The relationship between Israel, the nations, and Israel's God in the eschatological future has long occupied exegetes and theologians. The meaning of the pilgrimage of the nations to Zion and the servant's charge to become a “covenant to the people (
), a light to the nations (
)” (Isa 42:6) is a significant locus of dispute. Some argue that here the text charges the Israelites to missionize the Gentiles, while others contend that Second Isaiah holds only a passing interest in the status of foreigners. These disagreements are not unfounded, for the text itself contains seemingly contradictory exclamations right next to one another. In Isa 45:22, for example, YHWH proclaims: “Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth!” In the very next verses, however, Isaiah depicts the nations as subservient to Israel and elsewhere as even licking the dust of the former exiles' feet (49:23)—an image which, at least at first glance, seems incompatible with the notion that foreigners and Israelites similarly benefit from YHWH's saving acts.
What should one make of these conflicting passages within the text and their contradictory interpretations? Does Second Isaiah indeed proclaim the universal mission of Israel to bring salvation to the Gentiles, or does the prophet speak only to the exiled Israelites to give them hope in the promise of YHWH's impending redemption of his chosen people?1
There are medial positions as well, such as that advocated in D. W. Van Winkle, “The Relationship of the Nations to YHWH and to Israel in Isaiah 40–55,” VT 35 (1985) 446–58, in which he argues that the complexities of Second Isaiah's language indicate that the nations attain salvation yet are subservient to Israel. See also Robert Martin-Achard, A Light to the Nations: A Study of the Old Testament Conception of Israel's Mission to the World (trans. John Penny Smith; Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1962) 17; trans. of Israël et les nations. La perspective missionaire de l'Ancien Testament (Neuchâtel: Delechaux & Niestlé, 1959), who notes that the salvation of the Gentiles in Second Isaiah is contingent on their becoming Israel's subordinates and slaves.
Second Isaiah exalts YHWH to such an extent that the author strongly questions, even denies, the existence of other deities. He refers to the idols of the nations as graven images empty of form and power. This view represents a distinct shift in the ancient Israelite understanding of foreign deities. While earlier biblical texts maintained that Israel was to worship only the God YHWH, this did not exclude the existence of other deities (Deut 32:8; Mic 4:5). Despite having a position subordinate to Israel's God, the gods of the foreign nations nonetheless remained divine beings who ruled their respective nations (Judg 11:24). Though described throughout Deuteronomy and the Psalms in disparaging terms, the foreign deities and their iconic representations appear in Second Isaiah as powerless objects as part of the central rhetorical aim: the universal exaltation of Israel's God.
Thus, a thorough examination of these enigmatic texts in Isaiah must begin with a view of their context within both the larger Isaianic collection and the Hebrew Bible more generally. Indeed, discussions of the universalism in Second and Third Isaiah have frequently ignored these larger contexts when evaluating individual verses or short passages within each collection. This paper aims to engage in a careful, holistic reading of the relevant passages within both collections in order to produce a balanced assessment of the precise type of universalism advocated by various highly contested texts. We hope to demonstrate the following: 1) While Second Isaiah contains many passages that speak of YHWH in cosmic and universalistic terms, it has little concern for the nations themselves aside from their role in asserting YHWH's sovereignty. 2) The latest passages in Third Isaiah show a growing interest in the fate of non-Israelite individuals and nations. 3) The shift between the status of foreigners in Second and Third Isaiah may result from the fact that Second Isaiah's monotheism opened up new theological horizons, the import of which was realized only when changing socio-historical circumstances produced greater interest in the status of the Gentiles. Such a study has implications not only for our understanding of the ancient text, but also for the history of Jewish and Christian interpretation as well as modern Jewish-Christian dialogue.
The Divine Landscape: Foreign Gods in the Hebrew Bible
While Yehezkel Kaufmann once argued that Israelite religion was monotheistic from the very beginning and remained “sealed off” from influences of its pagan neighbors,2
Yehezkel Kaufmann, History of the Religion of Israel: Volume IV, From the Babylonian Captivity to the End of Prophecy (trans. C. W. Efroymson; New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1977) 18–29. For a critique of Kaufmann's claims, see Jon Levenson, “Yehezkel Kaufmann and Mythology,” Conservative Judaism 36 (1982) 36–42.
Early biblical texts affirm the existence of the gods of the foreign nations. Joshua, for example, implores the people to choose the god to whom they will give allegiance: “Choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served in the region beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD [YHWH]” (Josh 24:15b). While Israel has her God, the nations also have their own gods whom they serve, and Joshua does not question their potency.
Similarly in Deuteronomy, Israel's commitment to YHWH does not imply that other deities do not exist. Because of the book's great emphasis on Israel's election, Deuteronomy upholds the necessity of Israel's exclusive worship of YHWH. While Israel worships YHWH alone, the foreign deities remain appropriate objects of the nations' devotion.3
Tigay affirms that throughout Deuteronomy, “it is no sin for other nations to worship idols and the heavenly bodies; it is considered sinful only when done by Israel, to whom God revealed Himself and forbade the worship of these objects” (Jeffrey H. Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy (
) [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996] 435).
Patrick D. Miller, “ ‘God’s Other Stories': On the Margins of Deuteronomic Theology,” in Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays (ed. Patrick D. Miller; JSOTSup 267; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000) 593–602, at 595.
Second Isaiah moves a step beyond the view of these earlier texts. Indeed, many have suggested that true monotheism first emerges in Second Isaiah's rhetoric of YHWH's universal dominion.
5For example, Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001) 193.
See The Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32 in which the foreign gods are described as strange (
), abominations (
), demons (
), gods Israel did not know (
), and worthless (
) (Deut 32:16, 17, 21). In verse 21 YHWH proclaims:
, which the NRSV translates “They provoked me with their idols.” The noun
, however, means “vapor,” “breath,” or “vanity.” It is a description of that which is evanescent or insubstantial. In fact, Abel's name (
, Gen 4:2) comes from this root. This implies that his character is not long-enduring, but surely it does not mean that he does not exist! Thus, this phrase could be translated “they provoked me with their vanities,” which connotes the worthlessness of the gods without implying that they are merely images or idols (see Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation according o the Traditional Hebrew Text [2d ed.; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1999]).
Psalm 96:4–5 extols YHWH's magnitude in comparison to other gods, “For great is the LORD and greatly to be praised; he is feared above all gods. For all of the gods of the peoples are worthless (
), but the LORD made the heavens” (translation ours). Although the NRSV translates
as “idols,” the term simply means “worthless, insufficient” (Horst Dietrich Preuss,
, TDOT 1: 285–87). Thus, this characteristic does not imply the nonexistence of the gods, but only their inferiority.
,
7Deuteronomy also uses the term
to refer to graven images. However, Deuteronomy's use of this term need not imply the nonexistence of other gods, as it does in Second Isaiah. In fact, in two instances the term is in construct as “idols of their gods” (
), which may indicate that the idols and the gods were not one and the same (Deut 7:25; 12:3).
, and
. He describes the idols as nothing (
, 41:24), merely empty works (
, 41:29).
8
is never used to derogate foreign gods in Deuteronomy, however, this word is often used by Second Isaiah to indicate the sole existence of YHWH (Isa 45:6, 14; 46:9; 47:8, 10).
) and graven images (
)
9Exod 34:17 and Lev 19:4 prohibit the Israelites from making
. Perhaps the fact that Second Isaiah does not use
in construct with
heightens the lifeless nature of the image.
) will go in confusion (45:16).
The courtroom imagery within Second Isaiah further indicates the absence of other gods. It is as much the makers of idols who are put on trial as it is the idols themselves. In the first and third trial scenes (41:1–5; 43:8–13), YHWH calls together the nations, not the idols (41:1 and 43:9). YHWH summons the idols to court in 41: 21–23, but they do not answer YHWH's challenge. In their absence, he indicts those who worship idols. By comparison, Psalm 82 depicts the gods falling short of the divine standard of justice and thus paying the penalty for their faults.10
Admittedly, the gods do not speak in this trial either. However, the difference in the outcome is significant. The gods of Psalm 82 are found guilty and chastised, yet because the idols of Second Isaiah are not legitimate beings, they cannot be punished. Instead, the foolishness of those who follow idols is exposed. These individuals bear the guilt. Here the nonexistent gods cannot be deposed as they are in Psalm 82.
In no uncertain terms, Second Isaiah proclaims that YHWH is God and there is no other. The text does not allow for the existence of foreign deities, as do earlier texts such as Genesis, Deuteronomy, and Joshua. This development appears significant for the understanding of the nations' relationship to Israel and her God. Deuteronomy may show little concern for the welfare of the nations because the foreign nations have their own gods, whom YHWH allotted to them. However, as Second Isaiah asserts the nonexistence of the foreign deities, even the foreign nations will turn and recognize the ultimate sovereignty of Israel's God. With the futility of their own gods exposed, do foreigners now look to YHWH for salvation just as Israel does? Below we will argue that Second Isaiah himself is not primarily concerned with this question, his ultimate rhetorical aim being the exaltation of Israel's God. However, the means by which the prophet argues his case—that is, the denial of foreign deities—represents a development in the understanding of the divine economy which would inevitably raise the question of the status of foreigners. Later interpreters have wrestled with the implications of Second Isaiah's argument and continue to do so today.
Prophet of Universalism?
Though the precise dating, location, and authorship of the corpus known as Second Isaiah eludes scholars, the author appears to have composed the text sometime between the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E. and the defeat of the Babylonian empire in 539 B.C.E., most likely sometime after the beginning of Cyrus's campaign in 550 B.C.E. Because some of Second Isaiah's audience might have believed that the destruction of the temple and the end of the Davidic dynasty represented the triumph of the Babylonian gods over Israel's God, Second Isaiah affirms that YHWH remains sovereign and calls upon his audience to abandon the worship of false gods.11
Hollenberg suggests that many of the negative statements against the nations are actually addressed to “crypto-Israelites,” those exiles who had assimilated to foreign ways (D. E. Hollenberg, “Nationalism and ‘the Nations’ in Isaiah XL–LV,” VT 19 [1969] 23–36). He adds: “Second Isaiah is concerned not to convert Babylonians who have known only Bel Marduk [the Babylonian high god], but rather to win back Israelites or crypto-Israelites who have been attracted to Bel Marduk. So it may be that when Second Isaiah is challenging ‘the nations,’ he is really challenging Israelites within the nations” (Hollenberg, “Nationalism,” 31).
The theme of turning to YHWH occurs frequently within Second Isaiah. Israel turns to YHWH to wait for salvation, but the nations also turn to YHWH in recognition of his reign. The nations' movement towards Israel's God, however, does not necessarily imply, as many commentators presume, that they will join in Israel's redemption.12
For example, see H. Leene, “Universalism or Nationalism? Isaiah XLV 9–13 and Its Context,” Bijdragen: Tijdschrift voor filosofieen theologie 35 (1974) 309–34; Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary (trans. David M. H. Stalker; OTL; Philadelphia : Westminster Press, 1969) 101; and Begg who concludes that the prophet envisions the nations “entering fully and equally into the privileges of Israel” (Christopher Begg, “The Peoples and the Worship of Yahweh in the Book of Isaiah,” in Worship and the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honour of John T. Willis [ed. M. Patrick Graham et al; JSOTSup 284; Sheffield: Sheffield Press, 1999] 35–55, at 55).
In commenting upon Isa 40:5, for example, Stuhlmueller affirms that “all humankind are said to do no more than see and admire. Even enemies can recognize the brilliant qualities of the other side without joining it!” (Carroll Stuhlmueller, “Self-Determination as a Biblical Theme: Prophetic Vision on Particularism Versus Universalism,” in Christian Spirituality in the United States: Independence and Interdependence [ed. Francis Eigo and Silvio Fittipaldi; Villanova: Villanova University Press, 1978] 93–132, at 109).
In surveying a number of verses which speak of the nations witnessing God's sovereignty, Gelston concludes that “the salvation envisaged here is that of Israel, and all that is claimed for the Gentiles in these passages is that they are to witness it and as a result to become convinced that YHWH is the only God.” In fact, “in several of these passages the motif of the universal recognition of YHWH as the only God forms the climax of the oracle” (A. Gelston, “Universalism in Second Isaiah,” JTS 43 [1992] 377–98, at 383).
Second Isaiah uses the theme of YHWH's exaltation in order to motivate his exilic audience to return to Zion, and one should interpret his references to the nations in light of this. Chapter 40 opens with an image of the pilgrimage of Israelites back to Zion as YHWH promises to gather his flock (40:11). YHWH declares that Cyrus will “build my city and set my exiles free” (45:13). The text deals with the fulfillment of YHWH's covenant promises to his people Israel. As Second Isaiah invokes both memories of YHWH's past deliverance (51:9–10) and assurances of his continuing faithfulness and impending redemption (43:5–7), Israel's election remains the consistent theme.15
A persistent refrain, the root
appears as a title of Jacob or Israel eight times in Second Isaiah.
Further, YHWH's election of Israel now reveals the character of God, and his faithfulness to the covenant legitimizes his claim as the only God. Accordingly, Israel testifies to his unparalleled sovereignty: “You are my witnesses, says the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me” (43:10). Israel's very election, therefore, lends credence to Second Isaiah's message of hope to the exiles and of YHWH's exaltation. Second Isaiah's heightened universalism flows directly from his deepening of the notion of God's special election of Israel.
The theme of God's sovereignty finds its most imaginative expression in the prophet's poetic vision of the cosmic scope of YHWH's kingdom. For example, Second Isaiah proclaims that even the wild animals will bow to God's glory: “The wild animals will honor me, the jackals and the ostriches; for I give water in the wilderness, rivers in the desert, to give drink to my chosen people” (43:20). While the animals gain water from God's provision for Israel, clearly their honoring YHWH does not signify their joining Israel. Rather, it represents an example of his poetic license.16
Hanson notes the prophet's use of the metaphor, reversing the chaotic image of prowling jackals and ostriches in Isaiah 34, to illustrate the radical “new thing” that God is doing, ultimately resulting in Israel praising God (Isa 43:21) (Paul Hanson, Isaiah 40–66 [Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 1995] 75–76).
Isaiah 42:1–9
The cryptic language of Isaiah 42:1–9 presents several challenges for the careful exegete.
17The connection between Isa 42:1–4, the “Servant Song,” and verses 5–9 is disputed. Although Blenkinsopp does not find the language distinctive enough to attribute it to a different author (Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 19A; New York: Doubleday, 2002] 209), Westermann argues that verses 5–9 are a later addition to the servant song, noting that the description of the salvation to the nations is similar to that found in Third Isaiah (Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 101). Westermann finds explicit salvation of the nations here, but if one reads this text as Israel making known God's glory among the nations, it seems to fit more readily into the servant song and Second Isaiah as a whole. Yet even if verses 5–9 are a later addition, a highly speculative supposition, the two sections have been intentionally woven together. Thus, they will be considered together here.
(covenant to the people) and
(light to the nations) remains highly disputed.
is surely one of the most obscure phrases in Second Isaiah. The Hebrew simply consists of two nouns, side by side, leaving later interpreters to make sense of the connection between the two. Commentators have proposed several possible translations—including “covenant of the people (Israel)”; “covenant of the people (nations)”; “splendor of the people”; and “covenant people”—yet no consensus has emerged. The translation of this phrase depends largely upon the supposed addressee. If YHWH speaks to a singular individual charged to carry out a mission to Israel, one may read the phrase as YHWH sending the servant as a covenant to the people (Israel).
18North believes that this is the most natural interpretation (Christopher R. North, The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah: An Historical and Critical Study [2d ed.; London: Oxford University Press, 1956] 132).
Whether the servant indicates an individual or Israel as a whole,
19Hanson rightly notes that the prophet uses the servant as an eschatological dimension of his poetic metaphor, making definitive identification unnecessary (Hanson, Isaiah 40–66, 128).
does not appear in the plural here.
20Clements, for example, concludes that “the nations are expected to participate in Israel's salvation, not simply as onlookers and spectators, but directly as those who will enjoy its benefits” (Ronald E. Clements, “A Light to the Nations: A Central Theme of the Book of Isaiah,” in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts [ed. James W. Watts and Paul R. House; JSOTSup 235; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996] 57–69, at 68–69).
refers to all humankind in 42:5, some scholars reason that in 42:6, too, it must also refer to all people, not simply the people Israel. That the phrase stands in parallel to
Omitted by some manuscripts of the LXX, the phrase
may be of questionable authenticity, as North finds (North, Suffering Servant, 131).
Hillers notes that although
is usually plural when parallel to
, there are instances in which the singular
is paired with the plural
clearly in reference to foreign nations (2 Sam 22:44; Ps 18:44; Isa 25:3) (Delbert R. Hillers, “ Berit ˛am: ‘Emancipation of the People,’” JBL 97 [1978] 175–82, at 181). Childs concurs that
, in parallel to
, is not a reference specifically to Israel (Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah [OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001] 326).
Despite various attempts to provide alternate translations,
23H. Torczyner, “Presidential Address,” JPOS 16 (1936) 1–8; Hillers, “ Berit ˛am,” 180; Mark S. Smith, “ Berit ˛Am/Berit ˛Olam: A New Proposal for the Crux of Isa 42:6,” JBL 100 (1981) 241–43.
within the context of Second Isaiah's concern for the glorification of YHWH through Israel's election. Chapter 42 affirms God's role as creator of the cosmos (42:5) and uplifts his unique identity (42:8). Israel's election bears witness to this image, and thus YHWH gives his servant as a “covenant people.”
24Few commentators suggest this translation, although the NJPS renders
this way. In this sense, the servant is the collective nation of Israel, though the servant could also be an individual representative of the whole people as a “covenant people.” While “covenant people” would typically be rendered
, the inverse is grammatically possible (Gen 16:12; Prov 15:20, 21: 20; Isa 9:5, as noted by North, Suffering Servant, 132).
Isaiah 49
YHWH gives the servant a similar commission in chapter 49, yet determining the identity of the servant remains just as challenging. Here the voice clearly seems to belong to an individual. In Isa 49:3 the individual identifies himself as Israel, yet in 49:5 YHWH gives the servant a mission to Israel. This causes many to question if the title in 49:3 constitutes a later gloss since the servant could not both be Israel and have a mission to Israel. Scholars have put forth several possibilities for the identity of the servant as either a prophetic representative acting on behalf of Israel, an individual sent to Israel, or the remnant of Israel to whom YHWH has given a mission to reach out to Israel as a whole.
Yet the servant's identity does not present the only mystery regarding this perplexing figure. YHWH again gives him
(49:6) and
(49: 8). This commission, particularly the reference to the
(nations), has caused many interpreters to assume that YHWH sent the servant to bring YHWH's salvation to the world.
25For example, Westermann, Isaiah 40–66.
Roy F. Melugin, “Israel and the Nations in Isaiah 40–55,” in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim (ed. Henry T. C. Sun and Keith L. Eades; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 249–64, at 257.
Those who favor a universalistic reading of the text and place great emphasis upon Isa 49:6 argue that YHWH has here given the servant a new commission, which reaches beyond his mission to Israel: “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.” The song's opening imperatival address to the “coastlands” and the “peoples from afar” (49:1) causes these interpreters to read the entire section (49: 1–6) as speaking of the foreign nations.27
Westermann goes so far as to claim that “everything it says has reference to the nations” (Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 207).
North takes this interpretation to the extreme and entirely excises Israel from the servant's mission. At times this even takes on a rather supersessionist tone:
The servant … must come to the recognition of his full task naturally, through frustration and disappointment in a lesser task, if need be…. The primary calling in the first Song, then, and the ultimate calling in the second, is to the heathen. The ministry to Israel is subsidiary, and, as it were, by the way.28
North, Suffering Servant, 144.
Gelston, “Universalism in Second Isaiah,” 315. Authors of this HTR article have devocalized the Tetragrammaton here and in other quotations cited in this paper.
When removed from its immediate context, Isa 49:6 seems to indicate, albeit cryptically, that the servant has a larger mission to the nations. This interpretation, however, crumbles when one reads the verse within the context of Isaiah 49 and Second Isaiah as a whole. Aside from the puzzling verse 6, chapter 49 overwhelmingly concerns itself with the exilic Israelite community, not the foreign nations. In verse 8, YHWH assigns the servant the task of raising the land and apportioning the desolate inheritances, both of which draw to mind the nation of Israel and the restoration of Zion.
Further, the oracle of Isa 49:8–13 bears striking resemblance to the pilgrimage of the exiles in chapter 40, linking this text to the prominent restoration theme. In addition, the second half of the chapter shows a certain preoccupation with the restoration of Zion. The children of the exile will fill the desolate land until it becomes too crowded (49:20). Upon a signal from YHWH, the nations will return the exiles, prostrate themselves before the Israelites, and lick the dust from their feet (49:22–23).30
Naidoff notes that the nations bow down to Zion, not to YHWH, at the end of Isaiah 49 (see Isa 45:14). Further, he asserts that because the kings give no confession to YHWH, Zion is the object of their pilgrimage (Bruce Naidoff, “Israel and the Nations in Deutero-Isaiah: The Political Terminology in Form-Critical Perspective” [Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1980] 74).
This context makes one wonder if Second Isaiah did proclaim as “universalistic” a message as many modern commentators conclude.
31Even those who acknowledge the exilic context view Isa 49:6 as a turning point in which Second Isaiah includes the Gentiles. Stuhlmueller argues that Second Isaiah focused on the salvation of Israel in chapters 41–48 and 49–55, “yet he was speaking/writing in such a way as to be ready at any moment to turn to the gentiles,” (Carroll Stuhlmueller, “Deutero-Isaiah: Major Transitions in the Prophet's Theology and in Contemporary Scholarship,” CBQ 42 [1980]1–29, at 28). Though he maintains that the expression
is restricted to a day of salvation for Israel, Stuhlmueller asserts that in 49:6, “in a sudden burst of mighty zeal, freed from the frustrating shackles upon ministry,” Second Isaiah includes the Gentiles as beneficiaries of YHWH's salvation (Stuhlmueller, “Deutero-Isaiah,” 26–27). Here it seems that Stuhlmueller, rather than Second Isaiah, is frustrated with the Israelite focus of these oracles.
De Boer argues that such phrases as “ends of the earth,” “coastlands,” and “peoples from afar” refer to the totality of YHWH's sovereignty, much like the descriptions of his rule over the heavens and the earth. Therefore, these terms do not have implications for universal salvation. He further notes elsewhere that foreign nations are mentioned only as people to be conquered, giving no indication that Second Isaiah favored their redemption (P. A. H. de Boer, Second Isaiah's Message, [Leiden: Brill, 1956] 89–90).
(Isa 49:6) suggests that YHWH has given the servant a mission beyond restoring the tribes of Jacob which includes the nations in some capacity.
Given the thrust of the chapter, it seems more likely that the servant's new task relates to the glorification of YHWH, not to the inclusion of the Gentiles. Childs notes that the verb
(Niphal: to appear trifling) is the antonym of
(Niphal: to be glorified), which appears in 49:5. Thus, in contrasting the two verbs, Second Isaiah points to the climax of the servant's calling to serve “the God of all creation.”
33Childs, Isaiah, 385. He adds: “Commentators have usually argued that, lest the task of restoring Israel seem too small a task for the servant, God expands his mission to include the nations. However, nowhere in Second Isaiah is the restoration of Israel set in competition with the salvation of the nations” (Childs, Isaiah, 385).
, his observation suggests that the servant's light to the nations shines, so that “all flesh may know that I am the LORD your Savior, and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob” (49:26).
34Emphasis added. Note that this verse identifies YHWH as the savior of Israel, not the savior of “all flesh.”
Isaiah 44
This one will say “I am the LORD's,” another will be called by the name of Jacob, yet another will write on his hand, “the LORD's,” and adopt the name of Israel. (44:5)
Gelston has hailed this verse as an affirmation of universalism, indicating that “individuals who are not Israelites by birth will become adherents of YHWH … and will also seek in some sense to belong to Israel as the people of YHWH.”35
Gelston, “Universalism in Second Isaiah,” 386.
Stuhlmueller affirms the emphasis on Israel's election, claiming that even if Gentile conversion is implied in these verses, it seems to apply only to scattered individuals (Stuhlmueller, “Self-Determination,” 116).
Some understand the actions of “this one” and “that one” as practices indicating a foreigner's conversion or attachment to Israel,
37Blenkinsopp contends that these four types can “only be understood as proselytes.” In fact, the Targum identifies the first as God-fearers (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 233).
Watts believes that this verse refers solely to the response of diaspora Jews to God's impending action. The new life promised in verses 3–4, he states, will result in “new enthusiasm among Israelites in Babylon and elsewhere to belong to YHWH and to use the name Jacob. The exilic process of assimilation had naturally led Jews to suppress their distinct identity, to hide behind Babylonian names and to deny their religious identity” (John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34–66 [WBC; Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1987] 144–45). See also D. W. Van Winkle, “Proselytes in Isaiah XLIV 1–5,” VT 47 (July 1997) 341–59, who reaches a similar conclusion. One can find a modern sociological parallel among younger American Jews who are willing to assert their Judaism in much more public ways than their parents, who sought to assimilate into the American mainstream.
“the LORD's” indicates ownership, as in the case of slaves or property.
39For example, jar handles were imprinted
lammelek, “the king's” (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 234). In the ancient world, a master's name was often cut on his slave's hand (Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 137). Van Winkle finds unpersuasive arguments that Gentile proselytes write the name of the LORD on their hands. He notes that many Jews worshipped foreign gods or felt estranged from YHWH and their community during the Babylonian exile. These Jews and the offspring of mixed marriages, he asserts, are the ones who reclaim the name of the LORD (D. W. Van Winkle, “Isaiah LVI 1–8,” SBLSP 36 [1997] 234–52, at 242).
The final phrase in Isa 44:5 has sparked the most discussion regarding the attachment of foreigners. Some translate: “this one will adopt the name of Israel,”
40For example, NJPS and Childs (Isaiah, 338).
, however, simply means “to give a name of honor.”
41Ringgren argues that in Isa 44:5, the term describes “those who embrace Yahwism,” noting “it is an honor for them to belong to God's people and their God, and ‘Israel’ is a name of honor” (Helmer Ringgren, “
, knh,” TDOT 7:196). Yet this could just as easily be said of the children of exiled Israelites who embrace their identity and resist assimilation.
As the children of Israel avow themselves to the sovereign God who acts on their behalf, those who worship idols will see the folly of their practice. The author contrasts the idols' witnesses with those of Israel, God's witnesses (44:8–9). Those who make idols “neither see nor know,” for “who would fashion a god or cast an image that can do no good?” (44:9–10). Their gods exposed as mere cast images, idol makers will “be terrified and put to shame together” (44:11). Though Second Isaiah does not mention YHWH by name in this discourse, he makes the point clearly that one cannot compare YHWH with such empty images. YHWH is God, and there is no other.
The last part of the chapter again declares Israel's election.42
Many commentators read Isa 44:21–23 as the original ending of the discourse of 44:6–8 and the interceding verses as an interpolation (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 235; Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 138).
Isaiah 45
Second Isaiah's proclamation of the universal sovereignty of Israel's God comes to full fruition in chapter 45. YHWH acts through Cyrus so that “they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting that there is no one besides me, I am the LORD and there is no other” (45:6). The climax of divine intervention occurs with the universal recognition of YHWH. Even God's very choosing of the Persian Cyrus as the agent of Israel's redemption illumines YHWH's reign over the entire world. This role, in the words of Blenkinsopp, appears “so extraordinary that it requires a repeated emphasis that the one assigning the role is a cosmic rather than a merely national, ethnic, or locative deity.”43
Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 252.
Westermann highlights the great stress placed upon God as creator (45:7, 12, 18). Note the forceful Hebrew phrase at the end of 18a,
(he is the God) (Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 172). See Nathan MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of “Monotheism” (Tübingen: Mohr/ Siebeck, 2003) 78–81 for the significance of this phrase in Deuteronomy.
Divine self-predication completes the assertion of YHWH's sovereignty, identifies YHWH's authenticity, and denies the existence of other deities.
45Phillips defines the self-predication formula as consisting of the first person pronoun plus a proper noun or another pronoun, which may be the divine name or an adjective for the deity. This formula may be expanded by additional adjectives or verbs, which describe the god in question (Morgan L. Phillips, “Divine Self-Predication in Deutero-Isaiah,” Biblical Research 16 [1971] 32–51, at 32).
(I am YHWH)
46Isa 45:3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 18, 19, 21, 22.
Isa 45:5 (twice), 6 (twice), 14, 18, 21(twice), 22. The most common phrase is
, although other phrases are also used, including
and
.
Enuma Elish 7: 14, 88. Blenkinsopp adds: “If Second Isaiah is generally given credit for the first clear statement of monotheistic faith, it may be on account of formulations generated by the polemic of the kind we are discussing” (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 108).
In Second Isaiah's view, the proclamation of YHWH's universal reign causes all to turn and to acknowledge God's sovereignty. Even the nations proclaim, “Surely God is with you and there is no other!” (45:14). Some commentators argue that this proclamation constitutes a confession of faith, a conversion, on the part of the nations.49
Because YHWH is confessed to be the only god, Blenkinsopp believes that the confessional statement describes a conversion, even if a forced conversion. He does note, however, that though the foreigners profess that Israel's God is the only god, there is no indication of their becoming proselytes or being obligated to observe sabbath or abide by purity laws (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 258).
Westermann, who believes that the nations do experience conversion, admits that he cannot explain this verse in its context. He prefers to read it as a misplaced fragment connected to Isaiah 60 (Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 169–70).
Leene, “Universalism,” 327.
Note Isa 45:14d:
“Surely God (
l) is with you [alone], and there is no other; there is no [other] god (
).”
“That those who express this would also share in this liberation themselves,” Leene argues, “seems to us an unwarranted conclusion” (Leene, “Universalism,” 327).
After another assertion of YHWH's unparalleled identity as true God and savior (Isa 45:21), God implores the ends of the earth to “turn to me and be saved!” This proclamation constitutes the strongest indication yet of the universal conversion of the nations, however, the addressee of this exclamation remains disputed. Many commentators who believe that the phrase “survivors of the nations” in 45:20 refers to foreigners likewise conclude that the parallel phrase “ends of the earth” refers to the nations.54
For example, W. A. M. Beuken, “The Confession of God's Exclusivity of All Mankind: A Reappraisal of Is 45, 18–25,” Bijdragen: Tijdschrift voor filosofieen theologie 35 (1974) 335–56, at 342. He cites Ps 2:8, 22:28, 59:14 [Eng. 59:13] 72:8.
Hollenberg interprets the phrase to mean Israelites in exile, noting that the root
is used for surviving or escaping a crisis with the idea of fleeing as a fugitive (Hollenberg, “Nationalism,” 31). This interpretation seems to make the most sense in the context of Second Isaiah's general exilic audience. Martin-Achard agrees, arguing that “the survivors of the nations … are the exiles who are dispersed throughout Mesopotamia (v. 20); they are letting themselves be seduced by the cults of the heathen though there is only one God who can help them (v. 21)” (Light to the Nations, 17). Although Beuken argues that the address to the idolaters does not make sense unless the survivors are foreigners (Beuken, “Confession,” 342), the change in voice from second person to third person in Isa 45:20b would seem to permit the idolaters to be different than the survivors.
For example, Ps 96:1, 3: “O sing to the LORD a new song; sing to the LORD all the earth … Declare his glory among the nations, his marvelous works among all the peoples.” Weiser states that there can “hardly be any question here of missionary activity in the strict sense” (Artur Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary [OTL; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962] 629).
Nevertheless, even if this language refers to the nations at large, the image illustrates YHWH's sovereignty, not conversion of the nations. Blenkinsopp notes that in the only other occurrence of
(ends of the earth) in Second Isaiah (52:10), the inhabitants of the earth only observe YHWH's deliverance of his people. Accordingly, he reasons, “the universalism in question is therefore the claim of universal jurisdiction and dominion advanced on behalf of YHWH and based on his creation of the world and direction of the course of history.”
57Blenkinsopp does entertain the idea that the Gentiles are invited to accept YHWH's salvation, but he notes that—willingly or not—they will submit to God's dominion (45:23b) (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 262).
In an earlier article somewhat in tension with his position in the previous note, Blenkinsopp argues that these verses signal the conversion of the nations, claiming that the confession of faith and bending of the knee “imply abandonment of the worship of other gods and therefore a more radical reorientation of one's religious life” (Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Second Isaiah—Prophet of Universalism,” in The Prophets [ed. Philip R. Davies; The Biblical Seminar 42; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996] 186–206, at 192). While 45:23 may be addressed to the nations, 45: 24–25 (discussed immediately below) clearly speak of the submission rather than the conversion of the nations.
Beuken affirms: “The confession of God's power is the last word of all mankind. How that confession is intended to be salvific but can turn out to be punitive, constitutes a secondary objective of the prophet in this particular context” (Beuken, “Confession,” 335).
The final two verses of chapter 45 mark the parallel movement of Israel and her opponents. Both Israel and the other, “all who are incensed against him” (Isa 45: 24), turn to the LORD. While the children of Israel “triumph and glory,” however, the nations become ashamed (45:24–25). The text gives little warrant to assume that turning to Israel and confessing the sovereignty of Israel's God implies conversion on the part of the nations. Indeed, it is quite possible to turn to Israel's God and be humiliated.
Some scholars argue that all those who profess faith in YHWH are included, regardless of their nationality, among the “seed of Israel.” Beuken, for example, finds a significant difference between the “seed of Jacob” (45:19) and the “seed of Israel” (45:25).60
Beuken, “Confession,” 349.
All of them are put to shame and confounded, the makers of idols go in confusion together. But Israel is saved by the LORD with everlasting salvation; you shall not be put to shame or confounded to all eternity. (Isa 45:16–17)
Closer examination of these cryptic texts in Second Isaiah has revealed that the author invokes the nations as part of the universal glorification of Israel's God. Second Isaiah raises the bar in asserting YHWH's sovereignty. He represents YHWH as the only God, and the gods of the nations as not only worthless, but as mere cast images which have no divinity. If YHWH is truly to be recognized as the greatest and only God, all the nations must turn and acknowledge his sovereignty. This does not require, however, that YHWH redeem them alongside Israel. Israel's restoration will cause the nations to recognize YHWH's acting on behalf of his chosen people, yet this very recognition often leads to their shame.
Though Second Isaiah does not demonstrate an interest in the Gentile nations other than as witnesses to YHWH's sovereignty, the prophet's words often defy clear interpretation. Further, Second Isaiah's argument for the nonexistence of foreign gods inevitably carries implications for the nations, a point which itself may have sparked reinterpretations of the oracles of Second Isaiah. Second Isaiah's enigmatic language in combination with a growing openness to foreigners among some Judeans during the postexilic period eventually produced new understandings of both the Isaianic text and the role of the Gentile nations in the eschaton. In fact, one can already glimpse this trend within parts of the collection known as Third Isaiah.
Third Isaiah: The Continuing Tradition
Scholars generally regard chapters 60–62 as the oldest, core section of Third Isaiah61
Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 296.
Ibid., 305.
As in Second Isaiah, in Isaiah 60–62 God centers his redeeming action in Zion: “For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until her vindication shines out like the dawn, and her salvation like a burning torch” (Isa 62:1). The emphasis is not on God's universal salvific action, but on his particular concern for Israel in order that, through her restoration, YHWH might be glorified. Third Isaiah lists the nations as among the witnesses of Zion's restoration (60:3; 61:9, 11; 62:2). However, as in Second Isaiah, the author does not include them in Israel's salvation. In fact, the nations remain quite clearly subservient to Israel. The nations will facilitate the repatriation of the exiles, carrying Israel's sons and daughters (Isa 60:4), which sounds much like the description of the ingathering in chapter 49. Both chapter 49 and chapter 62 speak of YHWH lifting up a signal to the nations to restore the exiles (49:22; 62:10).
Not only will the nations return the children of Israel to Zion, but their wealth will flow to Israel. She will “suck the milk of nations … and the breasts of kings” (Isa 60:16). The foreigners will serve Israel and rebuild Zion (60:10–11; 61:5). God will seek retribution on behalf of Israel, and the children of those who oppressed Israel will come to bow down to her (60:14). The kingdoms who refuse to serve Israel will be destroyed (60:12). Bearing much similarity to the oracles of Second Isaiah (for example, 45:14; 49:23, 26), this vision can hardly serve as a picture of universal salvation for the Gentile nations.
All of this will happen in order to glorify Israel and her God (Isa 60:21). The light of Zion will draw the nations (60:1–3), and, as a result, they will acknowledge the privileged status of Israel and the power of her God; for “the Lord YHWH will cause righteousness and praise to spring up before all the nations” (61:11). The nations will know that YHWH blessed the seed of Israel (61:9). As in Second Isaiah, the nations will perceive Israel's God as sovereign as they witness Israel's chosenness. An interest in proclaiming the universal sovereignty of YHWH, not the salvation of the nations, explains the foreigners' place in the text.
Though the oracles of Third Isaiah echo Second Isaiah in important ways, these texts also reinterpret Second Isaian themes. Whereas the Servant constitutes a major theme in Second Isaiah, the servants of YHWH become a central concern in Third Isaiah.63
Aside from 54:17, all references to the servant in Second Isaiah are singular. The first reference to the servants (plural) occurs in 54:17, anticipating what will follow in Third Isaiah (W. A. M. Beuken, “The Main Theme of Trito-Isaiah: ‘The Servants of YHWH,’ ” JSOT 47 [1990] 67–87, at 67–68).
Though the servants are not mentioned by name in Isa 56:9–63:6, Beuken believes that the concept is in the background, nonetheless. He thinks that the contrast between the righteous and the godless which develops in these chapters animates the identity of the righteous servants (Beuken, “Main Theme,” 69).
Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 19B; New York: Doubleday, 2003) 34.
Therefore thus says the Lord YHWH:
My servants shall eat, but you shall be hungry;
My servants shall drink, but you shall be thirsty;
My servants shall rejoice, but you shall be put to shame;
My servants shall sing for gladness of heart, but you shall cry out for pain of heart, and shall wail for anguish of spirit.
You shall leave your name to my chosen to use as a curse, and the Lord YHWH will put you to death; But to his servants he will give a different name. (Isa 65:13–15)
For a close analysis of the distinction between the righteous and the apostates within the cultic community and the symbolic language used in this oracle, see Paul Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 134–61.
The latest editorial layer and framework of the collection, Isa 56:1–8 and 66: 18–24, displays a new openness to foreigners who attach themselves to YHWH.67
Van Winkle, in fact, argues that Isa 56:1–8 deliberately seeks to offset the nationalism of chapters 60–62. He notes the contrast between Isa 62:8, in which enemies and foreigners will not have food or drink, and Isa 56:7, in which God will make the foreigners joyful in his house of prayer (Van Winkle, “Isaiah LVI 1–8,” 244).
Isaiah 56 indicates that God will welcome in his house, which will become a “house of prayer for all peoples,” eunuchs and foreigners (
) who join themselves to YHWH (Isa 56:6–7).
68
can refer to one who is not a member of a household (Gen 17:12, 27) or, more often, a non-Israelite (e.g., 2 Sam 15:19; 22:45–46) (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 136). Greenberg argues that a distinction should be made between those who “joined themselves to the Jews” (Esth 9:27; Isa 14:1; Dan 11:34), a socio-ethnic group who attached themselves to a community, and those who “joined themselves to the LORD,” foreigners who experienced a “conversion to the God of Israel” (Moshe Greenberg, “A House of Prayer for All Peoples,” in Jerusalem: A House of Prayer for All Peoples in Three Monotheistic Religions, Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Jerusalem, February 17–18, 1998 [ed. Alviero Niccacci; Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Analecta 52; Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 2001] 31–37, at 32–33).
Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 137.
To the eunuchs who hold fast to the covenant and worry that their lack of progeny may result in exclusion, YHWH will give “a monument and a name (
) that shall not be cut off” (Isa 56:5). While the precise meaning of this phrase remains unclear, it may denote membership in the Jerusalem cult community.
70Ibid., 139. Cf. D. W. Van Winkle, “The Meaning of Yād Wāšēm in Isaiah LVI 5,” VT 47 (1997) 378–85.
Blenkinsopp argues that the author considers the foreigners eligible for priestly office. He notes that though the verb
, “to minister,” (v. 6) can refer to secular service, by the time of this text a minister (
) was a priest (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 140). Van Winkle, on the other hand, doubts that the foreigners are literally priests of YHWH. He notes that in Isa 61:5–6, the Israelites are metaphorical priests and ministers of YHWH for the nations, yet this is meant simply to demonstrate that the nations are subservient to Israel as the laity is subservient to priests. Isaiah 56, he argues, does not democratize the priesthood any more than chapter 61. Van Winkle asserts that the use of
in chapter 56 indicates a disagreement between the authors of chapters 56 and 61 about the relationship of the nations to YHWH and Israel (Van Winkle, “Isaiah LVI 1–8,” 241). Incidentally, 1QIsaa omits
completely, reading instead: “to be his servants, and to bless the name of the LORD.” Wells suggests that such language was excluded because the idea that Gentiles would be priests of YHWH was offensive (Roy D. Wells, “Isaiah as an Exponent of Torah: Isaiah 56:1–8,” in New Visions of Isaiah [ed. Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney; JSOTSup 214; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996] 140–55, at 148). Whether or not the Gentiles should literally be considered priests of YHWH, it is significant that this language is applied to foreigners here.
Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 35.
The fact that some eunuchs and foreigners, traditionally excluded from the community, will gain membership indicates a changing definition of communal identity. Third Isaiah places emphasis here not on lineage but on Sabbath observance, on choosing what pleases God, on loving YHWH's name,73
Van Winkle notes that though Israelites are often described as loving YHWH or YHWH's name (Ps 5:12; 69:37; 119:132), this is the only instance in which Gentiles love God's name (“Isaiah LVI 1–8,” 241).
Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 310.
Ibid., 313.
Westermann may go too far, for the inclusion of some foreigners and eunuchs does not provide grounds to assume that the community no longer defines itself on national terms.76
Blenkinsopp also believes that the beginning of defining the community by confessional status is indicated here, however he cautions that, at this point, it is still a question of determining the civil status of those who live in the land (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 136).
Brooks Schramm, The Opponents of Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultic History of the Restoration (JSOTSup 193; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 122.
Ibid.
Westermann calls the new form of association “no longer identical with the old concept of the chosen people” (Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 314).
The task to function as YHWH's servants may indicate the manner of inclusion of foreigners among the righteous remnant (Isa 56:6). As discussed above, the remnant theme throughout Third Isaiah links to the identity of the servants. In contrast to those who turn from YHWH, the servants constitute the faithful of Israel, whom God will favor (Isa 65:9). The author of Isaiah 56 employs this language of servanthood to include foreigners who have joined themselves to YHWH as part of the faithful remnant group. Van Winkle goes so far as to say that “by identifying foreigners as God's servants, the author [of Isa 56:1–8] does away with the privileged position of Israel.”80
Van Winkle, “Isaiah LVI 1–8,” 242.
No doubt playing off of the prevalent theme of the ingathering of exiles, Isa 56:8 promises that God will gather others besides those already gathered, but the meaning of this verse remains unclear. YHWH may gather adherents beyond Israel among the nations.81
Blenkinsopp argues that Isa 56:8 comments on Isa 11:12, extending the ingathering process to Gentile proselytes—a point which is (arguably) echoed in Isa 66:18, 19, 21 (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 141–42).
Isaiah 66 displays a similar openness to Gentile inclusion. The oracle in Isa 66: 18–23 incorporates themes from First, Second, and Third Isaiah in one eschatological vision, which includes the gathering of the nations, the witness of God's glory, and the returning of the diaspora to God's holy mountain.82
Childs, Isaiah, 542.
In many respects this oracle represents a consummation of the primary message in Second Isaiah: the universal sovereignty of Israel's God. Not only will those present among the diaspora Jews witness YHWH's glory, but “all nations and tongues” will know of God's sovereignty, as emissaries go out to the nations.83
Blenkinsopp regards Isa 66:19 as the signal “for the mission to the Gentile world to begin.” The exact identity of the “survivors” who will carry out this mission is unclear, but he suspects they are Gentile proselytes (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 314). If he is correct, it may be that the only explicit statement in the Hebrew Bible authorizing a mission to the nations would be addressed to Gentiles, not Jews. Thus both the Christian call to active mission to the Gentiles and the Jewish tendency to view the conversion of the nations to proper divine worship as something brought about by God, albeit by means of Israel's fulfilling its elect responsibilities, might both be grounded in faithful readings of the Hebrew Bible.
Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 315; Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, 423.
As a result of the mission of the survivors, “all flesh”
85Blenkinsopp believes that it is “too literalistic” to restrict
(all flesh) to only the Jewish people. He notes that this verse may have been influenced by Zech 14:16–19 in which all the families of the earth worship YHWH in Jerusalem (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, 316). However,
(on all flesh) in Joel 3:1 [Eng. 2:28] may well refer just to Israelites, not to all nations, a reading supported by Acts 2:5–11.
) YHWH (Isa 66:23). This verse depicts the nations as bowing in worship to YHWH (
). This verb is used elsewhere in Isaiah to speak of the nations bowing to Israel,
86Used in a secular context, the verb denotes a mark of respect or greeting to one of higher rank. The verb can also describe an act of homage to a king, “a gesture of submission or surrender” (Preuss, TDOT 4:251–52). For usage in Isaiah, see Isa 45:14; 49:7; 49:23; 60:14. The verb is used somewhat ambiguously in 49:7, yet one can infer that the princes bow to Israel or to the servant, particularly since they bow on account of (
) the LORD, not to the LORD. The verb is also used of a craftsman bowing to his idol (Isa 44:15, 17; 46:6). Preuss reads Isa 45:14 incorrectly, stating that “foreign nations with their treasures will bow down in worship before Yahweh and acknowledge him as the only God” (Preuss, TDOT 4:253). In fact, however, the nations bow to acknowledging that God is with her. Thus, they do not necessarily worship YHWH.
In Isa 45:23 God proclaims: “To me every knee shall bend!” Though the nations presumably participate in this act of bowing to YHWH, this is an image of submission, not conversion. The distinction between bowing in obeisance and bowing as an act of worship is not insignificant.
, e.g., Isa 52:10) throughout Second and Third Isaiah, only here do the nations worship (
) YHWH.
88In a religious context,
“can not only stand for ‘pray,’ but can almost be rendered ‘carry out a cultic action (before Yahweh)’ ” (Preuss, TDOT, 4:252).
As discussed previously, Greenberg makes a distinction between those who “joined themselves to the Jews” and those who “joined themselves to the LORD,” asserting that the latter are true converts (Greenberg, “House of Prayer,” 32–33). Can one make a similar distinction between those who bow down to Israel and those who bow down to the LORD? The fact that some foreigners may be accepted as priests and Levites (Isa 66:21) makes their conversion a reasonable hypothesis. Yet because “the nations” are still identified as such, in contrast to the Israelites (
) (66:20), the distinction must remain, at least for the majority of the people.
While some like Walter Gross, “Israel und die Völker. Die Krise des YHWH-Volk-Konzepts im Jesajabuch” in Der neue Bund im alten (ed. Erich Zenger; Freiburg: Herder, 1993) 149–67, see this passage as the culmination of a movement that eventually dissolves any distinction between Israel and the nations of the world, there are a number of indications in Isaiah 66 that this distinction remains intact (Isa 66:10, 13–14, 19–20, 22).
Although the framework of Third Isaiah includes some foreigners in the faithful remnant group, one must quickly add that even this inclusion does not signal a universalistic impulse of widespread conversion or the end of all distinctions between Israel and the nations. However, these texts do show much greater openness to foreigners and proselytes and place emphasis on keeping Sabbath and holding fast to the covenant rather than on birth or circumcision. This shift may reflect the greater dualistic tendencies in these eschatological oracles. Just as birth alone does not suffice to make one part of the righteous remnant, for the vision does exclude some Israelites by birth (Isa 66:3–6), so birth alone does not exclude one either. Faithfulness to YHWH and observance of the covenant define the righteous remnant. Although one must recognize that this oracle represents a late eschatological oracle and not any broad tendencies within the Hebrew Bible, one can see here the roots of the New Testament's ideas regarding community membership. This text and the New Testament evince an openness to Gentiles, but in neither place does this represent a lowering of the admission standard to the elect community, let alone a signal that Israel's election has been transcended. Israel is not defined more loosely, but more strictly.
Conclusion
Many commentators have understood the servant's charge to become a “covenant to the people, a light to the nations,” as indicative of Israel's universal mission to the Gentiles. A close reading of Second Isaiah, however, has revealed that the prophet's primary concern with the exaltation of YHWH need not imply the inclusion of foreigners in a universal covenant community. The references to the nations within Second Isaiah primarily serve a rhetorical function to exalt the sovereignty of Israel's God. The prophet evokes a type of universalism, but one that maintains and even deepens Israel's particularistic election. However, these texts remain cryptic enough to permit wide interpretation, and Second Isaiah's dissolution of foreign gods inevitably brought in its wake questions concerning the ultimate fate of the Gentiles. If the nations no longer have gods of their own, can foreigners, too, become part of YHWH's elect community? Though the prophet, himself, did not address the implications of his argument, it did not take long for later interpreters to grapple with the consequences of YHWH's universal sovereignty. Indeed, a greater receptivity to the inclusion of some Gentiles within the elect group appears even within the late texts of Third Isaiah in chapters 56 and 66.
Yet the centrality—and ingenuity—of the assertion of YHWH's sovereignty emerges as perhaps the most significant point from our close examination of the place of the Gentiles within Second Isaiah. In marked contrast to earlier texts such as Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Micah, Second Isaiah questions the mere existence of foreign deities in exalting the sovereignty of Israel's God. This feature defines the changing understanding of the relationship between the foreign nations and YHWH. If YHWH still works primarily as a national deity, albeit the greatest of the gods, the foreign nations have less relevance to YHWH, for they have their own gods to worship and to serve. Yet as YHWH becomes not just the supreme God, but the only god, even the nations must recognize his power.
By elevating Israel's God to such great heights, Second Isaiah demonstrates to his exilic audience that YHWH, the God of all the world, had indeed not only authorized his people's exile, but also their return and restoration. Yet his rhetorical strategy carried in its wake even further theological repercussions. Although little warrant for Gentile conversion appears within Second Isaiah alone, the dissolution of foreign deities allowed later authors and interpreters to imagine greater inclusion of the nations. Even as early as the authorship of Isaiah 56 and 66, one finds a new openness to the inclusion of some righteous Gentiles among those who worship YHWH. Furthermore, these latest additions to the collection may have influenced how earlier material in Isaiah 40–55 was read within the context of the canonical book, as suggested by how early Christians came to understand Isaiah's message (Acts 13:44–52).
The implications of Second Isaiah's arguments continue to play themselves out, even to the present day. Jews and Christians place these cryptic texts at the center of discussions concerning election, mission, and conversion. Each faith's reading of the text has informed the unique theological lenses of the Jewish and Christian traditions. Yet a careful reading of the text independent of these two venerable traditions can add further insight to the contemporary theological conversation. Christians who claim a universal mission to Gentiles within Second Isaiah would do well to note the centrality of Israel's election and, accordingly, the legitimacy of Jewish readings of the text. On the other hand, Jews must recognize that the earliest suggestion of Gentile inclusion occurs within the Hebrew Bible itself and emerges from an authentic canonical reading. Over time each tradition has emphasized certain themes while downplaying others. A close reading of the text allows each tradition to learn that just as its own claims are grounded in the text, so too are those of its sister tradition, giving each faith community the ability to gain respect for the other. Only then will there be a solid foundation for honest disagreement concerning election, mission, and the meaning of the call to be a “light to the nations.”
