel being good. God also promises to help the poor and needy, making streams and planting trees. I just wanted to take a side note here about the "shittah tree"; this word appears nowhere else in the Bible, although the plural "shittim" shows up several times. This is not a translation, but the KJV editors having no idea what this tree is and just transliterating the Hebrew word; modern translations have decided that this is the acacia. (See also "gopher wood" in Genesis six.) God challenges the gods of other nations to predict the future the way he does to prove they are gods, and scoffs at their lack of power. He talks about bringing someone powerful from the north, but I don't know what this prophecy is about; it may be Cyrus.

And he rested on the seventh day (Isaiah 40)

Isaiah chapter 40 is supposedly (as the SAB notes) the beginning of "Deutero-Isaiah", under the scholarly assumption that the book of Isaiah was written by three authors. It's interesting to me to hear about this, as I had heard the theory of two Isaiah authors, but not three. The links given in the note outline this theory, but don't really get into the nitty-gritty of the details, however it's clear that the latter chapters of Isaiah talk about the exile and post-exile periods in a way that people take to suggest they are not predictive prophecy, but contemporary writing. I don't really have much of an opinion on this subject, although certainly there are people who feel strongly about it. Some Christians have noted that Jesus quotes from both the early and latter part of this book, and attributes both parts to Isaiah, but I don't think that's conclusive, as it makes sense that Jesus would refer to it as it is known, otherwise people would be confused. Maybe I'll revisit this topic later.

The SAB takes issue with verse three for the reason that in various places in the New Testament, it's taken as a Messianic prophecy, yet there's no real indication that it was considered so before John the Baptist. This is actually an interesting thing about the way the New Testament deals with Messianic prophecy that I think Christians need to be aware of: there's a lot of claims of fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus, but many of these prophecies are passages from the Old Testament that nobody considered to be about the Messiah. A lot of prophecy in the New Testament is along the lines of, "Remember this verse from the Scriptures? Yeah, that was about Jesus." This doesn't necessarily mean it's not real fulfillment of prophecy, but there's not a lot in the New Testament that's particularly impressive to an educated Jew. There are a lot of prophecies that are clearly Messianic that Jesus did not fulfill, and while the standard explanation is that Jesus will fulfill those at his second coming, most Jews aren't going to believe it until they see it. I don't know why this didn't come up when I was covering the gospels, but maybe it did and I don't remember? Anyway, the Christian view of prophecy is quite different the Jewish view.

I answered the question of whether everyone will see the glory of God in Isaiah chapter 26 where I pointed out that there's technically a difference in the wording between these two chapters that I think is significant. I'm not really clear on why the SAB marks verse six and seven as good, other than the fact that they're truthful. The next several verses wax poetic about how amazing God is, with verse 16 shifting to talk about how foolish idols are in comparison. The SAB makes a joke about Christmas trees, but I feel like Jeremiah 10:3-4 is a better passage for this joke. Verse 22 has the semi-famous bit about how God "is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth" that people like to quote as proof that the Bible knows the earth is round. I don't think it's particularly convincing, although it's possible that this is the meaning (the same Hebrew word is used in Job to refer to the sky, which is more obviously spherical). I once again rely on the fact that the spherical nature of the earth is fairly obvious if you watch a ship disappear over the horizon or see the shadow of earth pass over the moon during an eclipse. Verse 26 talks about stars, and while the SAB is right that new stars are created and old stars die out all the time, nonetheless none of them fall, although really, given the nature of stars, it's not really that profound.

Does God ever get tired? I'm actually a little surprised I haven't covered this one. I'm going to say the answer is no, so I need to address the "yes" section, I guess. I think I can say that except for the Exodus verse, these aren't really about getting tired. Saying you're weary of something that someone does repeatedly is really a figure of speech; you're not literally tired, you're just done with it and wish it would stop. So what about Exodus 31? I think the SAB gets that it isn't about resting, or they would have included Genesis 2:2; it's that Exodus says he was "refreshed", which would seem to imply he needed refreshing. And there's nothing ambiguous in the Hebrew, I think, because not only does the KJV always translate this word as "refreshed", but most other translations do as well. Still the word has the connotation of having air blown upon someone, and one of the translation notes I read unrelated to this passage suggested it means to take a breath. I think, although I admit it's probably not going to be convincing to the SAB, that it's more of a figure of speech, still meaning in essence to take a break.

Even them the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon (Isaiah 39)

Isaiah chapter 39 is a short one, and the SAB just calls the whole thing boring. It's certainly not very exciting, but the implications of this story are important in the long term. The son of the king of Babylon comes to visit Hezekiah, he shows off all the treasures he has. Isaiah says that he's just ensured that Babylon will eventually invade and conquer Judah to take away all these treasures, and to boot, Hezekiah's sons will be slaves of Babylon. Oddly, Hezekiah doesn't pray for God to change this outcome as he did when it was his own life.