John D.W. Watts, Isaiah 1-33, Word
Commentary Vol. 24, Dallas: Word Books, 1985.
Scene 5:
In God’s Courtroom (6:1–13)
Bibliography
Cazelles, H. “La vocation d’Isaie (ch 6) et les rites royaux.” Homenaje a Juan Prado. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificios, 1975. 89–108. Engnell, I. The Call of Isaiah. UUÅ 11/4. Uppsala: Lundequistska, 1949. Evans, C. A. “The Text of Isaiah 6:9–10.” ZAW 94 (1982) 415. ———. Isaiah 6:9–10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation. Diss., Claremont, 1983. Jenni, E. “Jesajas Berufung in der neueren Forschung.” TZ 15 (1959) 321–39. Knierim, R. “The Vocation of Isaiah.” VT 18 (1968) 47–68. Liebreich, L. J. “The Position of Chapter Six in the Book of Isaiah.” HUCA 25 (1954) 37–40. Metzger, W. “Der Horizont der Gnade in der Berufungsvision Jesajas.” ZAW 93 (1981) 281–84. Milgrom, J. “Did Isaiah Prophesy during the Reign of Uzziah?” VT 14 (1964) 164–82. Montagnini, F. “La vocazione di Isaia.” BeO 6 (1964) 163–72. Müller, H. P. “Glauben und Bleiben. Zur Denkschrift Jesajas 6:1–8:16.” VTSup 26. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974. 25–54. Steck, O. H. “Bemerkungen zu Jesaja 6.” BZ 16 (1972) 188–206. Steinmetz, D.C. “John Calvin on Isaiah 6: A Problem in the History of Exegesis.” Int 36 (1982) 156–70. Tsevat, M. “ישעיהו (Isa 6).” FS Z. Shazar. Ed. B. A. Luria. Jerusalem: Kirjath Sepher, 1973. 161–72. Whitley, C. F. “The Call and Mission of Isaiah.” JNES 18 (1959) 38–48. Zeron A. “Die Anmassung des Königs Usia im Lichte von Jesajas Berufung: zu 2 Chr. 26:16–22 und Jes. 6:1ff.” TZ 33 (1977) 65–68.
Prophetic Call Narratives:
Crabtree, T. T. “The Prophet’s Call—A Dialogue with God.” SWJT 4 (1961) 33–35. Habel, N. “The Form and Significance of Call Narratives.” ZAW 77 (1965) 297–323. Tidwell, N. L. A. “wā˒ōmār (Zech 3:5) and the Genre of Zechariah’s Fourth Vision.” JBL 94 (1975) 343–55.
The Text of 6:13:
Ahlstrom, G. W. “Isaiah VI 13.” JSS 19 (1974) 169–72. Brownlee, W. H. “The Text of Isaiah 6:13 in the Light of DSIa” VT I (1951) 296–98. Hvidberg, F. “The Masseba and the Holy Seed.” NorTT 56 (1955) 97–99. Iwry, S. “Massebah and Bamah in 1Q. Isaiah A 6:13.” JBL 76 (1957) 225–32. Sawyer, J. “The Qumran Reading of Isaiah 6:13.” ASTI 3 (1964) 111–13.
Translation
Prophet:
1 (It
was) in the year of King Uzziah’s death 4+2
sitting on a
throne, 2+2
high and raised,
his robesc
filling the hall; 3
2 seraphim standing above him:a 4
six wings— 2+3
six wingsb to each.
With two he coveredc his face. 3+3+2
With two he coveredc his feet.
With two he fiew.c
3 And one calleda to another and said:a 4
“Holy! Holy! Holy!b 3+2
Yahweh of Hosts!
The fullnessc of all the earth (is) his glory!” 4
4 The foundationsa of the threshold shook 3+2+3
from the sound of the calling
asb the hall began to be filled with smoke.
5 So I said: “Woe is me, 2+2
thata I (am) a man of unclean lips, 5
and I dwell in the midst of people of unclean lips, 4+2
that my eyes have seen the King, Yahweh of Hosts!” 4+2
6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me. 4+2+4
In his hand (was) a smooth stonea
bhe had taken with tongs from on the altar.
7 Then he made it touch my lips and said 3+4
“Behold this has touched your lips!
Your guilt has departed!2+2
Your sin has been atoned!”
8 Then I heard the voice of my Lorda saying: 4
“Whom shall I send? 2+3
Who will go for us?”b
So I said: “Here I am! Send me!” 3
9 Then he said: “Go! 2+3
and you shall say to this people:
‘Listen constantly!a But do not understand! 2+2
Look regularly!a But do not know!’ 2+2
10 a Dull the heart of this people! 3+3+2
Make its ears heavy
and shut its eyes,a
lest it see with its eyes, 3+2
hear with its ears,
and its heartb understand 3+2
and it may turn and will have healing.”
11 Then I said: “How long, my Lord?” 3
Then he said: 1
“Until there be desolation: 4
Cities without inhabitant, 3+3+3
buildings without a person,
and the fields are ruineda—a desolation.”
12 Whena Yahweh shall have removed humankind 3+4
and the abandoned areab in the land’s core (shall have become) great,
13 if (perchance there be) yet in it a tenth-part, 3+3
if it turn, will it be for burning?a
Yahweh:
Like the terebinth or like the oak of an asherah,b 3+3+3
cast down,c (becomes) a monument of a highplaced—
the seed of the holye (will be) its monument.
Notes
1.a. DSSIsa omits ו but the use of waw consecutive after a temporal phrase is sound Masoretic grammar (Br. Synt. § 123).
1.b. Many mss read יהוה “Yahweh” for אדני “Lord.” Wildberger thinks a tendency to substitute אדני for יהנה can be found in many places in Isaiah. However, note the distinctive use of אדני by Amos in vision texts combined with יהוה (7:1, 2, 4, 5; 8:1, 3, 11; 9:5, 8) and alone (7:3; 9:1). The use of אדני appears to have a special intention in these visions.
1.c. LXX καὶ πλήρης ὸ οἶκος τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ “The house (was) full of his glory” avoids reference to ושׁוליו “his train” or “skirts” (BDB, 1062). This is usually seen as the tendency of the LXX translator to correct what he considers flagrant anthropomorphism. It can hardly be considered witness to a different original text. The LXX translator had a special love for δόξα (cf. L. H. Brockington, “The Greek Translator of Isaiah and His Interest in ΔΟΞΑ,” VT I (1951) 23–32). שוליו means “lower extremities,” i.e., from waist to feet. They were undoubtedly thought of as clothed or covered by a robe except the feet (G. R. Driver, NE Studies, FS W. F. Albright [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1971], 90).
2.a. LXX κύκλῳ αὐτοῦ “around him” for ממעל לו “from above him.” The translator appears to object to the seraphim standing above the Lord. But MT is consistent. See יעופף “he flew” at the end of the verse. They are pictured as flying above the throne.
2.b. DSSIsa does not repeat שש כנפים “six wings,” probably due to haplography. Repetition emphasizes the distributive expression (Br. Synt. § 87).
2.c. Each of these imperfects speaks of characteristic or customary action (Watts, Syntax, 60).
3.a. DSSIsa reads וקראים “and they were calling” for וקרא “and one called” and omits ואמר “and said.” MT sustains the line of verbs in sg and is correct. DSSIsa clearly thinks of several seraphim. MT might be understood to think of only two. (Cf. Engnell, Call of Isaiah, 34 and 246.)
3.b. DSSIsa has קדוש “holy” only two times which has occasioned a debate (cf. N. Walker, “Origin of the Thrice-Holy,” NTS 5 (1958/59) 132–33; “Disagion Versus Trisagion,” NTS 7 (1960/61) 170–71; B. M. Leiser, “The Trisagion,” NTS 6 (1959/60) 261–63; D. Flusser, Immanuel3 (1973) 37–43) Wildberger correctly notes that the thrice-holy formula is consistent with liturgical usage in Ps 99; Jer 7:4; 22:29; Ezek 21:32.
3.c. LXX πλήρης “fullness” appears to have translated מלאה (i.e., an abs fem form rather than MT’s mast constr). Vg follows LXX with plena, Tg. מליא, Syr. dƒmaljâ which are all in line with Pss 33:5: 72:19; 104:24. But Wildberger has correctly noted Ps 24:1 ארץ ומלואה and Deut 33:16: Pss 50:12; 89:12. The Vision uses מלא “fullness” in 8:8 and 31:4. LXX makes כל־הארץ “all the earth” the subject. MT makes מלא כל־הארץ the subject (cf. Br. Synt. § 14).
4.a. אמה usually refers to the “forearm” (CHALOT, 19) or a “cubit” measure (BDB, 52). הספים אמות has been variously translated here (Cf. R. B. Y. Scott, “the Hebrew Cubit.” JBL 77 [1958] 205–14). LXX ὑπέρθυρον refers to the upper part of the door. But the term here applies to the entire door structure, hence “foundations of the threshhold” (Leslie; Engnell, The Call of Isaiah).
4.b. The use of impf and an inverted word order suggests a circumstantial clause.
5. The translation of this verse turns on the meaning of כי (3x) and נדמיתי.
5.a. כי may mean “because,” or “that,” or an emphatic particle “indeed” or “but,” or “if, or when.” LXX translates 2x with ὅτι and once with καί. The second כי clearly introduces a reason clause. The first and third are not so bound.
5.b. נדמיתי is usually translated “I am undone” or something similar (cf. BDB, 198). LXX κατανένυγμαι “I am stupefied” or “stunned.” Syr. tawîr ˒nǎ “I am overthrown.” But Ἀ Σ θ have εσιωπησα, aorist “I am silent,” and Vg tacui. Jewish exegesis agrees and relates this to Isaiah’s silence relating to Uzziah’s wrongs (2 Chr 26:16–22); Tg. הבית “I have transgressed” (Stenning). The meaning “be silent” has now been adopted very widely (cf. L. Köhler, Kleine Lichter [Zürich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1945], 32–34;Jenni, TZ 15 [1959] 322; Eichrodt, Fohrer, Kaiser, and Wildberger. Cf. CHALOT, 72).
6.a. רצפה apparently means “a smooth stone” used for paving or used as a heated stone for cooking (BDB, 954). LXX translates ἄνθραξ “glowing charcoal,” apparently depending on Lev 16:12. But there the Heb is גחלי. MT is to be preferred (contra Wildberger and CHALOT).
6.b. Word order and tense structure indicate that the last clause is circumstantial (cf. Engnell, Call of Isaiah; Wildberger).
8.a. Many mss read יהוה “Yahweh.” See notes to v 1.
8.b. MT לנו “for us.” LXX πρὸς τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον “for this people” appears to have been drawn in from v 9 (לעם הזה) although some suggest LXX read an original לגוי “for a nation” for MT’s לנו.
9.a. The inf abs following its cognate finite verb indicates continuation of the action (cf. GKC § 113r).
10.a-a. LXX reads ἐπαχύνθη γὰρ ἡ καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου καὶ τοῖς ὠσιν αὐτῶν βαρέως ἤκουσαν καὶ τοὺς ὀψθαλμοὺς αὐτῶν ἐκάμμυσαν “for the heart of this people became dull and their ears heard with disgust (lit.., heavily) and their eyes closed,” i.e., instead of the prophet’s receiving an order to dull the hearts, the people have made themselves stubborn and unwilling. The theological problem the MT presents is eliminated by the change (cf. Wildberger).
10.b. DSSIsa בלבבו “with its heart” to conform with the other nouns. The Versions appear to follow the same pattern (cf. Eichrodt). However, MT makes sense and is the “hard reading.”
11.a. LXX reads καὶ ἡ γῆ καταλειφθήσεται ἔρημος “and the ground will be left desolate,” apparently seeing תשאר “are left” instead of MT תשאה “are ruined.” The appearance of שאו “desolation” in the previous line has caused some commentators to favor the LXX here.
12.a. The wāw continues the question. A pf tense in the protasis of a conditional clause describes a condition taken for granted (Watts, Syntax, 134).
12.b. עזובה (BDB, 737) “desolation.” CHALOT 269 identifies it as a pass. ptcp fern from עזב “abandon.” It also occurs as a proper name. LXX translates the verse: καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα μακρυνεῖ ὀ θεὸς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ οἱ καταλειφθέντες πληθυνθήσονται ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς “and by this God will remove mankind and those left in the land will be multiplied.” Engnell, (Call of Isaiah, 14) suggests that by this the harsh word of judgment has been reinterpreted to indicate salvation.
13.a. בער in the piel stem may mean to burn or to destroy (BDB, 129). CHALOT (44) has a second meaning “graze, ruin, sweep away.” Wildberger holds that Isa 3:14 and 5:5 have shown that the word means “grazed over” as when goats have eaten every blade and twig to the point that nothing is left. Hertzberg, Kaiser, and Budde (“Schranken, die Jesajas prophetischer Botschaft zu setzen sind.” ZAW 41 [1923] 167) agree. KB, Eichrodt, and Fohrer contend for the meaning “burn” as with fire.
13.b. MT אשר “which.” Iwry (JBL 76 [1957] 230) accepts the next three changes in DSSIsa and emends here to read אשרה turning the relative particle into a noun “Asherah.” This restores the meter and continues DSSIsa’s trend in giving meaning to an otherwise obscure passage. Iwry’s other emendations are unnecessary.
13.c. MT בשלכת “in falling,” a preposition with an obscure noun (BDB, 1021). DSSIsa משלכת by the change of one letter becomes a hoph ptcp “being cast down.” LXX ὅταν ἐκπέση “when it falls” seems to support MT in form. But it adds ἀπὸ τῆς θήκης αὐτῆς “from its funeral vault,” thus supporting the broader implications of DSSIsa. Read with DSSIsa.
13.d. MT בם “in them.” DSSIsa במה “high place.” One hundred mss read בה “in her.” Vg reads quae expandit ramos suos “which spread its branches.”
13.e. MT קדש “holy,” an adjective. DSSIsa הקדוש “the holy ones.”
The translation has adopted the reading of DSSIsa and Iwry’s emendation, judging them to make good sense of an otherwise obscure passage (see Comment).
Form/Structure/Setting
The chapter begins a new scene marked by a monologue, first-person narrative, and a chronological notice. The next chapter changes to a third-person account.
Chap. 6 has unity and movement. Wildberger (234) calls it a “kerygmatic unity.” It is composed of five parts: (1) vv 1–4: the Hall of the Lord, Heavenly King; (2) vv 5–7: the purging of the prophet’s sin; (3) vv 8–10: the task for “this people”; (4) v 11: how long?; (5) vv 12–13: if some survive and return, what of them? Each builds on what precedes and moves the thoughts along.
The combination of the parts is unique. The nearest parallel is the account of Micaiah’s prophecy (1 Kgs 22) which also involves kings of Israel and Judah and which also deals with the fate of Israel’s king. That passage also deals with prophecy which manipulates the one God intends to execute.
The chapter has often been named a “call narrative” (H. Graf Reventlow, Das Amt der Propheten bei Amos, FRLANT 80, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962) and interpreters wonder why it does not come at the beginning of the book as in Ezekiel (chap. 1). The chapter is not a “call narrative” (cf. Koch, The Prophets I [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983] 113). Its position in the book (cf. M. M. Kaplan, “Isaiah 6:1=11,” JBL 45 [1926] 251–59; Y. Kaufmann, Toledot ha-Emunah ha-Yisraelit [Tel-Aviv: DVIR Co., 1947] III, 206–7; J. Milgrom, VT 14 [1964] 164–82; C. P. Caspari, Commentar til de tolv foste Capitler af Propheten Jesaja [Christiania: P. T. Mailing, 1867] 240–45; S. Mowinckel, Profeten Jesaja [Oslo: Aschehoug, 1925], 16–20; I. P. Seierstad, Die Offenbarungserlebnisse der Propheten Amos, Jesaja, und Jeremia, SNVAO 2 [Oslo: Norske Videnskaps-Akademie, 1946] 43; note Wildberger’s remark (240): שלח “send” is never used of a “call”—always of a particular task and message) marks the end of the Uzziah section as the opening words clearly indicate. Its purpose is to show that the nature of God’s actions toward Israel and Judah which had emerged in Uzziah’s reign would remain the same until a complete destruction would come (i.e., over Samaria in 721 b.c.). The time clause “in the year of Uzziah’s death” points backward, making this a closing scene. There is no indication that this is the prophet’s first vision or first prophetic experience.
Three features need discussion before a detailed analysis is presented.
First-Person Speech
Accounts of prophetic vision are often told in the first person. Micaiah’s vision (1 Kgs 22:17, 19–23) is a case in point. Amos’s visions (Amos 7:1–9) are of the same type (cf. J. D. W. Watts, Vision and Prophecy in Amos [Leiden: E. J. Brill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958] 28). Zechariah’s visions (Zech 1:8–6:8) follow this pattern. Ezekiel’s visions are also told in the first person, as are Jeremiah’s. A number of these speeches do not use the prophet’s name in the immediate context.
First-person speeches are frequent in Isaiah. The majority present Yahweh speaking for himself. Some are choral passages using the first person plural. Some are indirect quotations of Israel (like 40:27b). Some have Israel as a speaker (49:1–4). Some follow a narrative about Isaiah and are naturally to be understood as his speech (8:1–4; 8:5–8; 8:11–18). But there are also firstperson speeches by unidentified speakers like 5:1–6; 21:2–22:4; 24:1; 25:1. Unidentified speakers appear in 49:5–6; 50:4–9, and 61:1–3a with basic messages on the theme of the book, while others speak in opposition, as in 61:10–11; 62:1–5, 6–7; 63:7.
The form fits the dramatic character of the book. It should be a warning against too hasty identification of either the genre, its meaning, or the identity of the speaker. Traditionally the speaker has been identified with Isaiah whose name is called in the following chapters. But if Isaiah is the subject of the Vision rather than its author (see Introduction), one must note that he has not so far been introduced in person (only in the superscriptions of 1:1 and 2:1). Thus the unsuspecting readers/hearers have no way to identify this speaker. In afterthought they may wonder if the mysterious and anonymous speaker was indeed identical with Isaiah the prophet who appears in the following scene.
An Authenticating Vision
The chapter has often been understood as an account of Isaiah’s call to be a prophet. W. Zimmerli, in his commentary on Ezekiel (BKAT 13 [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968] 16–21 = Hermeneia, tr. R. E. Clements [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979] 97–100), has distinguished two types of narratives related to a call. One type is found in the stories of Moses, Gideon, Saul, and Jeremiah. In it reluctance and excuses must be overcome. “Do not be afraid” is a recurrent phrase (cf. Isa 7:4).
In a second type Zimmerli found that a vision played a much greater role. The account in 1 Kgs 22:19 begins לאיתי את יהוה “I saw Yahweh.” In Isa 6 it begins ואראה “I saw.” The person is drawn into the midst of the Divine Council and observes the glory of the King. He, like the serving spirits about the King, is prepared to do the King’s will (cf. Ps 103:20–21). He becomes a part of God’s plan and his work. The telling of the vision authenticates him as God’s genuine messenger. Zimmerli goes on to draw a parallel with Paul’s vision (Acts 9:3–6; 22:6–11; 26:12–18).
F. Horst (“Die Visionsschilderungen der alttestamentlichen Propheten,” EvT 20 [1960] 198) has summarized well: “In all these cases in which the prophet is allowed to be present through visionary experience during discussions or decisions in the throneroom of God, and thus know the ‘knowledge of God,’ and thus know the ‘knowledge of the Almighty’. … he is claimed and empowered to make an unusual and overwhelming proclamation—unusual in its shocking harshness or in its great expectation.” Horst is right. Yet the biblical precedents are broader. Isa 6 stands in a tradition in which God reveals (and in some measure defends) his decisions to bring judgment.
God’s appearance to Noah (Gen 6:11–21) simply notes the conditions, warns of disaster to come, and instructs him to build the ark. God acts to save the righteous from the disaster.
God’s appearance to Abraham (Gen 18) reveals the impending judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah (vv 17–21). He cites the complaints against the cities (v 20). Then he enters into dialogue with Abraham on the theme: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked?” which culminates in the admission that he will not, if there are at least ten righteous. The question is not finally answered, but its relative validity is recognized.
Moses’ meeting with God on Sinai to discuss the covenant (Exod 32) is interrupted by the incident of the golden calf (vv 5–14). God tells Moses what has happened (vv 7–8) and announces his decision to destroy them (vv 9–10). Moses objects and intercedes for the people (vv 11–13). God agrees to postpone judgment (v 14).
Samuel’s meeting with God comes after a “man of God” had announced God’s rejection of the house of Eli (1 Sam 2:27–36). The boy Samuel hears God’s voice in the night (3:4–10). The Lord tells him of the coming judgment against Eli and his family (vv 11–14). No dialogue follows.
The Heavenly Council
The setting in the Hall of the Heavenly Council appears in several OT passages (notably 1 Kgs 22:17–23; Job 1:6–12; 2:1–6; Zech 3:1–5). These may well be related to the prophetic claim to have “stood before Yahweh” and “shared his council” (סוד). The subject has been discussed widely (see the lengthy discussion of the tradition in Wildberger 234–38 and E. C. Kingsbury, “The Prophets and the Council of Yahweh, JBL 83 [1964] 279–86”). Wildberger (237) notes that the pictures of Isaiah and Ezekiel are carried over into the Vision of the Seer of Patmos (Rev 4 and 5). (Cf. H. P. Müller “Formgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Apc. 4f,” Diss.. Heidelberg, 1963.)
Discussion concerning the genre of this chapter continues to be lively (cf. recent articles by Tidwell and Steck with full bibliographies). A consensus is forming that the chapter is a unique combination of forms. The frame of the chapter is composed of a heavenly throneroom scene (vv 1–2) which in turn is a subcategory of narratives of meetings with God (theophanies, if you will). As in 1 Kgs 22:19; Job 1:6 and 2:1; and Zech 1:8; 3:1; and 6:1–3, the scene is described in detail. The names and descriptions of the King’s servants vary. But they are always there. The reader of the Book of Isaiah will find the scene familiar. No such description is found in chaps. 1–5. But Yahweh is central in every scene while speakers mill around his room in much the same way they do here.
A second element (vv 3–4) describes the speech in the room. There is no discussion leading to a decision. This decision has already been made (cf. Knierim, VT 18 [1968] 58). The discussion and the decision have already been described in chap. 1. The seraphs support the decision with a chorus of praises for the holiness and glory of God.
A third element has the cry of woe reflect the narrator’s response. Tidwell (JBL 94 [1975] 343–55) sees this as a parallel to the protests of the “call narratives.” But v 7 takes the cry to be a confession of sin which is promptly purged. The call for a messenger and the commission are elements in other descriptions like 1 Kgs 22:2 or 22 and Job 1:12 and 2:6–7. Only in Isaiah is any other than one of the heavenly court sent on such a mission. The commission is not directed so much toward a message as toward a task. This is parallel to 2 Kgs 19:20; Job 1:12 and 2:6. It is a very unusual assignment for a divine messenger. In this, too, it is parallel to the other accounts.
The narrator intervenes for the third time—after his “woe” cry (v 5) and his volunteer’s cry (v 8b). But this is different. It contains a tone of protest like that of Abraham’s questions (Gen 18:23–25) or of Moses (Exod 32:11–19) or of Amos (7:2 and 5). This is an element from another genre altogether. The question elicits a confirmation of the judgment decision (cf. Steck, BZ 16 [1972] 195).
The narrator persists with his question (see Notes) probing the fate of the surviving and returning remnant in the land. The parallel to Gen 18:23–25 is very close. It tests the continuing effect of the ban on future generations.
The chapter has drawn upon several types of theophanic narratives to create a unique literary piece which has inner consistency and contextual integrity.
Vv 12–13 have often been judged extraneous to the core of the chapter. This may be defended if the chapter is seen as an eighth-century composition only. Within the larger unity of the fifth-century Vision (see Introduction), the verses continue the logical development to answer the inevitable “audience” question: How does that affect us?
Comment
1a The year of King Uzziah’s death. The co-regencies of Judean kings in this period make the precise date difficult to determine. Bright (HI) places it in 742 b.c. Donner puts it in 736 b.c. (IJH, 395). In the Vision of Isaiah it marks the close of events portrayed in chaps. 1–5 in which God’s fateful decision was made to destroy Israel and send its people in exile.
I saw my Lord. The Vision presents the speaker without identification. It is usually presumed that Isaiah the prophet speaks here. The assumption is based on the view that Isaiah wrote the book (or at least this part) or that the succeeding narrative and autobiographical sections (7:1–8:18) form a unity with this (Duhm calls it a Denkschrift “memoir”) and are to be dated from the eighth century. If the Vision is seen essentially as a fifth-century composition and as a unity, this may be questioned. If the reader is intended to read these as Isaiah’s words, why is he not introduced at the beginning? Also the unidentified first-person speech must be studied in light of other such speeches in Isaiah (such as 5:1–6; 21:3–4, 10; 22:4; 49:1–6; 50:4–9; 61:3; 62:1–6). One does well to reserve judgment on the issue.
Whether the account is spoken by the historical prophet or by (on behalf of) the literary prophet, its purpose is clear. It is a claim for divine authority in the task at hand. It claims to place this work with other reports from those who “stood before the Lord,” who saw God and lived.
1b The throneroom description is the first and only one in the entire Vision. It may well serve to give the background for all the rest of the scenes where God is the center of discussion and drama (such as chaps. 1–5 and 40–59).
God is clearly the Heavenly King, exalted on his throne. His glorious presence dominates the scene as his robes fill the room. ההיכל “the hall” may refer to the Temple in Jerusalem or the great heavenly hall. The word cannot settle the question, but the context favors a heavenly setting.
2 The seraphs minister to God’s every need. Such throneroom scenes regularly describe the heavenly “host” but use different words. Gen 3:24 calls them “cherubs.” They are often referred to as “messengers” 2 Kgs 22:21 calls them “spirits.” Job 1:6 calls them “sons of God” and identifies one as השׂטן “the adversary.” Ezekiel’s vision (1:5–21) sees them integrated into God’s portable throne. These six-winged creatures (IDB 1:131) occur only here in the OT. They, like the cherubs, reflect ancient Near Eastern ideas. In the Bible they are a part of descriptions of what are more generally called “angels.”
Only two wings are used to fly. Two more cover his eyes in deference to God’s glory. The remaining two cover his feet. Perhaps “feet” are here euphemisms for the genital areas as in Exod 4:25 and Isa 7:20. Kaiser relates this to the very ancient experience of relating sexuality and guilt-feeling. One may also note a prevailing oriental custom that forbids showing the soles of the feet in polite society.
3 The threefold sanctus praises the Lord for the revelation of his essential being. God is by definition “holy.” But he reveals his “holiness” by his decisions and his acts. (Cf. H. Ringgren, The Prophetical Conception of Holiness, UUÅ 12 [Uppsala: Lundequistska, 1948], 19.) The praise is directed to him as Yahweh of Hosts. This is the cult name used in the Jerusalem Temple. Yahweh had been used with worship around the ark from the beginning of Israel’s existence. Exod 3:14 and 6:2 tell of the revelation of the name to Moses. But the seraphs claim his glory to be the fullness of the entire earth. The holiness of God seems opposite to physical nature. Procksch noted that קדושׁ “holy” denotes God’s innermost nature, while כבודו “his glory” describes the appearance of his being. God is known through his work.
4–5 The praise would be fitting at any time, but the dating of the passage suggests a timely meaning here as does the shaking of the threshhold and the smoke of incense. It suggests approval of God’s decision to destroy Israel and to purge Jerusalem that was reached in chaps. 1–5 (cf. Knierim’s thesis of a decision already made, VT 18 [1968] 47–68). Wildberger correctly notes that the “woe” recognizes that the very existence of the speaker is threatened. A funeral cry may already be spoken over him.
נדמיתי has often been translated “I am lost.” This fits the context. But the word properly means “be silent.” (Zeron, TZ 33 [1977] 65–68, relates the silence to Uzziah’s leprosy.) The prophet is constrained to join the praise, but dares not. His own nature (“unclean lips”) as well as that of his people does not allow him to speak in the assembly. It is astonishing enough that he has been allowed to see the King, Yahweh of Hosts and still be alive. Hebrew tradition held that to be impossible (Exod 24:10). The prophet’s protest parallels those of Moses and Jeremiah (Tidwell).
6–7 A seraph performs the purging rite that gives the prophet his right to speak. It parallels the sacrifices which were needed to enter the Temple.
8 With the decision fixed, the Lord calls for a messenger to put it into effect (cf. 1 Kgs 22:20). The usual messenger would be one of the heavenly host, called a spirit, or a messenger (angel), or in one case the adversary. Here the prophet volunteers to go at God’s command. This is unique to call narratives, but is normal in heavenly-throneroom descriptions.
9–10 Go! and you shall say to this people. God accepts the offer and sends the volunteer. This people picks up the references in 1:3; 2:6; 3:12, 15; 5:13, 25. It will be continued exactly in 8:6 and 11. The references appear without exception to refer to Israel. It is a correct term to use for the covenant people.
Hearing-seeing-understanding-knowing. The words are part of a motif that runs through the length of the Vision from 1:3 through 42:16–20. The usual accusation is that Israel is “blind” and “deaf.” The LXX reflects this understanding of these verses as well: “You shall indeed hear, but not understand … the heart of this people became dull.” The messenger’s task is to testify to an existing tradition which prevents repentance.
The MT, however, sees the messenger playing an active part in hardening and dulling so that repentance will not take place, now that the decision to destroy has been taken. This parallels the spirit’s task in 1 Kgs 22:20–23. It is even closer to the “hardening of Pharaoh’s heart” (Exod 8:11, 28 [15, 32]; 9:7, 34). Wildberger is right in saying that this is not a one-sided action. That Israel’s heart is “hard” and that Yahweh has made it so must be spoken in dialectical balance. The message remains the same: There is no turning back. The decision has been made and will be carried out. The commission addresses the question of prophetic success or effectiveness. As evangelists to bring the nations to repentance, the eighth-century prophets, indeed the great seventh-century prophets, were remarkably unsuccessful. This commission insists that this was not their task.
The closing line in a backhanded way provides a lucid description of revelation’s normal purpose: Seeing and hearing (the vision and word of God) should lead to understanding (of their perverted and evil ways) which should cause rational beings to change and be healed. שׁוב “turn” is the usual word for repentance (cf. H. W. Wolff, “Das Thema ‘umkehr’ in der alttestamentlichen Propheten,” Gesammelte Studien Zum Alten Testament, ThB 22 [München: Kaiser, 1964] 139; and G. Saner, “Die Umkehrforderung in der Verkündigung Jesajas,” Wort-Gebot-Glaube, FS W. Eichrodt, ATANT 59 [Zürich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1970] 279–84). The issue is much more prominent in Jeremiah than it is here.
11 The prophet asks for more precise definition. How long, my Lord? The judgment is an effective curse or ban on Israel in which Yahweh has “abandoned his people” (2:6) and is “hiding his face from the house of Jacob” (8:17). The inevitable question is whether this is temporary or permanent. Is it a chastisement which is intended to eventually bring about the turning and “healing”? Or does this exclude Israel forever?
The answer is equivocal. It speaks of a total destruction of cities, houses, and fields. This may be understood to include social and political institutions that leave the land of Israel vacant and abandoned. But it does not answer the question about the people or about the possible future rehabilitation of the land. These are relevant questions to post-exilic readers or hearers.
12–13 The prophet’s second question (see Notes and Translation) asks for clarification, assumes the fulfillment of God’s judgment, but also (it is hoped) assumes the survival of a tiny remnant. It then poses the question of the future: Will the ban apply to all future generations? Will they too be banned from repentance and summarily condemned to “burn”? The word שׁוב “turn” or “return” carries a double meaning in this context. It may mean “repent,” but may also mean “return.” The latter would specifically apply to the exiles who return to Palestine.
The question has certainly raised a fundamental issue. Can the future remnant (the post-exilic Golah “exile community”) hope to return to the land and faith of their forebearers and thus reclaim their inheritance in blessing? Or will they forever be under the “ban”?
This answer also is equivocal. The good news is the parable of the trees. When the hardwoods are cut down, they play a continuing role as funeral monuments in the burial grounds of the worship areas; that is, the remnant will continue to have a significant role.
The seed of the holy (see Notes) joins the use of the term in 4:3 and eschews the returning exiles’ use of “holy ones” to refer to themselves as God’s remnant. But the concluding its monument suggests for them a role they would not enjoy. They would be a continuing reminder of the nation that was now dead and of the reason why it was destroyed. The final verse of the Vision (66:24) suggests the same gruesome role.
Explanation
Vv 1–4 give us a formal description of the stage setting for most of the Vision. It functions for the Vision of Isaiah in the same way that Rev 4 and 5:8–14 do for the Apocalypse of John. The Lord, Yahweh of Hosts, is the center around whom all else moves. Seraphs serve him and act as his messengers, as the spirits do in 1 Kgs 22:21 and Zech 6:5. Gathered around are the “host of Heaven” in 1 Kgs 22:19. In Job 1:6 the “sons of God” gathered on a certain day. (Cf. the elaborate descriptions of Rev 4 and 5:8–14, etc.)
It also marks an historical milestone with the death of Uzziah. This first historical reference in the Vision implies that chaps. 1–5 belong in Uzziah’s lifetime. Chaps. 7–8 will expand this historical identification.
The chapter is intended to authenticate the entire Vision. This is true whether one identifies the spokesman as the historical prophet or the “literary” prophet. It supports the claim that he “stood before Yahweh” in his council. It recognizes the uniqueness and strangeness of God’s acts toward Israel in this period (cf. 28:21). Its claim to integrity is only that it reflects what God actually said and did. It supports the message of these chapters that the Lord decided in the eighth century to destroy Israel (cf. 7:8b, 10:22b–23). Every effort to minimize the judgment is turned back. A basic faith that salvation ’lies beyond judgment (Jenni, TZ 15 [1959] 339), while not totally denied, is not allowed to come to the fore. The message is doom.
Having arrived at the decision, God commissions the prophet to aid in carrying it out. The prophet’s two questions only strengthen the gravity and the long-term effect of the judgment. The future role of a “remnant” is narrowly defined in terms that are not hopeful. The Vision will support this view by a picture of post-exilic Israel as recalcitrant and unwilling (40:12–49:4) and of a community in Jerusalem that insists on forcing God to return to ancient forms (chaps. 62–64). Such peoples are only funeral monuments, reminders of the ill-fated history of Israel during the divided kingdom (6:13).
UUÅ Uppsala universitetsårsskrift
ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft
TZ Theologische Zeitschrift (ThZ)
VT Vetus Testamentum
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
BeO Bibbia e oriente
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
Int Interpretation
FS Festschrift, volume written in honor of
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
SWJT Southwestern Journal of Theology
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
NorTT Norsk Teologisk Tijdsskrift
ASTI Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute
a 1.a. DSSIsa omits ו but the use of waw consecutive after a temporal phrase is sound Masoretic grammar (Br. Synt. § 123).
b 1.b. Many mss read יהוה “Yahweh” for אדני “Lord.” Wildberger thinks a tendency to substitute אדני for יהנה can be found in many places in Isaiah. However, note the distinctive use of אדני by Amos in vision texts combined with יהוה (7:1, 2, 4, 5; 8:1, 3, 11; 9:5, 8) and alone (7:3; 9:1). The use of אדני appears to have a special intention in these visions.
c 1.c. LXX καὶ πλήρης ὸ οἶκος τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ “The house (was) full of his glory” avoids reference to ושׁוליו “his train” or “skirts” (BDB, 1062). This is usually seen as the tendency of the LXX translator to correct what he considers flagrant anthropomorphism. It can hardly be considered witness to a different original text. The LXX translator had a special love for δόξα (cf. L. H. Brockington, “The Greek Translator of Isaiah and His Interest in ΔΟΞΑ,” VT I (1951) 23–32). שוליו means “lower extremities,” i.e., from waist to feet. They were undoubtedly thought of as clothed or covered by a robe except the feet (G. R. Driver, NE Studies, FS W. F. Albright [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1971], 90).
a 2.a. LXX κύκλῳ αὐτοῦ “around him” for ממעל לו “from above him.” The translator appears to object to the seraphim standing above the Lord. But MT is consistent. See יעופף “he flew” at the end of the verse. They are pictured as flying above the throne.
b 2.b. DSSIsa does not repeat שש כנפים “six wings,” probably due to haplography. Repetition emphasizes the distributive expression (Br. Synt. § 87).
c 2.c. Each of these imperfects speaks of characteristic or customary action (Watts, Syntax, 60).
a 3.a. DSSIsa reads וקראים “and they were calling” for וקרא “and one called” and omits ואמר “and said.” MT sustains the line of verbs in sg and is correct. DSSIsa clearly thinks of several seraphim. MT might be understood to think of only two. (Cf. Engnell, Call of Isaiah, 34 and 246.)
b 3.b. DSSIsa has קדוש “holy” only two times which has occasioned a debate (cf. N. Walker, “Origin of the Thrice-Holy,” NTS 5 (1958/59) 132–33; “Disagion Versus Trisagion,” NTS 7 (1960/61) 170–71; B. M. Leiser, “The Trisagion,” NTS 6 (1959/60) 261–63; D. Flusser, Immanuel3 (1973) 37–43) Wildberger correctly notes that the thrice-holy formula is consistent with liturgical usage in Ps 99; Jer 7:4; 22:29; Ezek 21:32.
c 3.c. LXX πλήρης “fullness” appears to have translated מלאה (i.e., an abs fem form rather than MT’s mast constr). Vg follows LXX with plena, Tg. מליא, Syr. dƒmaljâ which are all in line with Pss 33:5: 72:19; 104:24. But Wildberger has correctly noted Ps 24:1 ארץ ומלואה and Deut 33:16: Pss 50:12; 89:12. The Vision uses מלא “fullness” in 8:8 and 31:4. LXX makes כל־הארץ “all the earth” the subject. MT makes מלא כל־הארץ the subject (cf. Br. Synt. § 14).
a 4.a. אמה usually refers to the “forearm” (CHALOT, 19) or a “cubit” measure (BDB, 52). הספים אמות has been variously translated here (Cf. R. B. Y. Scott, “the Hebrew Cubit.” JBL 77 [1958] 205–14). LXX ὑπέρθυρον refers to the upper part of the door. But the term here applies to the entire door structure, hence “foundations of the threshhold” (Leslie; Engnell, The Call of Isaiah).
b 4.b. The use of impf and an inverted word order suggests a circumstantial clause.
a 5.a. כי may mean “because,” or “that,” or an emphatic particle “indeed” or “but,” or “if, or when.” LXX translates 2x with ὅτι and once with καί. The second כי clearly introduces a reason clause. The first and third are not so bound.
b 5.b. נדמיתי is usually translated “I am undone” or something similar (cf. BDB, 198). LXX κατανένυγμαι “I am stupefied” or “stunned.” Syr. tawîr ˒nǎ “I am overthrown.” But Ἀ Σ θ have εσιωπησα, aorist “I am silent,” and Vg tacui. Jewish exegesis agrees and relates this to Isaiah’s silence relating to Uzziah’s wrongs (2 Chr 26:16–22); Tg. הבית “I have transgressed” (Stenning). The meaning “be silent” has now been adopted very widely (cf. L. Köhler, Kleine Lichter [Zürich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1945], 32–34;Jenni, TZ 15 [1959] 322; Eichrodt, Fohrer, Kaiser, and Wildberger. Cf. CHALOT, 72).
a 6.a. רצפה apparently means “a smooth stone” used for paving or used as a heated stone for cooking (BDB, 954). LXX translates ἄνθραξ “glowing charcoal,” apparently depending on Lev 16:12. But there the Heb is גחלי. MT is to be preferred (contra Wildberger and CHALOT).
b 6.b. Word order and tense structure indicate that the last clause is circumstantial (cf. Engnell, Call of Isaiah; Wildberger).
a 8.a. Many mss read יהוה “Yahweh.” See notes to v 1.
b 8.b. MT לנו “for us.” LXX πρὸς τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον “for this people” appears to have been drawn in from v 9 (לעם הזה) although some suggest LXX read an original לגוי “for a nation” for MT’s לנו.
a 9.a. The inf abs following its cognate finite verb indicates continuation of the action (cf. GKC § 113r).
a 10.a-a. LXX reads ἐπαχύνθη γὰρ ἡ καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου καὶ τοῖς ὠσιν αὐτῶν βαρέως ἤκουσαν καὶ τοὺς ὀψθαλμοὺς αὐτῶν ἐκάμμυσαν “for the heart of this people became dull and their ears heard with disgust (lit.., heavily) and their eyes closed,” i.e., instead of the prophet’s receiving an order to dull the hearts, the people have made themselves stubborn and unwilling. The theological problem the MT presents is eliminated by the change (cf. Wildberger).
b 10.b. DSSIsa בלבבו “with its heart” to conform with the other nouns. The Versions appear to follow the same pattern (cf. Eichrodt). However, MT makes sense and is the “hard reading.”
a 11.a. LXX reads καὶ ἡ γῆ καταλειφθήσεται ἔρημος “and the ground will be left desolate,” apparently seeing תשאר “are left” instead of MT תשאה “are ruined.” The appearance of שאו “desolation” in the previous line has caused some commentators to favor the LXX here.
a 12.a. The wāw continues the question. A pf tense in the protasis of a conditional clause describes a condition taken for granted (Watts, Syntax, 134).
b 12.b. עזובה (BDB, 737) “desolation.” CHALOT 269 identifies it as a pass. ptcp fern from עזב “abandon.” It also occurs as a proper name. LXX translates the verse: καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα μακρυνεῖ ὀ θεὸς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ οἱ καταλειφθέντες πληθυνθήσονται ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς “and by this God will remove mankind and those left in the land will be multiplied.” Engnell, (Call of Isaiah, 14) suggests that by this the harsh word of judgment has been reinterpreted to indicate salvation.
a 13.a. בער in the piel stem may mean to burn or to destroy (BDB, 129). CHALOT (44) has a second meaning “graze, ruin, sweep away.” Wildberger holds that Isa 3:14 and 5:5 have shown that the word means “grazed over” as when goats have eaten every blade and twig to the point that nothing is left. Hertzberg, Kaiser, and Budde (“Schranken, die Jesajas prophetischer Botschaft zu setzen sind.” ZAW 41 [1923] 167) agree. KB, Eichrodt, and Fohrer contend for the meaning “burn” as with fire.
b 13.b. MT אשר “which.” Iwry (JBL 76 [1957] 230) accepts the next three changes in DSSIsa and emends here to read אשרה turning the relative particle into a noun “Asherah.” This restores the meter and continues DSSIsa’s trend in giving meaning to an otherwise obscure passage. Iwry’s other emendations are unnecessary.
c 13.c. MT בשלכת “in falling,” a preposition with an obscure noun (BDB, 1021). DSSIsa משלכת by the change of one letter becomes a hoph ptcp “being cast down.” LXX ὅταν ἐκπέση “when it falls” seems to support MT in form. But it adds ἀπὸ τῆς θήκης αὐτῆς “from its funeral vault,” thus supporting the broader implications of DSSIsa. Read with DSSIsa.
d 13.d. MT בם “in them.” DSSIsa במה “high place.” One hundred mss read בה “in her.” Vg reads quae expandit ramos suos “which spread its branches.”
e
13.e. MT קדש “holy,” an adjective. DSSIsa הקדוש “the holy ones.”
The translation has adopted the reading of DSSIsa and Iwry’s emendation, judging them to make good sense of an otherwise obscure passage (see Comment).
Br. C.
Brockelmann, Hebräische
Syntax (Neukirchen: K.
Moers, 1956)
BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs (eds.), Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford/New York: Clarendon/OUP, 1907; reprints with corrections, 1955; corrected ed., 1962)
cf. confer, compare
i.e. id est, that is
NTS New Testament Studies
CHALOT W. L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.
GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar ed. E. Kautsch,
trans. A. E. Cowley (London/New York: OUP, 1910; repr. 1966)
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des
Alten und Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck)
SNVAO Skrifter utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademie i Oslo
BKAT Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament
EvT Evangelische Theologie
HI J. Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981)
IJH Israelite and Judean History, ed. J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller (London: SCM, 1977)
IDB G. A. Buttrick (ed.), Interpreter’s
Dictionary of the Bible 4 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962-76)
ThB Theologische Bücherei
ATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und
Neuen Testaments
[1]Watts, J. D. W. 2002. Vol. 24: Word Biblical Commentary : Isaiah 1-33. Word Biblical Commentary . Word, Incorporated: Dallas