Andrew T. Abernethy. The Book of Isaiah and God’s Kingdom: A Thematic-Theological Approach. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2016. See here to purchase the book.
Andrew T. Abernethy teaches Old Testament at Wheaton College. The Book of Isaiah and God’s Kingdom
is not a verse-by-verse commentary that goes through every single
chapter of the Book of Isaiah, even though it does discuss different
scholarly views on a number of verses. Rather, the book is thematic, as
it focuses on the Book of Isaiah’s interaction with the subject of
God’s kingdom. Topics related to this include: God being king amidst
the historical turmoils Israel faced; God’s eschatological kingdom,
which God will set up on Zion but which will influence and even
encompass the entire world; God’s activity as warrior-king, in pursuit
of justice; and God the king’s agents, including the Davidic king, the
servant of the Lord in Second Isaiah, and the Lord’s messenger of Third
Isaiah. Abernethy also refers to the New Testament, albeit not in a
manner that forces Isaiah’s themes into a New Testament mold or projects
Christian concepts onto the Book of Isaiah. Rather, Abernethy shows
where there is overlap between the Book of Isaiah’s themes and what the
New Testament says about Jesus, as well as ways in which the New
Testament builds on Isaiah’s themes.
I would like to comment on four aspects of the book:
A. To his credit, Abernethy was unafraid to stray from certain
conservative Christian interpretations. Abernethy believes that Isaiah
7:14 originally related to the seventh century B.C.E. rather than
predicting a Messiah who would be born of a virgin centuries later. He
argues that the description of the newborn son in Isaiah 9:1-6 does not
portray the son as a divine being, but rather calls this newborn Davidic
king “mighty God” to highlight God’s might in the seventh century
B.C.E. Although Jesus applies Isaiah 61:1 to himself in Luke 4:18,
Abernethy disputes the scholarly idea that the messenger of Isaiah 61 is
portrayed as a prophesied Davidic king; rather, he maintains that the
messenger is a prophet, speaking about God’s restoration of Israel when
the Persians were ruling it. In these cases, and more, Abernethy
judiciously evaluates scholarly views, noting their strengths and
weaknesses, while defending his own view. Some chapters in this book
were better than others, but Abernethy’s surveys of different
interpretations made this book especially interesting.
B. Abernethy does attempt to connect the Book of Isaiah with the New
Testament. Although he says that Isaiah 7:14 originally applied to a
child in the seventh century B.C.E., he states that the Gospel of
Matthew applies that verse to Jesus to argue that, as God was with
Israel in the seventh century B.C.E., so likewise is God with Israel in
the first century C.E. Abernethy notes that God in Isaiah 59:15-17
wears the same sort of armor that Christians are exhorted to wear in
Ephesians 6:14-17; reading these texts together, Abernethy concludes
that Ephesians 6:14-17 is encouraging Christians to join God in God’s
work of defeating oppression (in the case of Ephesians 6:14-17,
supernatural oppression). On pages 197-198, Abernethy compares the
story of Jesus with the larger story in the Book of Isaiah: both discuss
God rebuilding Israel on a righteous or repentant remnant, and both
posit a role for Israel in God’s plan to renew creation and bring
Gentiles to God-self. This last discussion would have been stronger had
Abernethy interacted with the theme of Israel’s return from exile in
the New Testament, since (as Abernethy knows) Israel’s restoration from
exile is highly significant to God’s purposes in the Book of Isaiah.
On one occasion, in discussing the Servant of the Lord in Second
Isaiah, Abernethy appears open to the view that the Servant was an ideal
figure, someone Israel in exile hoped would come. That would open the
door to Jesus being the expected Servant of the Lord, rather than the
Servant being some historical figure in the sixth century B.C.E. But
does such a view do justice to the context of Second Isaiah? Even
Abernethy seems to acknowledge that the Servant related, in some manner,
to the amelioration of Israel’s exile, presumably (albeit not
necessarily) her exile in Babylon. How would an ideal figure accomplish
this? How would that be relevant to Jesus? I am not saying a
connection between Jesus and the themes of Second Isaiah is impossible,
but, if one believes in such a connection, it should be explained.
C. Overall, Abernethy treats First Isaiah (Isaiah 1-39) as relating
to the seventh century B.C.E.: God will deliver Judah from the Assyrians
and establish a Davidic kingship, along with eschatological paradise,
in the aftermath of the Assyrians’ defeat. Second Isaiah (Isaiah 40-55)
and the Servant in that section of the Book of Isaiah, for Abernethy,
pertain to God delivering Israel from Babylonian exile. And Third
Isaiah (Isaiah 56-66), along with the messenger of that book, concerns
God’s imminent judgment of evildoers and vindication of the righteous,
within the context of Persia’s subjugation of post-exilic Judah.
One can ask: Is the Book of Isaiah a collection of frustrated,
unfulfilled eschatological hopes and dreams? Obviously, writers,
redactors, and editors of the Book of Isaiah did not think so, for they
continued to see themes in the book as still relevant, even amidst new
historical situations. The writer of Second Isaiah, for instance,
arguably observed themes about Israel’s deliverance from Assyria and
applied the theme of deliverance to Israel’s redemption from Babylonian
exile. What was their theological rationale for this, though? Would
not the unfulfillment of certain prophecies in First Isaiah disqualify
First Isaiah’s divine authority, in light of Deuteronomy 18:21-22?
Abernethy in this book never devotes a section or an explicit
discussion to this topic, yet he does say things that are relevant to
it. Sometimes, he prefers to look at the book thematically or generally
while bypassing thorny historical questions: he says that the Book of
Isaiah affirms that God was Israel’s deliverer from the Assyrians, the
Babylonians, and the Persians, and will continue to be Israel’s
deliverer. That may coincide with the view of those who put the Book of
Isaiah together, continued to see relevance in its parts, and canonized
it. Still, such an approach dodges the problem that sections of Isaiah
seemed to expect a near eschatological divine intervention that
historically failed to take place.
The closest Abernethy gets to resolving this problem is when he
appears to imply that God changed God’s strategies. For instance, God
hoped that God’s plans in First Isaiah would result in a righteous
people and a righteous Davidic king, but they did not, so God in
Israel’s exile appealed to Israel with the Suffering Servant. Yet, for
Abernethy, God did not abandon God’s plan for a righteous Davidic king
to rule God’s eschatological kingdom, for that would remain on the
table; it would just come later. Convincing or not, Abernethy deserves
credit for his attempt to balance the Book of Isaiah’s historical
meanings and their possible trans-historical (i.e., canonical) meanings,
and what he says is thought-provoking.
D. Abernethy’s discussion of social justice in Isaiah 58 was
especially good. According to Abernethy, Isaiah 58 exhorted wealthy
landowners to free the indebted, including slaves, while also providing
the newly freed people with resources to get, and stay, on their feet.
That should be the goal of charity for the poor, in my opinion.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My review is honest!