Deeper Commentary
Isaiah 56:1 Thus says Yahweh, Keep justice, and do righteousness; for My salvation is near to come, and My righteousness to be revealed-
The idea is that those addressed were to keep justice because salvation was near- implying, they could bring about its arrival by living righteously. The implication is that if they didn't, then it wouldn't come. "Salvation near to come" in Is. 56:1 is the same idea as discussed on Is. 46:13; 51:5: "I bring near My righteousness, it shall not be far off, and My salvation shall not wait; and I will place salvation in Zion... My righteousness is near, My salvation is gone forth". The idea was that the restoration of God's Kingdom, "salvation", had come near to the Jews in exile- and all they had to do was accept it, leave Babylon and go to Zion in faith and live it. But they refused, and most didn't even leave Babylon at that time. But God's word [of this restored Kingdom] didn't return to Him without having achieved its end- because this amazing good news was and is offered to the whole world, of whatever ethnicity, Jew or Gentile. And so the language is taken up in the New Testament- the Kingdom of God 'came near' again in the first century (Mt. 3:2; 10:7 "the kingdom is at hand"; Lk. 10:9,11; 21:31; James 5:8). The Kingdom coming near doesn't therefore have to mean that it was inevitably about to come. "Near", in the context of the Isaiah passages, meant that the possibility of it coming was indeed "near" at that time. But if it wasn't accepted, then the possibility would recede and be reapplied to others. It came near to the exiles in Babylon, it came near to first century Israel- but both times they rejected it. And so it has come near to us, especially in these last days.
A case can be made that Is. 56-66 forms a so-called 'Third Isaiah'. The tone becomes more critical and harshly judgmental of the Jews for refusing the Gospel of salvation and restoration. The speaker in Is. 56–66 appears to be in Israel, at a time when the Temple is either built or in the process of being rebuilt (Is. 56:5,7; 57:13; 60:13; 63:18; 65:11,25; 66:1–4,20,21). In Isaiah 40–55, the speaker seems to be still n Babylon (Is. 43:14; 44:28; 45:1; 46:1; 47:1,5; 48:14,20).
The
salvation of Yahweh’s Kingdom could have soon come,
if Judah had ‘kept judgment’. But Malachi and Haggai, along
with the record of the injustices of the Jewish nobles in Nehemiah, show
the lack of judgment / justice amongst the returnees.
Israel should have been just and not abusive of their brethren, precisely
because "my salvation is near to come". We are to do
righteousness, because God's righteousness is about to be revealed (RV).
We seek to live the Kingdom life now, seeing we will so soon, by grace, be
living it anyway.
The tone in Isaiah appears to change now. The historical interlude in Is. 37-39 has demonstrated that the prophecies in Is. 1-36 of judgment at the hands of Assyria were ameliorated and deferred by the intense repentance and intercession of Isaiah's school of prophets. But the interlude concludes with the bad news that the reformation was not thorough, and that Judah would go into captivity in Babylon; and therefore the earlier prophecies of judgment by Assyria would be reapplied to judgment by Babylon. But out of that there was to come a wonderful restoration of God's Kingdom in Israel, explained in the so called 'second Isaiah' (Is. 40-55). But sadly, the Jews who returned failed to allow that amazing potential to come true; and that is the burden of the so called 'third Isaiah' (Is. 56-66). It seems that God therefore gave up trying to restore the Kingdom in a political, national sense; and looked instead to a purpose with individuals who had His word in their humbled hearts.
Isaiah 56:2 Blessed is the man who does this- As noted on :1, God was
now looking to build relationships with just some individuals who were
spiritually minded, seeing that on a national level His wonderful project
for the restoration of His Kingdom had been disallowed by them.
And the son of man- The appeal is to individuals within the community, but "the son of man" looks forward to the Lord Jesus, the representative servant Messiah called "Israel", who would alone be completely obedient. Because Is. 64:7 laments that there was apparently not a single one in the community who would 'hold fast' the offered covenant (s.w. "who holds it fast").
Who holds it fast- To "hold fast" means to keep covenant (Is. 56:4,6; 2 Chron. 7:22; Jer. 31:32). The "it" they were to hold fast to was God's righteousness and not their own (Is. 56:1). But they refused to do so because like Job, they held fast (s.w.) to their own righteousness (s.w. Job 27:6). The word means literally, 'to harden / strengthen'. Then individual who wanted to accept the new covenant offered to the exiles in Jer. 31:32 and Ez. 20 would in turn be strengthened / confirmed by God in that way, just as today (s.w. 2 Chron. 16:9; 19:11). Hezekiah had initially 'strengthened himself' in Yahweh, just as his name means; but didn't remain in that way (s.w. 2 Chron. 32:5,7). Isaiah is asking his audience to continue as Hezekiah could have been. The returning exiles were initially 'strengthened' (s.w. Ezra 1:6; 6:22; Neh. 2:18 etc.) but on a national level, they hadn't continued in this. So individuals are now bidden strengthen themselves, and to be strengthened, in the things of the new covenant.
Who keeps the Sabbath from profaning it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil- There was a problem with Sabbath abuse during the restoration. And so these potential prophecies of what could have happened at the restoration were precluded from fulfilment. The Sabbath was intended to teach self-control, restraining the hand from doing evil. Perhaps also in view is the assimilation of the exiles with the Persian and Babylonian culture. They refused the good news of restoration because of their comfort within that culture. We don't get the impression the likes of Esther and Mordecai kept the Sabbath- people didn't even know Esther was a Jewess.
Isaiah 56:3 Neither let the foreigner who has joined himself to Yahweh
speak, saying, Yahweh will surely separate me from His people-
The foreigner in view may be the foreigners whom God intended to return with the exiles from Babylon to Zion. That scenario didn't really happen. The Jews didn't actually want to leave the foreigners and worshipped their gods. But it becomes true in the glorious reapplication to all who say "Yes" to the good news of the restored Kingdom and the new covenant.
We have here another example of the Bible's huge interest in self talk. For the foreigner and eunuch are being told what not to "say" in their own self talk. The foreigner had indeed "joined himself" and so he should not in his self-talk say the opposite- that he had been separated from Yahweh. We too can join ourselves to the Lord but then in our self-talk, completely deny this. The contrast is between 'Don't you say' (:3) and "For thus says Yahweh" (:4). His word must override the word of our self talk. And if we enquire why the foreigner said to himself "Yahweh will surely separate me from His people", it was because this is what they had heard from the Jews. Their words affected the self talk of the Gentiles. But that was to be displaced by God's words.
There are many other cases where the Bible tells us to speak or not to speak in a certain way in our heart, in our self talk: "Say not, I will recompense evil; but wait on Yahweh" (Prov. 20:22); "Say not, I will do to him as he has done to me" (Prov. 24:29); "Say not, What is the cause that the former days were better than these?" (Ecc. 7:10); "Say not in your heart, Who shall ascend into heaven?" (Rom. 10:6); "Speak not in your heart saying, For my righteousness Yahweh has brought me in to possess this land" (Dt. 9:4); those who speak "with flattering lips and with a double heart" are saying one thing with their lips when their self talk is the opposite (Ps. 12:2). And we have the records of men's self-talk preserved for millennia in the Bible. Thus we learn what Abraham "said in his heart" thousands of years ago (Gen. 17:17), what Abraham's servant 'spoke in his heart' (Gen. 24:45), what Esau said in his heart about his brother (Gen. 27:41); what David said to himself about Saul (1 Sam. 27:1); what Jeroboam said in his heart about the kingdom (1 Kings 12:26); what the wicked say in their heart about God and His judgment (Ps. 10:6,11,13; 14:1; 53:1); Ecclesiastes is the author writing down in words in later life what he realized had been the self talk of his youth (Ecc. 2:1,15; 3:17,18); what the king of Babylon said in his heart about Jerusalem and himself (Is. 14:13; 47:10); what the king of Tyre said to himself about himself (Ez. 28:2).
At the end of the book of Esther, many Gentiles became Jews. And yet they it seems were not fully accepted into the Jewish community. Yet Is. 56 stresses God's special interest in them, and His intention they too should go up from Babylon to Zion along with the Jews- and equally offer acceptable sacrifices in the rebuilt temple. There may be reference to how the returned exiles married Gentiles and then separated from them at the times of Ezra and Nehemiah. Perhaps this is saying that this was unnecessary if those foreigners had joined themselves to Yahweh.
Neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree- The context is of Gentiles who had become Jews (:6) and who were keeping the Sabbath and trying to be obedient to the covenant. These Gentiles are called eunuchs. One suggestion is that the Jews were hostile to these proselytes, and during the required circumcision process they actually castrated them. Or falsely extrapolated from the need for circumcision to demand they be castrated if they wanted to be Jews.
Isaiah 56:4 For thus says Yahweh, To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, and
choose the things that please Me, and hold fast My covenant-
Perhaps the "eunuchs" refer to the Jews who had been made eunuchs in Babylon, who were officials in the Babylonian and Persian empires, like Nehemiah. Is. 39:7 had distinctly prophesied: "they will be eunuchs in the king of Babylon’s palace". Perhaps the idea is that they were going to return and find meaning and an eternal name through having returned to Zion and quit the good life and senior positions of Babylon. It's possible that these Jewish eunuchs / officers of Babylon were called "foreigners" by their brethren, who resented how they had been senior political and social figures within Babylon.
We note the stress on "Me", "My Sabbaths... My covenant... My salvation... My righteousness... My desire... My holy mountain... My house... My altar". God was absolutely putting all of Himself into this new covenant. Which we now can take hold of. This is choosing the things that please / delight God; and the same phrase is used three times of how the Jewish exiles did not choose what pleases God, but rather chose the idols which do not please God (Is. 65:12; 66:3,4). Yet they made those choices beneath the umbrella of external devotion to Yahweh. Life is a string of choices, and God looks carefully at those choices.
The classic case of a foreigner who was a eunuch is in the account of the Ethiopian eunuch being baptized into the Lord, after having been rejected [we can deduce] by the Jerusalem authorities and not allowed to enter the temple beyond the court of the Gentiles (Acts 8:27). The scenario in Isaiah 56 thus again 'came near' to fulfilment in the first century. But again, God's people refused it. And now after a gap of 2000 years, it seems we have another chance. Again the day of the Lord draws near- but God's people must accept it. But for all time, the new covenant, membership in God's people, is here thrown open to the rejected and marginalized, summed up in the Gentile and eunuch. Their lives, like those of so many today caught up in postmodern hopelessness, were of futility and abandonment. But God could powerfully transform them. Although Abraham isn't mentioned specifically in Is. 56, we could think that there is an allusion to him- for he was a foreigner in the promised land, and was unable to have children by Sarah. The foreigner lacked land [foreigners couldn't own land in a foreign land] and the eunuch lacked children. The promises of land and seed were the basis of the promises to Abraham; and those promises were the basis of the new covenant which God was now offering to all men. Including the foreigners and eunuchs at the time of the restoration.
The foreigner is often mentioned together with "the poor", as life as an immigrant was economically difficult in the family and kinship based economy of the ancient world. But eunuchs were in this case senior servants of a king or empire. The mention of foreigners and eunuchs thereby presents the picture of the spiritually marginalized, both rich and poor, who were apparently powerless to come close to God as they wished to. For there was no ritual of purification which could make a Gentile not a Gentile or a eunuch not a eunuch- let alone to empower them to become 'ministers' / priests. These are exactly the types whom God rejoices to bring close to Him.
Seeing the old covenant precluded foreigners and eunuchs from
priestly service or entry to the sanctuary, the covenant they "held fast"
was not the old covenant. The very passage which excluded foreigners and
eunuchs from the people of God (Dt. 23) was read to the exiles in Neh. 13
as the basis for demanding their divorce from foreigners. The returned
exiles chose to remain under the old covenant rather than accept the new
covenant. What they should've done with their foreign wives was to bring
them into the new covenant. In Is. 66:2 we read of God dwelling with those
who 'trembled at His word'.
So when we read here in Is. 56 of gentiles and eunuchs holding fast to the covenant, this was the new covenant offered now to just individuals within the community of exiles, who were urged to "hold fast" the righteousness imputed from God which was part of the new covenant offered to the exiles in Jer. 31:32 and Ez. 20 (see on :2).
It seems a reasonable assumption that Hezekiah chose to be a eunuch for
the Kingdom's sake. There is the implication in Is. 56:3-8 that his
example inspired others in Israel to make the same commitment. They are
comforted by Isaiah: "Neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.
For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and choose
the things that please me, and take hold (the same Hebrew word is used
five times about Hezekiah, 2 Chron. 29:3,34; 31:4; 32:5,7) of my
covenant; even unto them will I give in mine house, and within my walls a
place and a name better than of sons and daughters: I will give them an
everlasting name, that shall not be cut off”. Hezekiah had lamented that
he would die without a seed (Is. 38:12; Is. 53), and so did those who had
also become (in their minds?) eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom. There
was that human desire for a seed, a "house" to perpetuate their name. But
they are promised a name in God's house (family) in the Kingdom, better
than of sons and daughters in this life. This alludes to Ruth 4:15, where
Ruth is described as being better than sons to Naomi. In other words, the
Ruth: Naomi relationship, featuring as it did a willingness to deny
marriage for the sake of the God of Israel, was a type of our relationship
with God. In its restoration context, it has
been suggested that this passage was a comfort to Nehemiah, who appears to
have been a (physical) eunuch, and hence barred from entry to the temple
which he was devoted to. Hence his words: "Who is there, that being as
I am would go into the temple...?" (Neh. 6:11). Isaiah is comforting
him and those like him that they would eternally live in the temple.
Isaiah 56:5 to them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial
and a name better than of sons and of daughters; I will give them an
everlasting name, that shall not be cut off- The Gentiles who truly
joined themselves to Yahweh would be "better than" the ethnic Jews, God's
previous "sons and daughters".
All the faithful will be given a name and place in the temple; so what especial consolation was this to those eunuchs? Surely the point is that the name (personality) they will then have will gloriously reflect the self-sacrifice and personal Biblical understanding which they went through in this life. This alone proves that the reward will be individual. The Lord's picture of men entering the Kingdom without limbs is surely making the same point (Mk. 9:47); the result of our self-sacrifice in this life will be reflected by the personality we have in the Kingdom. And there is evidence that the Man we follow will still bear in His body, throughout eternity, the marks of the crucifixion (Zech. 13:6; Rev. 5:6). The "name" will be eternal; their personality and being will endure literally for ever. Again we see pointed up the eternal, critical importance of the character / personality we allow to be developed in us in this life. It will literally be "eternal glory" to them. And not the fading glory given by men, engraved on war memorials and tombstones. "Forever in our hearts", "We will remember them" etc. are all time limited. One day soon, those people will be eternally forgotten and nobody will remember them, in the spectrum of infinite time. People like to think that their memory continues in the hearts of their children and descendants. The eunuch had no such hope; but in fact neither does any man, for he too will soon be totally forgotten. But God will remember these eunuchs eternally, their name will be eternal, in God's memory- far greater than any memory of themselves preserved in the hearts of any immediate descendants. The word for "memorial" is used for a memorial monument (1 Sam. 15:12). Absalom built one as he had no children. Eunuchs had nobody to carry on their family name; but that itself is mythical, lasting a few generations at best. But eunuchs for the Lord will have a name that endures eternally. It's as if, through perpetuating their name, God Himself is erecting an eternal monument to remember the sacrifices and devotions made by some obscure "eunuch", someone who was excluded and forgotten by the religious people of God- but eternally glorified by God. Ez. 43:7-9 criticizes the Jews for burying the dead bodies of their kings and making [memorial] "doorposts" to them in the temple, in the belief this would eternally memorialize them. Indeed they are told to remove those bodies. For the eternal memorial is in a character remembered and eternally preserved by God, re-articulated in a bodily form for ever. And the personality of the eunuchs and Gentiles was to be memorialized eternally within the walls of God's house, as if they were the royalty whose memorials God did not want inside His house. The eunuchs may have felt a 'cutting off' of their manhood; but the name they would be given would never be cut off.
Isaiah 56:6 Also the foreigners who join themselves to Yahweh-
The same word is used of the foreigners joining the exiles in asking the
way to Zion and saying "Let us join ourselves to Yahweh in an everlasting
covenant" (Jer. 50:5). That didn't happen at the time of the restoration.
So it has been reframed and reapplied to us now. This is the time
envisaged in Zechariah when "Many nations shall be joined to Yahweh in
that day, and shall be My people; and I shall dwell in the midst of you"
(Zech. 2:11). This
was the new covenant offered now to just individuals within the community
of exiles, who were urged to "hold fast" the righteousness imputed from
God which was part of the new covenant offered to the exiles in Jer. 31:32
and Ez. 20 (see on :2). But this new covenant wasn't only open to Jews or
Israelites; it was also open to the repentant minority of Gentiles which
the prophets often foresee. On the basis of this new covenant, a new,
multiethnic people of God could be formed; and that is what is happening
today. But it could have happened then too, and the story of Jonah is
surely to underline the possibility.
As noted throughout Is. 13 onwards, the judgments upon the Gentiles in the
land are only because they have refused to repent. God's desire was that
the Gentile "briers and thorns" upon whom He would march (Is. 27:4) would
"take hold" of Him and make peace, entering into covenant with Him as He
offered. Is. 27:5 likewise speaks of this latter day 'taking hold' (s.w.)
of Yahweh by the remnant of the judged Gentiles.
To minister to Him and to love the name of Yahweh, to be His servants, each one who keeps the Sabbath from profaning it, and holds fast covenant- Ministering and being Yahweh's servants is the language of priesthood. The new covenant offered to the exiles was not a repeat of the Mosaic covenant. Now, Gentiles who took hold of the new covenant could serve on an equal footing. Is. 56:6 defines what is meant by “a house of prayer for all nations”- it was for those of all nations who “join themselves to the Lord, to serve him and to love the name of the Lord... every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant”. “The people of the land” were to have a part in the new system of things (Ez. 45:16,22; 46:3,9), and yet this very phrase is repeatedly used concerning the Samaritan people who lived in the land at the time of the restoration (Ezra 4:4; 10:2,11; Neh. 9:24; 10:30,31). God’s intention was that they should eventually be converted unto Him; it was His intention that Ezekiel’s temple be built at the time of the restoration under Ezra. And yet Zech. 7:10; Mal. 3:5 criticize the Jews who returned and built the temple for continuing to oppress the stranger / Gentile. Israel would not.
But these things have all been reapplied to we who accept the new covenant today. We have joined ourselves to the Lord (in baptism, in our case) in order to be His slaves. We love our Master, and are committed to Him and His cause 24 hours / day. And the future Kingdom will involve the same; for quite simply "His servants shall serve him" in that age, continually and eternally (Rev. 22:3). We have noted earlier that we now read no more of the singular "servant" after Is. 53, but rather of plural "servants". His suffering would enable the true Israel to become "in" Him, and thus become the servants within the one perfect servant. And the opportunity to become "in" Him was open to the Gentiles. Hence they are His "servants".
The sabbath is emphasized. But the sabbath was the sign of the old covenant relationship between God and His people Israel (Ex. 31:13,17). Yet the Gentiles and eunuchs, which we can take as a summary of all those religiously excluded from Israel, would enter the new covenant, which has no element of Sabbath keeping. Paul, a great preacher of the new covenant, describes the Sabbath as irrelevant to new covenant living, and at best a matter of personal conscience. But the foreigners and eunuchs are characterized by sabbath keeping. I suggest that the idea was that these Gentile proselytes had sought to enter covenant relationship with God under the old covenant, and therefore kept the Sabbath. But in reward, they were given the new covenant. This is why there is no mention of them being circumcised, which was the sign of entry into the old covenant. Or we could see the focus on the sabbath [which we also see in Ezekiel's teaching of the exiles] because the Gentiles kept it from the viewpoint that it looked ahead to the restored Kingdom. As Abraham Heschel called it, "a sanctuary in time". Their keeping of it was to be rewarded in that they would indeed have an eternal part in the restored Kingdom of God on earth; their faith thus expressed would be turned to sight.
We must not fail to recognize how radical was the statement that the "ministers" in the restored city and temple would be Gentiles (Is. 56:6). For "ministering to Yahweh" is the language of the Levites and priesthood. The priesthood was going to be radically changed; clearly enough, a new covenant is in view. We must compare this with the statement that the restored Zion and people of God would be the ministers, whilst Gentiles would be their servants: "Gentiles shall stand and feed your flocks, and foreigners shall be your plough men and your vine dressers. But you shall be named the priests of Yahweh; men will call you the ministers of our God" (Is. 61:5,6). The contrast appears to be between the "Gentiles" and the "you" who will be "the ministers of our God". That "you" is defined in Is. 61:3 as the restored Zion / people of God. But Is. 56:6 says that Gentiles and eunuchs would be the "ministers of our God". We conclude that "Zion" is being redefined to include Gentiles, eunuchs and whoever wants to be "in" the Servant Israel. But "Gentiles" are still mentioned as if it were unbelievers; but believing foreigners / Gentiles are included in the people of God and spoken of differently: "foreigners will not drink your must for which you have laboured... foreigners shall till your land and dress your vines, but you shall be called priests of Yahweh" (Is. 62:8; 61:5,6).
Isaiah 56:7 Even them will I bring to My holy mountain, and make them
joyful in My house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices
shall be accepted on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of
prayer for all peoples-
See on :6. Their sacrifices, those of the Gentiles, were not just those
they offered for themselves, but for others; for they were also to be
ministers / servants of the sanctuary (:6).
Hence GNB "accept the sacrifices you offer on my altar".
The Sabbath was polluted, as Nehemiah recorded, and the Gentiles were mixed with and affirmed in their idolatry, rather than converted and brought to worship in the temple. And so the revelation of Yahweh’s salvation and righteousness in the Kingdom was deferred. The way Jews and Gentiles ate together at Nehemiah’s table (Neh. 5:17) pointed forward to what was almost possible. But in the end, they mixed with and adopted the ways of the Gentiles, and their leadership arrogantly developed a theology that said that dirty Gentiles could never be saved; for salvation, they reasoned, was only for Jews. The idea that the temple was to be a place for Gentiles also to worship not only didn't come true; but the very opposite happened. The Jews became intolerant of the Gentiles, nationalistically proud, and rejected the Samaritans from worshipping in the rebuilt Jewish temple. And therefore the Samaritans had to build their own temple on Mount Gerazim. Historical records suggest that the Samaritans dearly wished to worship in the Jews' temple, and only built their own one because the Jews disallowed them. See M. Gaster, The Samaritans (Oxford: O.U.P., 1925) p. 28 ff. .
The Ezekiel prophecies of Ez. 40-48 had an intended and possible
fulfilment at the time of the restoration under Ezra, but this was
nullified by Israel’s lack of response; and therefore, at least in
principle, the prophecies had their fulfilment delayed until the second
coming. This enables the prophecies to fit in with others which speak of
some kind of centralized worship system in the future restored Kingdom (e.g. Is.
2:2-4; 56:7). Or it could be that these prophecies of Isaiah are likewise
talking about what was potentially possible for a restored, obedient
Israel; particularly at the time of the restoration from Babylon. The
lesson that comes out of all this is the extent to which God is willing to
work with us, to tailor His purpose according to how far we are prepared
to work with Him, and in that sense to allow Himself to be limited by us.
There could be no greater inspiration to a maximal commitment to His
purpose and His work.
Isaiah 56:8 The Lord Yahweh who gathers the outcasts of Israel says, Yet
will I gather others to him, besides his own who are gathered-
Gathering the outcasts is alluding to Dt. 30:4, speaking of Yahweh gathering the "outcasts" of Israel after their repentance: "If your outcasts are at the ends of the earth / land [which they were at Babylon], from there Yahweh your God will gather you". But this gathering of the outcasts was to be God's response to Israel's repentance in exile, when they "call to mind among all the nations... and return to Yahweh your God and obey His voice according to all that I command you... with all your heart and with all your soul; then Yahweh your God will turn your captivity and have compassion on you. He will return and gather you from all the peoples where Yahweh your God has scattered you" (Dt. 30:1-3). The promise of Is. 56:8 is that this regathering of God's people will include a gathering of "others"- the Gentiles and eunuchs. But this scenario didn't work out, in that exiles didn't repent, as the rest of Is. 56 bitterly laments. And "yet will I gather others..." was to come true, in a longer term than intended, in the gathering of the Gentiles to Zion. They are gathered "to him", to Israel, in that the Jerusalem / Zion that is above becomes the mother of us all. And "Israel" becomes the servant called "Israel". The Lord surely has these ideas in mind in teaching that He has "other sheep", the Gentiles, whom He must also bring / gather (Jn. 10:16).
This verse is connected with :7 and explains it, according to the LXX. The Gentile "others" are going to be accepted by God on an equal footing with the ethnic Jews, and even become "ministers" in the sanctuary on the same basis as the Levites (:6). They would be "gathered" to the "ensign", the standard pole, in Zion. This now refers to the cross of the Lord Jesus (Is. 11:12; 43:5 s.w.). The exiles "gathered" from the nations were to come to Zion along with the repentant Gentile remnant who were likewise "gathered". This is to become the multiethnic ecclesia- LXX "for I will gather to him [Israel] a congregation / ekklesia". That ecclesia is based around the hope of Israel, for they are gathered "to Israel". They would gather themselves (Is. 60:4) and yet be confirmed in this by being gathered. Likewise all who respond to the call of the new covenant are confirmed by the Spirit in that response. See on Is. 57:13.
Isaiah 56:9 All you animals of the field, come to devour, all you animals
in the forest- But despite all the wonderful spiritual potentials
outlined in :1-8, the reality was that the people would not respond.
Instead of the repentant Gentiles gathering themselves to Zion, they would
like wild beasts gather together to yet again devour God's people for
their impenitence. The language is so similar to Jer. 12:9, the
judgment on Judah's leaders before the exile. And now after the exile,
their leaders had learnt nothing from their sufferings and needed the same
rebuke: "Go, assemble all the animals of the field, bring them to devour".
We can take Is. 56:9 - 57:21 as one section. The chapter break inserted
between Isaiah 56 and 57 is unfortunate. Thus the "way" of "unjust gain"
in Is. 56:11 is repeated in Is. 57:17.
Isaiah 56:10 His watchmen are blind, they are all without knowledge; they
are all mute dogs, they can’t bark; dreaming, lying down, loving to
slumber-
The watchmen of God's people would not see the gathering of the wild
beasts of the nations in judgment against them (:6). The LXX suggests this blindness and lack of knowledge was given to
them, as confirmation of how they didn't want to see: "See how they are
all blinded: they have not known".
Isaiah 62:6,7 speaks of watchmen [= the prophets, Ezekiel 3:17; Jer.
6:17; Hab. 2:1] set upon Jerusalem’s walls as watchmen, keeping no silence
[in their prophesying] until Jerusalem was established. For the link
between the prophets and standing on a watchtower, see Hab. 2:1. But false
prophets arose, as we see in Ezekiel's experience amongst the exiles. Watchmen upon the walls were
supposed to be looking for something- for the approach of the Messianic
messenger with good tidings of Judah’s full return from captivity, of
which Isaiah had spoken in Is. 52:7,8. But most of Judah preferred to stay
in Babylon, took up a collection for the few who did return… and no
Messiah could appear with that news. God had promised this- but He asked
to be put in remembrance of His promises (Is. 43:26), i.e. He asked for
those watchmen to be His ‘rememberancers’, even though He cannot in that
sense forget them (Ps. 119:49; Jer. 14:21). In all this we see an
exquisite picture of how God works with men, how His promised faithfulness
and omnipotence all the same has built into it a requirement for human
prayerfulness and response. The reality was that the watchmen / prophets
of Israel were blind, ignorant and sleepy.
Isaiah 56:11 Yes, the dogs are greedy, they can never have enough; and
these are shepherds who can’t understand: they have each turned to their
own way, each one to his gain, from every quarter- "Can never have
enough" are the same words as the lament in Is. 55:2: "And your
labour for that which doesn’t satisfy?". They were as greedy dogs who
could 'not be satisfied', obsessed with personal gain, and disregarding
the free feast of fat things Yahweh had prepared for them in Judah. Again
we detect that it was a love of the soft life of materialism in Persia
which was the root cause for the exiles not responding to the invitation,
and the book of Esther therefore has a sad ending, portraying the Jews as
wealthy and popular. See on Is. 57:17.
"Their own way" is "the way of their own heart" (Is. 57:17), for the inner heart defines our way in life. As a man thinks in his heart, so is he. And the Lord died to redeem all who want it from having gone their "own way" (Is. 53:6). These are those who have refused that great redemption and opportunity for psychological reversal. And in this case, they stayed in their "way" for money, for their own gain; we could render: "turned their own way to their own gain". A spirit of self-indulgence and of slumber, laziness, avarice and selfishness... that in reality was what the Babylon life had become for the Jews. And they didn't want to quit it. Further, they had covered it with a veneer of spirituality, claiming Yahweh as their God- on a merely cultural level. For they hypocritically continued their quiet idolatry, as alluded to in Is. 57:3-13; 65:1-7. Whilst also being religiously exclusive and xenophobic towards 'Gentiles' and 'eunuchs', those whom they had excluded from their community: "Keep to yourself, do not come near me, for I am too holy for you" (Is. 65:5). They entered into idol worship, but perhaps subconsciously justified it by refusing to allow Gentiles to participate in their Jewish religion. The height of their hypocrisy and ingratitude was in that they who had been released from debt slavery by Divine redemption, forced their own brethren into debt slavery (Is. 58:6,9). Putting the various pictures together of the weaknesses of the exilic community [found in Is. 56:9–12; 57:3–13,17–21; 58:1–14; 59:1–8; 65:1–7,11,12; 66:3–6,17], it sounds so much like the church of today; and exactly those characteristics are what turn people off the church.
Isaiah 56:12 Come, say they, I will get wine, and we will fill ourselves
with strong drink; and tomorrow shall be as this day, great beyond measure-
This is the way the flesh reasons; that life shall continue as it is
today. Living for the moment is the temptation we continually battle with.
Faith is all about looking to the future, and beyond the very narrow
horizons of the immediate present. Drunken feasts are used as a metaphor
of judgment; they were drinking their own condemnation, and what was so
tragic was that they could have worked towards the reestablishment of
God's Kingdom and their own place in eternity. The context in the next
chapter is of their idolatry so we can assume these drunken feasts were
part of idol worship rituals; like the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 11, they
turned the worship of the true God into a form of idolatry. Again we see
that the false prophets / teachers of :10 are condemned not to much for
theological error arising from incorrect intellectual process in
expounding God's word, but for moral false teaching. This is likewise the
nature of false teaching in the New Testament. The same language
about being filled with strong drink is used in Is. 5:11 of how the Jews
were before the exile. Priest and prophet before the exile are accused of
just the same: "They also reel with wine, and stagger with strong drink;
the priest and the prophet reel with strong drink. They are swallowed up
by wine, they stagger with strong drink. They err in vision, they stumble
in judgement" (Is. 28:7). The exile had failed to reform them, as God had
intended. "And tomorrow shall be as this day..." is the language of hard
core alcoholism. And that is just the picture used of Zion in Is. 51, an
alcoholic lying drunk and naked in the dust, being abused as she lay
there, chewing the dregs of the alcohol to get a little but more out of
it. God had offered to take her hand and help her arise, be clothed with
royal garments, brush the dust off her, and be remarried to Him in glory.
She preferred to wallow in her alcoholism, addicted to the wine of her own
condemnation. She did this when God had insisted He had given the exiles
His Spirit, He had enlivened their dead bones (Ez. 37); and yet they
refused and resisted the Holy Spirit, just as their fathers had done and
just as they would in the first century (Acts 7:51): "They shall know that
I am Yahweh their God, in that I caused them to go into captivity among
the nations, and have gathered them to their own land; and I will leave
none of them any more there; neither will I hide My face any more from
them; for I have poured out My Spirit on the house of Israel, says the
Lord" (Ez. 39:28,29). The Spirit was poured out upon the dry bones, but
they refused to come to life and stand up and return to Zion. They
resisted the Holy Spirit. Salvation again 'came near' in the first century
and again they refused. But they were resisting that which cannot be
resisted; they couldn't resist the spirit by which Stephen spoke (Acts
6:10), yet he says they resisted the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51). This is the
miserable position of all who refuse to the good news of the Kingdom.
Previous Chapter
