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.