Posts
On page 131 of Messianism Within the Scriptural Scrolls of Isaiah, Randall Heskett states the following:
“[Isaiah] 11:11-16 reflects the exact style and order of the fifth century oracle in 62:10-12. The way in which the editors have linked these promises of salvation to the nations in 11:10-12, with 11:1-9, shows that the rule of this king now extends to the whole earth (contra Wegner). For if one could prove that vv. 1-9 were pre-exilic (though this is not likely), vv. 10-12 shape vv. 1-9 by a response to the exile, using some elements that are part of (post-exilic) messianism. For example, vv. 10-11 claim that all nations will seek “the stump of Jesse,” the exiles will return from foreign nations and all of Israel’s enemies will be defeated.”
But these messianic oracles refer to Assyria. Wouldn’t that make sense in the time that Assyria was a major power and threat to Judah: the eighth century B.C.E., Judah’s pre-exilic period? I think Isaiah was predicting that Assyria would really decimate Judah and take exiles, but that God would restore Judah—her people and her weakened monarchy (the stump)—after his judgment and purification of her. God would rebuild Judah from a remnant and returning exiles, and Judah and Ephraim would then be a light to the nations. Why would Assyria be a major culprit in a post-exilic writing? In such a case, would Assyria be a symbol for another nation—one that was powerful in the post-exilic period? In my opinion, it’s easier to say that Assyria was Assyria in the eighth century B.C.E. Isaiah expected Assyria to do certain things, but these things did not happen, for God delivered Jerusalem out of Assyria’s hands. In a sense, God changed his mind. And yet, in a way that I do not understand, God’s plan to preserve a remnant remained (Isaiah 37:32).
My problem with my interpretation is this: had Judah experienced God’s judgment at the hands of the Assyrians, God would have then rebuilt the nation and established the paradise described in Isaiah 2 and 11; but Hezekiah trusted in God, and so the LORD delivered Judah from the Assyrians, and there was thus no paradise. So, in my scenario, things would have turned out better for Judah and the world had Hezekiah not trusted in God. Does that sound right?
On page 112, Randall talks about the different uses of “Immanuel” (“God with us”) in Isaiah 8. In vv 6-8, Immanuel is associated with God’s judgment against Judah, at the hands of the king of Assyria. (A professor of mine once said that this teaches there’s no cheap grace: God being with us can entail purification and judgment for God’s people, not just goodies.) In vv 9-10, however, Immanuel is interpreted in terms of God saving Judah from her enemies. Randall states on pages 111-112:
“Even if vv. 9-10 originally spoke of the time of Assyrian domination, the later editing in 8:19-22 underscores that God’s judgment was ultimately achieved in 587 B.C.E., thus temporarily setting YHWH’s protection in abeyance. In the aftermath of Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion, Judah would have understood vv. 6-8 as having been fulfilled, and 8:9-10 would now present ‘God with us’ as a sign of future salvation.”
But how could the editors of Isaiah understand Isaiah 8:6-8 in light of Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest and exile of the Jews in 587 B.C.E., when those verses clearly refer to Assyria, not Babylon? My thought is that the editors weren’t particularly strict when it came to the identity of the conquering nation. I vaguely recall seeing rabbinic writings that apply biblical writings about Jerusalem’s destruction in 587 B.C.E. to her destruction in 70 C.E., even though the Babylonians did the first destruction, whereas the Romans did the second one.
Moreover, in my weekly quiet time on II Kings, as I read the Jewish Encyclopedia‘s articles on Nebuchadnezzar and Nebuzaradan, I saw that rabbinic literature—in a sense—tended to conflate the Assyrians with the Babylonians. This article on Nebuchadnezzar cites rabbinic sources in which Nebuchadnezzar is depicted as the son-in-law of Sennacherib of Assyria, “with whom he took part in the expedition of the Assyrians against Hezekiah”. According to rabbinic literature, Nebuzaradan, too, ”witnessed Sennacherib’s defeat before the walls of Jerusalem” (see here). Then there’s the Book of Judith, which calls Nebuchadnezzar the king of Assyria.
So interpreters may have been more fluid than I might initially suspect when it came to the identity of Israel’s enemy. Even if a prophecy applied to Assyria, later editors could read it in light of Babylon.
