Repentance, Eschatology, And Prophetic Hope: Repentance In The Book Of Isaiah

By Samuel Emadi

Few themes in the prophets are more significant than repentance. Scholars have often noted that one of the primary duties of the prophet was to act as a covenant emissary, reminding Israel of the demands of the covenant and the corresponding curses for disobedience and blessings for obedience. [1] Thus, one of the primary goals of the prophets was to bring about the repentance of Israel—or, in some cases, the surrounding nations. [2] Even oracles of judgment were in most cases conditioned on the response of the people. Rather than simply declaring what would happen, the prophet’s warnings of judgment were declarations of what could happen if Israel refused to repent. [3]

Yet while most scholars mention the importance of the theme of repentance in prophetic literature, few actually investigate what the prophets themselves say about the meaning and function of repentance. [4]

Further, explorations of the theology of repentance in Isaiah are likewise scant. [5]

While it is generally true that one of the primary goals of the prophets was to return the people to covenant fidelity, the subject of repentance in Isaiah is significantly more complex. I contend that while Isaiah does encourage repentance as a strategy for avoiding (or surviving) judgment in the prophet’s own time, he also indicates that repentance will not happen in his own day but will instead be an eschatological phenomenon that coincides with God’s purifying judgment. Isaiah does encourage those of his own day to repent to avoid God’s judgment; however, his writings also indicate a certain prophetic disillusionment that the people will not repent. These two strands of repentance (invitation and eschatological hope) run like parallel lines through Isaiah.

Method

Examining the theme of repentance in any book of the Old Testament poses challenges. Many previous studies have focused almost exclusively on the use of the root שוֹב or its synonyms. William Holladay’s 1958 dissertation The Root Šûbh in the Old Testament set this lexically focused trajectory and has considerably influenced the scholarly guild since its publication. The value of this approach is that it takes seriously the need to let authors speak for themselves by not introducing foreign conceptual categories to the text. [6] The unfortunate drawback is that it excludes material where the author conceptually addresses the subject under examination without using the “technical” terminology that modern scholarship has ascribed to their language. [7]

This article, however, will adopt a broader focus. We can best determine Isaiah’s “theology of repentance” by 1) analyzing his uses of נחם ,שוֹב , and other words which are tied to penitential behaviors; 2) exploring the spatial imagery of the book of Isaiah, particularly with reference to departing from YHWH or from His “way” and also subsequently returning to YHWH; 3) examining penitential prayer in Isaiah; 4) exploring how he defines true actions of repentance, which change one’s status before God from disobedient to obedient. We will examine the entire complex of ideas in the text related to penitence, remorse, confession, and spatial nearness to YHWH (or His “way”) particularly as these ideas intersect with Isaiah’s eschatological expectations. All these ideas together form Isaiah’s theology of repentance. At its core, this repentance is turning both the affections and the behavior away from sin and toward God in love and obedience. From this point emanate all of Isaiah’s elaborative phrases, metaphors, and images.

In light of the above criteria, I intend on providing a brief exegesis of texts in which the words/themes of repentance and eschatology intersect. Subsequently I will synthesize the exegetical data into biblical-theological conclusions with respect to Isaiah’s eschatology and theology of repentance. The aim of this study is a synthetic portrait of Isaiah’s disillusionment that repentance will not take place in his own day and hope for an eschatological repentance of the people founded on God’s saving acts through judgment.

Examination Of Relevant Texts

Isaiah 1

The first chapter of Isaiah records Yahweh’s indictment against the people of Israel. It also introduces readers to Isaiah’s two-step theology of repentance: a historically situated invitation to repentance (1:16-20) and a prophetic (eschatological) expectation that only Yahweh’s purifying fires will cleanse the city (1:27).

Isaiah 1:16-20

Yahweh begins His oracle against Israel by summoning the covenant witnesses “heaven and earth” to listen to His prosecution (1:2; cf. Deut. 4:26; 32:1). What follows is an array of metaphors condemning Israel for her faithlessness. The need for repentance is obvious. Israel has become like a dumb animal, insensitive to the voice of Yahweh and devoid of understanding (1:3). It is characterized by sin, iniquity, evil, and corruption (1:4). The nation called to reflect God’s character has become Sodom and Gomorrah (1:10). Their rebellion has physically separated Yahweh from His covenant people (1:4b). Israel has forsaken Yahweh and consequently are “utterly estranged.” As a result, the people have already begun to experience the covenant curses, including exile from the land (1:7; cf. Deut. 28:63-66).

According to 1:16-17, Israel can escape Yahweh’s displeasure through repentance. In response to Israel’s bloody hands (1:15), Yahweh demands that they “wash” and “make themselves clean.” Yahweh also makes clear that this cleansing is moral rather than cultic. The final seven commands are for a moral reversal of the people’s covenant faithlessness. Yahweh demands that Israel “remove the evil” of their deeds from before Him, “cease to do evil, learn to do good, seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, and plead the widow’s cause” (Isaiah 1:16b–17).

Yahweh further promises that He will remove the bloodstains covering His people with guilt, but, as 1:19 states, only “if” (אם) Israel responds with true repentance. Whether Israel repents or rebels is a matter of both the heart of the people and their actions. Repentance constitutes an inward “willingness” (אבה) that results in “obedience” (שׁמע; v. 19). Failure to repent stems from the inward “refusing” (מאן) that results in “rebellion” (מרה; v. 20).

Isaiah thus indicates that hope for Israel hangs on their willingness to repent. This accords with the regular rhetorical goals of prophets and is consistent with their task of acting as covenant emissaries. Should Israel return to a path of social justice and covenant obedience, they will “eat the good of the land” and thus experience covenant blessing (cf. Deut. 30:15-16). A refusal to repent will result in “being eaten” by the sword and foreigners “devouring” the land (cf. Deut. 28:51-52).

Isaiah 1:21-28

Though Yahweh offers Israel opportunity and instructions for repentance and receiving its corresponding blessings (1:19), the following section of Isaiah (1:21-31) indicates that He is already making preparations for Israel’s failure to repent. Verses 21-26 record His indictment of the people (1:21-23) and the promise of judgment (1:24-26). The notions of faithfulness, justice, and righteousness bracket these verses. Whereas this section begins with a lament that the city was once faithful (אמן), just (משפט), and righteous (צדק), the vision ends with the restoration of the city such that judges (שׁפטיך) are restored and the city will be described once again as “the city of righteousness [צדק], the faithful [נאמנה] city” (1:26). This restoration will come as Yahweh avenges Himself on those who, once called “my people” (1:3), are now designated as “my enemies” (1:24). Yahweh will fittingly “smelt away” the dross of injustice (1:25; cf. 1:22) through judgment.

Verses 27-28 conclude and summarize 1:21-26. Verse 27 identifies the city under discussion as Zion. Her identity is further defined in 27b: redeemed Zion constitutes “her repentant ones” (שׁביה). This is in contrast to those who, in verse 28, forsake Yahweh and are consumed. [8] Yahweh (the implied subject of the Niphalתפדה ) will redeem by justice (במשׁפט) and also by righteousness (בצדקה).

One of the most difficult exegetical questions in 1:27 is with respect to the meaning of the ב-preposition. [9] Whose justice and righteousness are being discussed: Yahweh’s or Israel’s? The word pair, משׁפט צדקה, is common in Isaiah [10] and generally connotes “social justice.” [11] For that reason many scholars believe the ב-preposition indicates the “price” of Israel’s redemption. In this scenario, Zion is redeemed on account of its social justice; thus justice and righteousness refer to qualities characteristic of the people. Others have proposed that the ב-preposition is instrumental. In this scenario, Yahweh redeems “by means of” justice and righteousness; thus justice and righteousness are divine qualities. Verse 27 is therefore read as a restatement of verse 25. God redeems Zion by the exercise of His judgment which will smelt the dross from Zion. In other words, Yahweh will save through judgment. [12]

Each of these arguments has merit; in fact, neither need be affirmed over the other. Isaiah’s ambiguity (coupled with the rest of his theology) allows readers to hold both readings in creative tension. [13] Great authors prefer not to show all their cards on the first page. Isaiah allows for some intriguing ambiguity in early portions of the book so that readers will hope for him to bring to a conclusive resolution. The rest of Isaiah’s prophecy indicates that social justice is necessary to live in God’s presence and that this justice ultimately comes from an eschatological purifying work of God and as a gift given to the people on account of the work of the mysterious Servant figure.

Whatever the case may be, how one interprets the ב-preposition neither undermines the thesis of this article nor does it negate or add to any of the themes previously introduced in the text. Yahweh’s act of redemption comes by the exercise of His just judgment; He purifies the nation with the fires of judgment (1:24-25). As a result, Israel will be called “the city of righteousness, the faithful city” (1:26)—a city further described by the eschatological portrait of redeemed Zion in 2:1-5.

In contrast to 1:2-20, Isaiah 1:21-28 focuses not on the need for Israel to respond to God’s threat of judgment but instead on an eschatological hope based on God’s purifying work of judgment. The exercise of Yahweh’s justice and righteousness redeems Zion. In that future day, repentance will characterize the people of Zion while the dross of “rebels and sinners” (1:28) is consumed by the fires of judgment. The judgment Israel could have avoided through repentance is the judgment God will use to redeem a repentant community. Isaiah posits the presence of a repentant, eschatological community that emerges from Yahweh’s purifying judgment.

Isaiah 1 paints two very different pictures of the future of Israel. Isaiah 1:2-20 invites Israel to a repentance which would result in the removal of God’s judgment and a restoration of covenant blessings. However, Isaiah 1:21-28 indicates that this national repentance will probably never happen. Rather, Yahweh will bring judgment on the nation, effectively purging Zion of those who have forsaken Him and redeeming a repentant remnant. Repentance is necessary in both scenarios: in the first, it is a means of avoiding judgment; in the second, a result of Yahweh’s purifying judgment. Thus Isaiah 1 introduces both streams of repentance theology in Isaiah: the historical invitation to repentance as a means of avoiding judgment and the eschatological expectation that only Yahweh, through judgment, can purify the nation and create a repentant community.

Isaiah 6

Like Isaiah 1, Isaiah 6 is paradigmatic for the whole of Isaiah. The chapter records Isaiah’s prophetic call and is the first of three interrelated narratives in Isaiah. [14] It also introduces or emphasizes many of the themes of the book: the holiness of God, judgment of the nation, spiritual deafness and blindness, and the notion of a remnant (a “holy seed”). Like Isaiah 1, it is also paradigmatic for the two-step theme of repentance in Isaiah: a historically situated invitation for Israel to mimic the repentance of Isaiah in order to survive judgment (6:1-7) and a prophetic expectation that Israel will not repent and that once again only Yahweh’s purifying fires will bring about a “holy seed” (6:8-13).

Isaiah 6:1-7: The Cleansing Of Isaiah

The first half of Isaiah 6 records the cleansing of Isaiah for prophetic ministry. In the wake of king Uzziah’s death (6:1), Isaiah encounters in the heavenly holy of holies the true King of Israel, the thrice holy God (6:3). The prophet cannot bear the presence of God’s holiness because of his sin and thus pronounces condemnation on himself (6:5). In response to Isaiah’s confession of both his own sinfulness and the character of God, Yahweh responds graciously to Isaiah. The seraph touches the lips of Isaiah with a coal from the altar, taking away Isaiah’s guilt and atoning for his sin (6:6-7).

That this narrative is meant to model the prophetic strategy for forgiveness is unmistakable. [15] Isaiah is a man of the people (6:5), and what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Isaiah may share the impurity of the people, but they can share in his forgiveness if they display the same repentant behavior as he does. The commissioning narrative thus provides a positive example for the typical prophetic repentance program: confess, repent, be forgiven. [16] However, the story also alludes to the fact that the time for salvation without the fires of judgment has passed. Isaiah, the repentant one, is cleansed but through fire. Therefore, he is a symbol of both hope and realism to the people: they too can be forgiven by repentance but will yet undergo disciplinary action for their sin.

Isaiah 6:8-13: The Commissioning Of Isaiah

The commissioning of Isaiah is notoriously difficult for interpreters. Greg Beale notes that 6:13 alone is a “minefield of textual, syntactical, and translational difficulties,” [17] a statement that could be easily applied to the rest of the passage. Apart from textual and exegetical concerns, a significant number of theological questions relate to the nature of Isaiah’s prophetic ministry and the function of repentance in the prophet’s theology. [18] Before engaging these questions relating to Isaiah’s commissioning, it is instructive to see the theology of repentance embedded within the commission itself.

Isaiah 6:9-10 reveals the root of Israel’s failure to repent: Israel’s spiritual “sensory organs” have ceased functioning. The chiastic structure of the passage emphasizes this very point.

A Dull Heart (10a) 

B Heavy Ears (10b) 

C Blind Eyes (10c) 

D Lest (10d) 

C’ Seeing Eyes (10d) 

B’ Hearing Ears (10e) 

A’ Understanding Hearts (10f) 

Conclusion: Repentance (שׁוב) and Healing (10g)

The implication is that should their eyes see and their ears hear and they understand with their hearts, they would in fact turn from their sin. Isaiah has already hinted at the spiritual “deafness and blindness” of Israel in the first five chapters in words reminiscent of 6:9-13.

Heaven and earth listen (שׁמעוּ) and give ear (האזיני) to Yahweh (1:2), yet His people have to be urged to “hear the word of Yahweh” (שׁמוּ דור־יהוה) and “give ear to the law of our God” (אלהינוּ האזינוּ תורת). Likewise, while animals know (ידע) their owner, Israel neither knows (לא ידע) nor understands (לא התבונן). Robinson submits that the development of this sensory failure theme is also parallel in both chapters 1 and 6.

1. Israel has a failure of understanding and knowing (1:3; cf. 6:10); 
2. Israel has turned away from Yahweh (1:4; cf. 6:10); 
3. Israel is sick from the head to [the] feet and, by implication, in need of healing (1:5; cf. 6:10). 
4. Yet Israel continues to rebel and refuses to turn and be healed (1:5; cf. 6:10). 
5. Destruction follows (1:7-8; cf. 6:11), but a remnant remains (1:9; cf. 6:13). [19]

Further, in 5:12, Israel is indicted because they do not see (ראו) the work of Yahweh’s hands. Yet at the same time, Israel taunts Yahweh to “hasten his work” so that they may see (נראה) and know. (5:19) [20] (נדעה)

If Israel is to ever turn to the Lord in repentance, the sensory problem of the people must be resolved. Greg Beale has argued persuasively that the sensory failure of the people is ultimately related to the problem of idolatry. [21] The people have become deaf and blind like the idols they worship (42:16-20; 44:8-20; cf. Pss. 115:4-8; 135:15-18), [22] and thus the judgment that will fall upon their idols will fall upon them as well (6:13; cf. 1:29-31). [23] Israel’s lack of repentance ultimately stems from idol worship. Thus, if Israel is to repent in the future, the problem of idolatry must be resolved.

If one of the main functions of a prophet is in fact to call the nation to repentance, then Yahweh’s commission appears out of sorts. [24] Yahweh calls Isaiah to act as His spokesman but seems to make him an “anti-prophet,” a prophet who speaks for God in such a way that secures Israel’s judgment rather than telling them how to avoid it. Verse 9 contains the message Isaiah is to deliver to the people. He is to command them to keep hearing (שׁמע) and seeing (ראה), yet at the same time he must tell them to continue on in their inability to understand (בין) and perceive (ידע).

Whereas verse 9 indicates Isaiah is to proclaim to Israel their own unresponsiveness to what they see and hear, verse 10 commissions Isaiah to preach in such a way that the people remain unresponsive. The prophet is to “make fat” (השׁמן) the hearts of the people, make their ears “heavy,” and their eyes “blind” such that the people do not see, hear, understand, turn, and be healed. Therefore the whole thrust of Isaiah’s prophetic message is to ensure that the people do not repent and receive healing.

If Isaiah is to spiritually desensitize the people to the things of God, the question remains exactly how this task is to be accomplished. Clearly Isaiah did not understand this commission to mean that he should no longer call Israel to repentance. We have already noted that one of Isaiah’s rhetorical goals (consonant with the other prophets) was to call the people to repentance and thus avoid God’s impending judgment; evidence of this abounds in Isaiah itself (1:16-17; 7:9-11; 31:6; etc.). In fact, from a literary standpoint, Isaiah calls Ahaz to repentance and faith in the very next pericope. Further, verse 9 indicates that God’s message for the people through Isaiah was not that the people would cease to “see” and “hear” the prophetic message (i.e., about the threat of impending judgment, invitations to faith, and demands of repentance), but that the people would not spiritually “perceive” the message they “kept on” seeing and hearing.

It is more likely the case that Isaiah understood his commission as consonant with Israel’s other prophets. Isaiah must proclaim repentance; however, he is also told to expect that those “seeing” and “hearing” it will not come to repentance. Israel’s continued exposure to God’s word will harden them against the things of God; thus Isaiah will “make fat” the hearts of the people. The commission therefore gives Isaiah a sense of “prophetic despair” over the immediate response of the people. Isaiah calls people to repent in light of their sin and God’s impending judgment; however, he is not to expect repentance in his own generation. As Boda remarks, “The prophet has received atonement, but no atonement such as this is forthcoming for the people.” [25]

Gordon Wong has challenged this traditional interpretation, arguing instead that “these verses are better understood as rhetorical irony designed to persuade the people to (and not prevent them from) repentance.” [26] Wong offers two lines of evidence for his interpretation. First, he argues that 6:9-10 must be rhetorical irony because it is more fitting with the character of God. He notes, “I am attracted to the rhetorical approach in Isaiah 6:9-10 because common sense suggests that a father does not want his son to be lazy, Jesus does not want his disciples to pull out their eyes (Matthew 5:29f.), and God does not want his people to remain stubborn and unrepentant.” [27] Second, Wong asserts that because Isaiah does in fact call the people to repentance, then it seems he understood the commissioning as rhetorical irony. [28]

There are several problems with Wong’s line of reasoning. First, Wong’s reading of the text appears to be driven more by a concern for his own theological formulations than by exegesis. [29] If we are to understand Yahweh’s words as rhetorical, then why would the prophet despairingly cry out “Lord, how long?” (6:11) in response to his commission? Either the prophet has a severe distaste for irony in preaching or he understands that Yahweh’s message is not rhetorical but judgmental.

With respect to Wong’s second argument, because Isaiah calls people to repentance does not necessitate interpreting Isaiah 6 as rhetorical irony. Wong assumes that if Isaiah is commissioned to harden the hearts of the people, then the actual content of his message must change. However, as noted above, the text itself hints at the fact that Isaiah’s message will not change. The people will “keep on” seeing and hearing the prophetic message they have always heard. The issue is not whether Isaiah will preach a message of repentance, but whether God will soften the hearts of the people to “understand” and “perceive” it. The question of how the hearts of the people will be hardened is a theological one. While Isaiah 6 alludes to the answer, it is by no means a full one. Wong assumes that if God commissions a preaching of repentance, then He does not intend to harden the hearts of the people. This theological conviction controls Wong’s reading of the text and cannot be exegetically substantiated in Isaiah 6.

If in fact the people are destined not to repent, the question remains: what will happen to the nation of Israel? Yahweh answers this question in response to Isaiah’s cry, “Lord, how long?” Yahweh describes a scene of judgment that will devastate both the land and the people (6:11-12). Yet through this burning judgment He will bring about a “holy seed,” a remnant that shares in the holiness of the God who caused them to sprout in the burned-over forest (6:13). Contextually, the “holy seed” must be those who hear, see, understand, and repent. Thus, hope of the holy seed is the hope of an eschatological community characterized by spiritual sensitivity (i.e., by being Yahweh-worshipers as opposed to idol worshipers) and repentance.

Isaiah 6, like Isaiah 1, shows two prophetic repentance programs in tension. [30] Isaiah models the first when he encounters God’s holiness and demonstrates the appropriate response to sin: contrition, confession, and repentance, which lead to forgiveness and cleansing. Yahweh, however, indicates that Isaiah should not expect repentance. Isaiah will preach repentance but should expect recalcitrance. He must look to an eschatological hope. Yahweh will bring a repentant community, a holy seed, from the ashes of Israel’s forest of idols. Thus, like Isaiah 1, Isaiah 6 is paradigmatic for an Isaianic theology of repentance.

Isaiah 7-39

Chapters 7-39 focus on the theme of faith. Israel’s sin is commonly described as failure to “trust” Yahweh (10:20; 30:12; 31:1). Calls to repentance are likewise framed as a matter of not trusting x but instead trusting Yahweh (30:15). These chapters unpack Israel’s lack of faith (i.e., unrepentance) at the national level. As goes the king (ch. 7), so goes the people (ch. 8-35). Even in response to God’s severe judgments, the people do not turn [שׁוֹב] “unto him that smiteth them, neither do they seek the Lord of hosts” (9:13). The people reject Isaiah’s prophetic message of the need for repentance (30:9-11, 15-16) and they demand, “cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us” (30:11). Sprinkled throughout this account of Israel’s continued rebellion, however, is the prophetic expectation that the people will repent but only on account of an eschatological work of God through exile.

Isaiah 10:20-23

Isaiah 10 describes the condemnation which will come on Assyria after Yahweh has wielded it as an instrument of judgment against the northern kingdom. Once again, the twin pillars of “faith” and “repentance” are united. Verse 20 records that “in that day” (ביוֹם ההוא) Israel’s trust problems will be reversed and they will no longer “lean” (להשׁען) on the nation that destroyed them but on Yahweh. As a result of this transfer of faith a remnant will return. The use of Shear-Jashub (שׁאר־ישׁוב) recalls the prophet’s son who was a sign to both Ahaz (7:3) and the nation (8:18) of hope of life after judgment (i.e., return from exile). The context of the passage focuses on Israel’s return from Assyrian tyranny to the land as a new exodus (10:24-25). However, Isaiah poetically enhances the meaning of Shear-Jashub such that it indicates more than merely return to the land but a return “to the mighty God.” Thus the future hope of return from exile coincides with the hope of a spiritual return of the people to Yahweh. Even though the prophetic repentance strategy failed, Yahweh will use judgment to bring about repentance in the latter-day remnant.

Isaiah 29:17-21; Isaiah 35:5

Both Isaiah 29 and 35 present eschatological visions of the redemption of Israel. They are included in this discussion because of their connection with Isaiah 6. Isaiah 29 describes Israel as a nation of spiritual hypocrites who worship God with their mouths but not their hearts (29:13). As a result God intends to do “wonderful things” (29:14) to remedy the sinfulness of His people. This remedy will come in an eschatological day (ביום ההוא) when the deaf hear, the blind see (29:18), and those who stray will “come to understanding” (19:24).

Likewise, Isaiah 35 describes God’s eschatological act of salvation which also appears coterminous with the return from exile (35:10). The vision ends with the “ransomed of Yahweh” returning to Zion with singing and everlasting joy. Isaiah describes Yahweh as taking vengeance on the enemies of Israel and calls the people of Israel to encourage one another with the words “He will come and save you” (35:4). As a result of this saving “the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped” (35:5).

In both texts, Yahweh’s eschatological redemption of the people brings with it a reversal of the spiritual insensitivity which characterized the people in Isaiah 1 and particularly in Isaiah 6. The eschatological nation will see, hear, and understand the word of Yahweh. The ransomed of Zion will return (שׁוב) to the land (35:10) and to Yahweh Himself, because they will “see” the glory of Yahweh” (35:3).

Isaiah 40-55

Isaiah 40ff. clarifies Isaiah’s hopes for an eschatological repentant community. As opposed to the regular and iterative judgments previously administered (9:12, 17, 21), exile has finally cleansed Israel of guilt (40:2). Yet, while exile has been good for the people, the people have not been good in exile. Still Israel is “deaf and blind” (42:18); they do not “understand” or “take to heart” the punishment of exile. Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh’s response to Israel’s continued blindness and deafness (43:8) will be an act of grace (43:1). He will redeem Israel, not on account of their repentance, but “for his own sake” (43:25). Again, in 44:1, Yahweh indicates that He has judged Israel for their sins (43:27-28) “but now” will help them. As Boda observes, “there is a cycle in the text that highlights the seriousness of Israel’s sin and God’s gracious redemption: sin brought exile and discipline but also elicited the comfort of God, who does a new thing in bringing Israel out of exile.” [31]

Isaiah 44:21-22

Isaiah 44 contains a pivotal shift in the prophet’s preaching. The expectations of Isaiah 1:25 are being fulfilled. Yahweh has blotted out the transgressions (פשׁע) of the people and made their sins (חטאת) like mist. Scheuer notes that this word pair (פשׁע חטאת) “refers primarily to conduct that has caused a breach of the relationship with YHWH.” [32] In fact, the context (44:6-20) suggests that “transgressions and sins” refers to idolatry. [33] Most significantly, Yahweh does not promise to show grace when the people repent. Instead He shows it in spite of their present wickedness. As Sheuer indicates,

If the exiles were not guilty in the present as well, YHWH’s saving act would be an appropriate reaction to the good conduct of his people. Yet, it is YHWH’s infinite good will that is pointed out in the corpus (43:25; 48:8-11). Thus the greatness of YHWH’s act of salvation stands out as even more immense against the background of the faithlessness and the guilt of the Israelites, in the past, as well as in the present (Isa. 48:1-11). [34]

Yahweh then encourages the people to repent on the basis of His work of grace: “return to me” (שׂובה אלי). The ground of this invitation is not to avoid God’s justice but instead it is “because” (כי) God has already redeemed them. The former repentance program (hear, repent, be forgiven) has been inverted (you are forgiven; hear, repent).

The ambiguous relationship between God’s saving acts and Israel’s repentance in 1:27, 6:13, and 10:20-23 become clearer in 44:21-22. Yahweh’s forgiveness of Israel’s sins and His redeeming them from exile is not triggered by repentance nor does it necessarily create the repentant community. Instead, God’s grace is meant to trigger the repentance of the people; grace precedes repentance rather than following it.

Isaiah 55:1-7

Isaiah 55 connects the work of the Servant to Israel’s future repentance. This chapter is the second of three passages (i.e., chapters 54, 55, and 56) which unpack the implications of the work of the Servant described in Isaiah 52:13-53:13. [35] On account of the Servant’s work, Yahweh commands the barren nation to rejoice and enlarge the place of its dwelling (54:1-3), assures the nation of His everlasting love (54:4-10), and promises to beautify and establish the nation (54:11-17). Likewise, Isaiah 56 records that due to the Servant’s redemptive work eunuchs and foreigners will be included among those who receive the inheritance of God’s people.

Chapter 55 begins with an invitation to Israel to abandon the foods which do not satisfy and partake of the rich feast made available to them by Yahweh (55:1-3). Yahweh also proclaims that He is making an “everlasting covenant” (ברית עוֹלם), one which will fulfill the Davidic hopes of 2 Samuel 7 (55:3). [36] On the basis of His redeeming work through the Servant and the promise of a gracious covenant, Yahweh again calls the people to repentance (55:6-7). Verse 6 calls Israel both to “seek” (רדשׁ) Yahweh and to “call upon” (קרא) Him. The latter half of each parallel line in verse 6 indicates not only that Israel must not presume on God’s grace (for the time may come when Yahweh is not “near” [קרוב] to them), but it also emphasizes that God’s grace is to serve as motivation for Israel’s repentance. God has undone the “estrangement” (1:4) between Himself and the nation, and as a result calls Israel to return to Him.

Isaiah describes the nature of this repentance similarly to other summons to repent earlier in the book (1:2-20). Once again Isaiah employs the spatial imagery of leaving x for y. The wicked man must “forsake” his “way” and the “unrighteous” man must leave off his thoughts and “return” (שׁוב) to Yahweh. The result is the overflowing of God’s mercy. To those who respond with repentance to God’s merciful acts through the Servant and the promise of an everlasting covenant, God will have “compassion” and will “abundantly pardon” (55:7b).

Again God’s call for repentance is based on His grace. His Servant is crushed for the sins of the people, and God promises the people an everlasting covenant. Consequently, the people are called to respond to God’s gracious acts with repentance.

Isaiah 56-66

Scholars have proposed several different structures for Isaiah 56-66, most of which are chiastic in nature. [37]

A Isa. 56:1-8 Eschatological inclusion of foreign worshipers 

B Isa. 56:9-59:15a Ethical righteousness and condemnation of the people 

C Isa. 59:15b–21 The Divine Warrior 

D Isa. 60-62 Eschatological Hope 

C’ Isa. 63:1-6 The Divine Warrior 

B’ Isa. 63:7-66:17 Ethical righteousness and condemnation of the people 

A’ Isa. 66:18-25 Eschatological inclusion of foreign worshipers

The eschatological concerns of this text are obvious. Visions of universal restoration bracket this section as Yahweh renews both the nations and Israel together in new creation glory. Likewise, at the center of the chiasm is a similar vision of a glorified Israel that includes both God’s salvation and the pouring out of His Spirit. However, the text also indicates that the exilic/post-exilic community described in these texts is not without problems (B/B’). In fact, the indictments brought against Israel’s worship in chapter 58 bear striking resemblance to the condemnations of the pre-exilic community described in Isaiah 1:2-20. The divine warrior figure of 59:15b–21 and 63:1-6 will bring judgment on the nations and act as a Redeemer.

Isaiah 59:20-21

Isaiah 59 begins with a condemnation of the wickedness of Israel that has once again created “separation between you and your God.” As a result of the sins of the people, God has hidden His face so that He no longer “hears” (59:1-8). The people themselves conclude that their sins have been the cause of their troubles (59:9-15a). They are still characterized by blindness (59:10), and while they moan under current distresses (59:10), salvation is far from them (59:11) because of their continued rebellion (59:12). Yahweh, displeased with their rebellion (59:15b), dawns the garb of a warrior (59:17) and executes justice against His enemies (59:18).

Whereas 59:18 identifies the enemies of Yahweh with the coastlands, 59:20 also indicates that this act of judgment will come against all who do not repent of their sins, including Israelites. However, in that day Yahweh will be a “redeemer” () for those who “turn [שׁוב] from transgression.” Verse 21 indicates that these repentant ones will be included in Yahweh’s covenant. This covenant includes the promise of Yahweh’s own “spirit” (רוחי) and “words” (דברי) being in the people. The allusion to Isaiah 6 is obvious. Whereas the prophet of unclean lips was given Yahweh’s words to speak to the people, here it is the people of unclean lips who are commissioned with God’s words to speak to the nations. [38]

Once again, Isaiah’s description of the eschaton is ambiguous with respect to the relationship between eschatology and repentance. What is certain is that two realities will co-exist: God’s saving acts and a repentant people. The repentant will be saved through judgment.

Theological Synthesis

The relationship between repentance and eschatology in Isaiah is by no means easy to sort out. Isaiah 1-39 indicates that the prophet called for repentance, yet expected his invitation to go unheeded. Chapter 6 indicates that Isaiah had divine warrant for this assumption. Isaiah’s preaching reflects the expectations articulated in Isaiah 6. Isaiah calls the people to repentance (Isaiah 1:2-20) but at the same time indicates that repentance will only characterize the people in a future day of redemption (1:27-28). Several passages in this first part of Isaiah reflect an expectation that only in the eschaton of return from exile will the blind and deaf idol-worshipping eyes and ears of the people be opened (29:17-21; 35:5) and will they repent and turn to the Lord (10:20-23).

These early chapters of Isaiah present readers with a chicken-and-egg problem. Isaiah indicates only that God’s eschatological act of salvation from exile and the existence of a repentant community are coterminous. Whether Yahweh’s redemption precedes (perhaps even creates) repentance or whether repentance triggers salvation is unclear. The accent, however, typically falls on God’s gracious provision of salvation rather than on the people’s character.

Chapters 40-55 further clarify the relationship between the eschaton, the return from exile, and repentance. These texts indicate that the people do not trigger Yahweh’s saving acts by their repentance. Instead Yahweh’s salvation is the result of his unswerving commitment to make a name for Himself and show His glory (43:25). The grace of God is intended to elicit repentance in the people. In light of the fact that Yahweh has forgiven their sins (44:21-22) and on the basis of the work of the Servant (52:13-53:12), Israel is invited to repent and join in eschatological blessing (55:1-7). The dawning of the eschaton, described as nothing less than a new creation, coincides with the existence of a repentant remnant with whom God covenants (59:20-21). Likewise, at this time Yahweh will dwell not just in the temple but actually with those who are contrite and of a lowly spirit (57:15; cf. 66:2); His Spirit will be upon them (59:21).

Thus Isaiah does not expect to see repentance in his own time. Only the eschatological community will be repentant. The question is left open, however, as to whether this eschatological community is the same as the post-exilic community. In some texts, the two seem inseparable (10:20-23). However, Isaiah gives no indication that exilic Israel responded with repentance to the Lord’s grace. Indeed, post-exilic readers who knew they were not the repentant and pure community prophesied by Isaiah must have read Isaiah with an eye toward a future hope. One day an Israelite community would respond to the work of God’s Servant—forged from a greater new exodus—a community which will include Gentiles as well as Jews (66:18-25).

We should also note that the tension between legitimate calls for repentance and yet an eschatological expectation that the people will fail and Yahweh must create a repentant community is not unique to Isaiah or to the prophets in general. It may be that Isaiah 1 and 6 echo and renew the application of the Deuteronomic expectation that the people, though warned of the consequences for disobedience, will ultimately fail, be exiled, and then return to Yahweh. Moses starts this prophetic pattern in Deuteronomy 4 when he warns the people not to engage in idolatry (Deut. 4:15-24), reminds them that “if” (Deut. 4:25) the people engage in idolatry they will be scattered among the nations (Deut. 4:25-28), and yet, “when” (Deut. 4:30) these things take place in the “latter days,” they will “return” (שׁוב) to Yahweh because God will exercise grace on behalf of the people (Deut. 4:31). [39] Perhaps Isaiah, depending on Deuteronomy, is interpreting the people’s lack of repentance, the impending Assyrian and Babylonian invasion, and the subsequent cleansing of the dross of Israel through exile (1:25) as the materialization of the Deuteronomic expectations.

Conclusion

This study proposed that Isaiah did not expect repentance in his own time, but instead indicated that the repentance of the people was an eschatological phenomenon. Isaiah 1 and Isaiah 6, two paradigmatic chapters, bear witness to this two-step theology of repentance. The rest of Isaiah provides the details of Isaiah’s eschatological portrait as it relates to repentance and demonstrates that Yahweh’s act of redemption from exile (new exodus), the work of the Servant, and the giving of an eternal covenant all intersect with the hope that a repentant eschatological community, a holy seed, will rise from ashes of judgment.

Notes

1. R. E. Clements, Prophecy and Covenant (London: SCM Press, 1965), 23-27; James Muilenburg, “The ‘Office’ of the Prophet in Ancient Israel,” in The Bible in Modern Scholarship, ed. J. Philip Hyatt (Nashville: Abingdon, 1965), 74-97; John S. Holladay, “Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of Israel,” Harvard Theological Review 63 (1970): 29-51; Meredith Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 57-62; J. Carl Laney, “The Role of the Prophets in God’s Case Against Israel,” Bibliotheca Sacra 138, no. 552 (1981): 313-25; Victor Matthews, The Social World of the Hebrew Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 21. Isaiah clearly interprets his own role in Israel as a covenant emissary as seen from his many allusions to Lev. 26; Deut. 4, 28-29, and 32 in his case against the sins of Israel and threats of future judgment. See, for example, Isaiah’s summoning of the covenant witnesses “heaven and earth” to listen to Yahweh’s prosecution of the people (1:2; cf. Deut. 4:26; 30:19) or His indictment of the people for having rejected תורה (5:24; 30:9).
2. Gary Smith, The Prophets as Preachers: An Introduction to the Hebrew Prophets (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994); Lawrence Boadt, “The Poetry of Prophetic Persuasion: Preserving the Prophet’s Persona,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 59 (1997): 1-21; Dumbrell helpfully summarizes this view: “Old Testament prophecy, as instituted, continued the Mosaic office and was therefore covenant-centered (Deut. 18:15-22). Like Moses, the prophets offered what was given on Sinai and reapplied it to current social, religious, and economic questions. They were therefore not innovators. They dealt with a faith, once delivered, which needed to be possessed by the communities of their day. Since the Israelite prophet was primarily a covenant mediator, his appearance and intervention meant that that covenant breach in some shape had occurred. Thus the prophetic ministry was most normally associated, up to the exile at least, with impending judgment. But their message was actually a saving message. For unless the sin of Israel was so deeply ingrained that it could not be eradicated, the threat of judgment was an implicit invitation to repentance.” William J. Dumbrell, The Faith of Israel: A Theological Survey of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002).
3. Richard L. Pratt Jr., “Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions,” in The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke, ed. J. I. Packer and Sven K. Soderlund (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 180-203.
4. William L. Holladay, The Root Šûbh in the Old Testament: With Particular Reference to Its Usages in Covenantal Contexts (Leiden: Brill, 1958). Holladay’s work obviously intersects with the subject of repentance; his primary interest, however, is much narrower. His study is mainly concerned with analyzing the lexical data concerning שׂוב. Nonetheless, his work has been influential in subsequent discussions of repentance in the Old Testament. See also Hans Walter Wolff, “Das Thema ‘Umkehr’ in Der Alttestamentlichen Prophetie,” Zeitschrift Für Theologie Und Kirche 48, no. 2 (1951): 129-48; Thomas Raitt, “The Prophetic Summons to Repentance,” Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 83, no. 1 (1971): 30-49. Wolff and Raitt’s articles are mainly concerned with matters of form criticism and whether calls to repentance in the prophets are subordinate to or independent from the Oracle of Doom and Oracle of Salvation speech-forms. Perhaps the first truly theological examination of repentance in the prophets is Carol J. Dempsey, “‘Turn Back, O People’: Repentance in the Latter Prophets,” in Repentance in Christian Theology, ed. Mark J. Boda and Gordon T. Smith (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2006), 47-66. The most thorough biblical-theological treatment of repentance in the Old Testament is Mark J. Boda, A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament, Siphrut 1 (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009). Boda’s concerns in A Severe Mercy are slightly larger than just the notion of repentance; he instead frames the discussion in terms of “sin and its remedy.” However, Boda remarks that the monograph “began as an exploration of the more limited theme of repentance. Interacting with a variety of scholars on various projects which dealt with repentance in Christian theology and penitential prayer led Boda to believe that “the theme of repentance could not be investigated in isolation from the much larger and pervasive theme of sin and its remedy” (11). For a summation of Boda’s conclusions with respect to each book in the latter prophets see Mark J. Boda, “Repentance,” ed. Mark J. Boda and Gordon McConville, Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophets (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2012). His work has been influential in subsequent discussions of repentance in the Old Testament.
5. The only full length treatment of the theology and function of repentance in Isaiah is Blaženka Scheuer, The Return of YHWH: The Tension between Deliverance and Repentance in Isaiah 40-55, Behihefte Zur Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 377 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008). As can be seen from the title, Scheuer’s work is concerned only with a narrow section (40-55) of Isaiah.
6. See also Boda, A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament, 6: “This was based on the legitimate hermeneutical impulse to listen to the biblical text according to its own idiom and allow the theological themes to arise from the expression of the text rather than from a theological framework determined by contemporary perspectives and questions.”
7. My concerns are similar to those of Boda, who remarks, “The theme of repentance is expressed throughout the Old Testament in a variety of ways that do not use the root שׂוב, expressing this theme, for instance, through an image (the two ways of wisdom) or contrastive language (do not seek x, but instead seek Yahweh).” A Severe Mercy, 6, 115n.
8. The language used to describe the wicked in 1:28 mirrors the language used at the beginning of the chapter. In 1:28, “rebels” (פשׁעים), “sinners” (חטאים), and those who “forsake” (עזב) Yahweh will be destroyed. In 1:2-4, the people are described as those who have “rebelled” (פשׁעו), a “sinful [חטא] nation,” and those who have “forsaken [עזב] Yahweh.”
9. For an excellent survey of the interpretive possibilities see H.G.M. Williamson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1-27, vol. 1, International Critical Commentary (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 155-58.
10. The משׁפט צדקהword pair occurs 22 times in Isaiah: 1:21; 1:27; 5:7; 5:16; 9:6 (7 EV); 11:4; 16:5; 26:9; 28:17; 32:1; 32:16; 33:5; 43:26; 50:8; 51:5; 56:1; 54:17; 58:2 (2x); 59:4; 59:9; 59:14. This word pair is often in the form of a hendiadys and split over two lines (or more) of poetry.
11. See the excellent work by Thomas Leclerc, Yahweh Is Exalted in Justice: Solidarity and Conflict in Isaiah (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001). Though I do not agree with all of Leclerc’s exegetical conclusions, his work is nonetheless tremendously insightful.
12. Leclerc’s accusation that this interpretation “seems an intrusion of Pauline theology read through Luther,” is unnecessarily pejorative. There are good reasons for adopting this reading of the text. Further, the notion that Yahweh redeems Zion by an exercise of His righteous judgment against them is so prevalent throughout the rest of Isaiah it hardly seems necessary to accuse interpreters of imposing Pauline theology through Lutheran eyes onto Isaianic theology. Yahweh Is Exalted in Justice, 44.
13. A similar approach is taken by Williamson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1-27, 1:158.
14. For a helpful introduction to the interrelated and mutually interpretive character of Isaiah 7 and 36-39, see P. R. Ackroyd, “Isaiah 36-39: Structure and Function,” in Von Kanaan Bis Kerala: Festschrift Für Prof. Mag. Dr. J.P.M Van Der Ploeg O.P., ed. W. C. Delsman et al., Alter Orient Und Altes Testament (Neukerchen-Vluyn: Verlag Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer, 1982), 3-21.
15. All three narrative sections of Isaiah not only provide theological and historical background for the rest of Isaiah’s prophetic material but also have a mimetic function; that is, they are designed to give examples to the nation of Israel of how God will deal with them if they exercise repentance (like Isaiah), continue in unbelief (like Ahaz), or offer half-hearted repentance (like Hezekiah). Isaiah, Ahaz, and Hezekiah—Israel’s prophet and kings—are figural representations of the nation at large.
16. Others have noted the mimetic function of the cleansing narrative as well. See, for example, Geoffrey Robinson, “The Motif of Deafness and Blindness in Isaiah 6:9-10: A Contextual, Literary, and Theological Analysis,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 8 (1998): 174, “The purification process of v. 7, which entails cleansed lips and results in forgiven sin, is paradigmatic of the needs of the people, as well as functioning as a necessary prelude to Isaiah’s speaking on behalf of Yahweh.” See also Gene Rice, “A Neglected Interpretation of the Immanuel Prophecy,” Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 90, no. 2 (1978): 220-21.
17. G. K. Beale, “Isaiah VI 9-13: A Retributive Taunt Against Idolatry,” Vetus Testamentum 41, no. 3 (1991): 261.
18. Isaiah 6 seems to have been troubling readers since the earliest days of its interpretation. The Septuagint significantly blunts some of the harsher and more theologically difficult statements. For an excellent discussion of the LXX’s translation see Craig Evans, To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6:9-10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 64 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 61-68. More recently, Mordecai Kaplan dealt with this text by asserting that the vision never took place. Rather, after years of failed ministry, a depressed Isaiah created the story to blame his failure in ministry on God! See Mordecai Kaplan, “Isaiah 6:1-11,” Journal of Biblical Literature 45 (1926): 251-59.
19. Robinson, “The Motif of Deafness and Blindness in Isaiah 6:9-10: A Contextual, Literary, and Theological Analysis,” 177.
20. Robinson, “The Motif of Deafness,” 177. See also the juxtaposition of Isaiah seeing, hearing, and then responding with repentance. He is a positive manifestation of what should have happened.
21. Beale, “Isaiah VI 9-13: A Retributive Taunt Against Idolatry”; See also G. K. Beale, We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 36-70.
22. “If we looked up ‘ears and eyes’ in a concordance, we would find that wherever Israel is addressed as those ‘who have eyes but cannot see and who have ears but cannot hear’ or such like language, they are being convicted and reprimanded for being idol worshipers! People who are characterized by other sins such as murder, theft, dishonoring parents, immorality, greed, and covetousness are not described this way—only idol worshipers.” Beale, We Become What We Worship, 49.
23. Beale, “Isaiah VI 9-13: A Retributive Taunt Against Idolatry,” 258-72; Beale, We Become What We Worship, 51-64.
24. Motyer calls this “the oddest commission ever given to a prophet.” J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 78.
25. Boda, A Severe Mercy, 197.
26. Gordon Wong, “Make Their Ears Dull: Irony in Isaiah 6:9-10,” Trinity Theological Journal 16 (2008): 23-34. This article is reproduced in its entirety in Gordon Wong, The Road to Peace: Pastoral Reflections on Isaiah 1-12 (Singapore: Genesis, 2009), 216-33.
27. Wong, “Make Their Ears Dull: Irony in Isaiah 6:9-10,” 27.
28. Wong, “Make Their Ears Dull: Irony in Isaiah 6:9-10,” 27.
29. Wong denies this accusation; however, it is hard to see how his statement “I have based this contention, not on personal theological persuasion or philosophy, but on a consideration of the present shape of the book of Isaiah” can be reconciled with his admission of why he is “attracted” to his interpretation quoted above.
30. Verbal, conceptual, and thematic similarities between Isaiah 1 and 6 abound and are intended by Isaiah to be mutually interpretive. See Robinson, “The Motif of Deafness and Blindness in Isaiah 6:9-10: A Contextual, Literary, and Theological Analysis”; Beale, “Isaiah VI 9-13: A Retributive Taunt Against Idolatry.”
31. Boda, A Severe Mercy, 205.
32. Scheuer, The Return of YHWH: The Tension between Deliverance and Repentance in Isaiah 40-55, 62.
33. This is not surprising considering that idolatry possibly “serves as a synecdoche or metonymy representing the whole of the nation’s covenantal disobedience”; Beale, “Isaiah VI 9-13: A Retributive Taunt Against Idolatry,” 257.
34. Scheuer, The Return of YHWH: The Tension between Deliverance and Repentance in Isaiah 40-55, 2.
35. John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 433-35.
36. See the excellent article by Peter J. Gentry, “Rethinking the ‘Sure Mercies of David’ in Isaiah 55:3,” Westminster Theological Journal 69 (2007): 279-304.
37. The following chiasm is adapted from Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66, 465. For a similar chiastic proposal see Gregory Polan, In the Ways of Justice Toward Salvation: A Rhetorical Analysis of Isaiah 56-59, American University Studies 7 (New York: Peter Lang, 1986); Boda, A Severe Mercy, 213.
38. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66, 531.
39. See also the similar prophetic expectation in Deuteronomy 29:1-30:10.