The Shape Of Messianism In Isaiah 9

By Greg Goswell

[Greg Goswell is Lecturer in Biblical Studies (Old Testament) at Christ College, Sydney, an affiliated college of the Australian College of Theology.]

The theme of kingship within the book of Isaiah has been highlighted by a number of scholars. For example, according to Gerhard von Rad, though it occupies less space than the Zion theme, the theme of David and the Messiah “is expounded in texts of scope and importance.”[1] The theme is necessarily wider than simply the use of the Hebrew root מלך (“king, kingdom,” etc.), for some of the most studied passages in connection with the theme of kingship do not make use of the root (e.g., 11:1–9; 55:1–5). The theme is broader than a single motif, and a related group of motifs (e.g., David, throne, judging) contribute to the theme of kingship in the book of Isaiah. To label something a “theme” is to identify it as a major controlling idea and a unifying element within a literary work.[2] What is almost universally viewed in recent research as a key messianic passage in the early chapters of the prophecy, namely, 9:1–7 (Heb. 8:23–9:6), comes as a “counter” to the preceding indications of unfaithfulness in the Davidic house, notably in the person of Ahaz in Isa 7.[3] The “royal failure” traced in earlier chapters is compensated for in ch. 9 by the prospect of a future ruler in the Davidic line.[4]

In my analysis of this passage, I seek to clarify exactly what kind of messianism is on display. The study of the history of messianism is, of course a vast one.[5] A distinction is often drawn between the monarchic period during which the “the Lord’s anointed” is the incumbent Judean king (e.g., 1 Sam 24:10; 26:11; 2 Sam 1:14, 16) and the post-exilic period in which an eschatological messianic perspective emerges, though I am not at all convinced that this scheme represents the true state of affairs. Scholars also disagree over which OT texts (Isa 9 included) should be assigned to either era. The present article aims to contribute to the study of the theme of kingship in the final form of the canonical book of Isaiah, keeping in mind that the latter chapters appear to have no place for a Davidic king (unless 55:1–5 is an exception).[6] Recent scholars have tended to maintain a fundamental distinction between the Davidic royal hopes in chs. 9, 11, and 16 and their apparent absence in chs. 40–66, wherein is found an exclusive emphasis on divine kingship.[7] The only kings within Isa 40–66 are foreign kings (41:2; 45:1; 49:7, 23; 52:15; 60:3, 11, 16; 62:2) or Yhwh himself (41:21; 43:15; 44:6; 52:7), and there is little reason to think that these chapters look forward to a Davidic revival.[8] The apparent clash of perspectives between earlier and later chapters is substantially reduced, however, if in the first half of the prophecy (e.g., Isa 9) the position and role of the promised Davidic ruler are not inflated beyond what the text actually indicates (as has often been done), and in this way the unity of the canonical book with respect to the theme of kingship can be maintained.

I. Divine Saving Action

Isaiah 9:1–7 (Heb. 8:23–9:6) forms a distinct contrast to 8:1–22, and the gloomy picture of 8:22 is succeeded by a message of hope (cf. 9:1 [Heb. 8:23a]), with the adversative particle כי (“but”) showing that a contrast is drawn with the preceding verse.[9] Isaiah 9:2 (Heb. 9:1) develops the contrast of light and dark from the preceding verses (“The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light”). In the following chapter, “the light of Israel” (10:17) is an appellation for God, so that the “great light” of 9:2 (Heb. 9:1) is presumably a metaphor for the saving action of God and need not refer to the appearance of a messianic figure.[10] This is contrary to what is argued by M. E. W. Thompson, who sees the promise of a new situation in the “latter time” (9:1 [Heb. 8:23]) as “effected, humanly speaking, through the advent of the ideal Davidic ruler.”[11] Yet, as admitted by Thompson, the “he” whose action in described in 9:1 (Heb. 8:23) must be Yhwh, both for the latter and the former times (הקל...הכביד).[12] There is nothing in this particular verse about human agents, and certainly nothing concerning a Davidic ruler, who is not spoken of until the last two verses of the passage (9:6, 7 [Heb. 9:5, 6]). Paul Wegner is correct, therefore, when he suggests that the great light “is probably a metaphor for the deliverance of God.”[13]

In terms of genre, the passage as a whole can be most adequately described as hymn-like. Certain deeds of Yhwh are commemorated and praised. Indications of the hymn-like character of the piece include the fact that Yhwh is addressed (v. 3a [Heb. 2a]: “You have multiplied the nation, you have increased its joy”); use of perfects to relate his deeds; and multiple occurrences of the introductory כי with causal force (vv. 9:4, 5, 6 [Heb. 3, 4, 5]).[14] Hans Wildberger argues that it is a song of thanks (Danklied), given that in an actual hymn Yhwh is spoken of in the third person (contrary to v. 3 [Heb. 2]), and that perfects are more fitting in a song of thanks, in which the subject recalls what happened before.[15] Either way, however, as hymn or song of thanks, it is the deeds of Yhwh that are celebrated in this passage. The other main form-critical contenders, namely, accession oracle and birth announcement, whatever their respective merits, build on the narrow base of vv. 6 and 7 (Heb. 5, 6) and take insufficient notice of the overall thrust of the passage.

Isaiah 9:1b (Heb. 8:23b) (“In the former time . . .”) may be thought of as an exposition or heading for the hymn, giving a broad statement of the events celebrated in the subsequent hymn, and in that sense, 9:1b (Heb. 8:23b) “is a key to understanding the entire passage.”[16] Yhwh is the (third person) subject of two sentences that describe the decisive change in fate of the mentioned Israelite territories: the first sentence looking back (כעת הראשון) on how Yhwh had treated these areas with contempt; the second sentence envisioning how in the future (והאחרון) he will treat them with honor. In this heading, therefore, the future liberation is ascribed wholly to Yhwh.

In 9:3 (Heb. 9:2) the prophet addresses God directly (“You have multiplied [הרבית] the nation that belongs to him” [MT qere]),[17] crediting Yhwh for the nation’s new-found hope (“you have increased [הגדלת] its joy”). This is substantiated by vv. 4–6 (Heb. 3–5) which list specific reasons for the rejoicing of v. 3 (Heb. 2), each verse in turn beginning with the conjunction כי. Verse 4 (Heb. 3) describes the end of foreign domination; a second reason for celebration follows in v. 5 (Heb. 4); and vv. 6–7 (Heb. 5–6) supply a final reason for rejoicing. Human rulership only comes to expression, therefore, in vv. 6–7 (Heb. 5–6), where it forms a third reason for the people’s joy. The first reason (v. 4 [Heb. 3]) is explicit in attributing the source of joy to the activity of God in acting to liberate his people (“you have broken [החתת] as on the day of Midian”).[18] The victory of v. 4 (Heb. 3) is Yhwh’s doing, like one of the miracles of the old holy wars, and there is no explanation of the mode of the enemy’s defeat, certainly no reference to any human agency. In this chapter, therefore, Walter Harrelson finds connections to the premonarchic period.[19] Another reference to the defeat of Midian is found in 10:26 (“as when he smote Midian at the rock of Oreb”), this again being said to be God’s work. Reference in 9:1 (Heb. 8:23) to “the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali” is yet another link to Gideon’s victory over the Midianites (Judg 6:35; cf. Judg 4:6, 10).[20] It is therefore probable, according to H. G. M. Williamson,[21] that we should understand Yhwh’s activity to lie behind the impersonally expressed second explanatory clause as well (v. 5 [Heb. 4]: “For [every boot/garment] will be burned as fuel for the fire”), continuing as it does the military theme from the previous verse.[22]

Within the third explanatory section, the context makes it clear that the passive verbs have God as their “logical subject”[23] so that the birth (or accession, as some would view it) of the child is attributed to the activity of God (v. 6 [Heb. 5]: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; . . . and his name will be called . . .”).[24] In v. 7 (Heb. 6) the subject of the action is not clearly indicated, but in view of the concluding assertion (“The zeal of Yhwh of hosts will do this”), God is likely intended: God establishing (הכין) and upholding David’s “kingdom” (ממלכה) and/or the “government” (משרה) of the promised ruler.[25] If there is a connection to 2 Sam 7, as a number of commentators suggest, the uses of the root כון in that passage have God as the agent in the establishing of Davidic rule (7:12: “I will establish [והכינתי] his kingdom”; 7:16: “your throne shall be established [נכון] for ever”). The other (less likely) alternative is that the task belongs to the child of v. 6 (Heb. 5). The notable emphasis on divine activity in Isa 9 serves to show that “the birth of the king is not primarily to be seen as the arrival of a saviour-figure in his own right.”[26] His arrival is part of a larger deliverance that God will effect for his people.

To sum up, human rulership comes to expression only in the last two verses of the passage (9:6, 7 [Heb. 9:5, 6]) and is set in a distinctly theocratic context.[27] What the human figure is predicted as doing “he apparently does . . . in response to the prior deliverance of Yahweh.”[28] The passage celebrates Yhwh’s act of deliverance, and the role of the promised Davidic figure is only exercised after the divinely wrought deliverance and within a kingdom set up by Yhwh himself.[29] I will now turn to evaluate exactly what role the future Davidide will have within God’s kingdom.

II. The Figure Of Isaiah 9:6, 7 (Heb. 9:5, 6)

Verses 5 and 7 (Heb. 4, 6) use imperfect and perfect consecutive verb-forms. The return to perfect forms (ילד, נתן) and waw-consecutives (ותהי, ויקרא) does not require a past tense translation of v. 6 (Heb. 5),[30] so that, contrary to Antti Laato, Irvine, and Hermann Barth,[31] the verse may predict a future child, not simply reflect on a past event and its significance for the present. Jesper Høgenhaven argues that the “real” time-aspect of 9:1–7 (Heb. 8:23–9:6) is that of the future, revealed through the imperfect תעשהin 9:7 (Heb. 6): “The zeal of Yhwh of hosts will do this.”[32] This understanding is not ruled out by the expression “from now and for evermore” (v. 7 [Heb. 6]), given that מעתה (“from now”) must be understood within the time frame established by the wider context, which can, as here, be futuristic (cf. Mic 4:6, 7).[33] Young asserts (without argument) that the future force of “The zeal of Yhwh of hosts will do this (תעשה־זאת)” applies only to the conditions of the kingdom outlined in v. 7 (Heb. 6), not to the passage as a whole,[34] but the climactic placement of the clause would suggest otherwise. Wegner’s working definition of messianic expectation in Isaiah is as follows: “the hope which is engendered by the belief in a future ruler/deliverer who will set up an everlasting kingdom and bring salvation to the people of God.”[35] On this definition, I would have to decline to find messianic expectation in Isa 9, for the future Davidic ruler depicted does not act as deliverer, neither is he portrayed as setting up the kingdom over which he exercises rule; rather Yhwh himself does these two things. What is in view, therefore, is an office of leadership under Yhwh’s rule, which is human rule showing proper deference to God.[36] The promised Davidide is indeed a messianic figure, but he has a circumscribed role, which role I am now seeking to elucidate.

There is merit in the suggestion of Wegner for the name(s) given to the child in v. 6b (Heb. 5b) to be viewed as two theophoric names: “wonderful planner (is) the mighty God; the Father of eternity (is) a prince of peace.”[37] In this case, the name is descriptive of the God of the child, not of the status of the child (as true of theophoric names generally in the Bible). On this understanding, the exalted name does not have to be explained as courtly hyperbole or on analogy with Egyptian fivefold throne names (both explanations are common among scholars).[38] The name, then, extols God as “prince of peace” for the peace which he has provided for his people. The appellation “wonderful planner” (פלא יועץ) brings to mind the Isaianic emphasis on the execution of the “plan” (עצה) of the Holy One of Israel (e.g., 5:19) and the description elsewhere of Yhwh as “wonderful in counsel” (28:29 RSV [עצה הפליא]; cf. 25:1; 29:14).[39] So too, “Mighty God” occurs in a description of Yhwh in 10:21. According to Wegner, “The name [thus understood] would be intended as a sign emphasizing God’s greatness witnessed through his dealings with the nation of Israel.”[40] If the name is read in this way, it underlines again that the establishment of peace is the work of Yhwh, not of the child. God is “prince of peace” because he brings about a kingdom of whose peace “there will be no end” (v. 7 [Heb. 6]), which, as noted by Wildberger, given the context of the immediately preceding verses, initially at least refers to freedom from the distress of foreign oppression.[41] Given all this, it is difficult to understand the conclusion Wegner draws from his study of Isa 9 that what is depicted is a “future deliverer,”[42] for the conclusion does not follow from his own study of the text, which is thorough and otherwise convincing.

The birth announcement (if that is what it is) of vv. 6 and 7 (Heb. 5, 6) leaves no doubt about the Davidic nature of the ruler described (v. 7 [Heb. 6]: “upon the throne of David, and over his [= David’s] kingdom”), and “throne” (כסא), “kingdom” (ממלכה), “establish” (הכין), and “for ever” (עד־עולם) are all terms having strong links to the dynastic oracle of 2 Sam 7 and the wider Davidic tradition.[43] In this context, the term המשרה (vv. 6a, 7a [Heb. 5a, 6a] “government, rule”), which occurs only here in the HB, need not denote anything less than (human) kingly rule, and the cognate noun שר (v. 6 [Heb. 5] “prince [of peace]”) is a designation applied to God (following the interpretation of Wegner). As noted by Harrelson,[44] שר is employed most frequently not of kings, but of military or political leaders under the authority of the monarch,[45] and in the present case it is probably the common military overtones of the word that explain its application to Yhwh as the Divine Warrior who fights the enemy and secures peace for his chosen people.[46] It must be said, however, that there appears to be a deliberate avoidance of the designation “king” with respect to the promised ruler, so that it might be reserved for Yhwh,[47] for God’s kingship is heavily underlined in the throne scene of ch. 6 (6:5: “for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts”). There is, then, the prediction of a future Davidic ruler, though with a clear emphasis in the passage on divine initiative and achievement.[48]

III. With Justice And With Righteousness

Up to this point, I have only said what the role of the future Davidic figure is not—he neither delivers God’s people, nor does he set up the kingdom—rather than providing a positive presentation of what he is forecast as doing. I will now seek to redress this deficiency, by noting the significant pairing of “justice” and “righteousness” in 6:7 (Heb. 6:6) (cf. 1:21, 27; 11:5). This word-pair finds an essential place in what Yhwh expects from his people in the present (e.g., 5:7, 16) and in the Isaianic picture of the future (e.g., 1:21–26).[49] God’s plan is inseparable from justice (משפט) and righteousness (צדק), and it is God’s goal that Jerusalem (again) become “the city of righteousness” over which he rules (1:26).[50]

The throne scene of ch. 6 is not unrelated to what precedes: Yhwh is pictured as seated upon his throne, having just pronounced a sentence of judgment on sinful Judah due to “the break-down of justice and righteousness” (5:7).[51] The vision of Isaiah shows that divine kingship entails his holiness, and the acclamation of the seraphim (6:3: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts”) is in response to the divine pronouncement of judgment that immediately precedes (5:26–30). The position of ch. 6 makes sense, therefore, following as it does Yhwh’s invitation to “a nation afar off.” This is the message of judgment that Isaiah is commissioned to deliver. The affirmation of God as king (6:5) is reflected in his being both holy and just in the exercise of his kingly rule. Holiness means Yhwh’s moral integrity which revolts at injustice. These are linked themes in Isaiah (n.b. 5:16: “But the Lord of hosts is exalted in justice and the Holy God shows himself holy by righteousness” [noting the parallelism]). The linkage is plain whether we view the justice and righteousness in 5:16 as Yhwh’s or the people’s (Walter Moberly argues for the latter alternative).[52] Likewise, in 9:7 (Heb. 9:6) there is ambiguity in the prepositional phrases (“with [ב] justice and with [ב] righteousness”), as to whether the reference is to Yhwh or the promised ruler as the upholder of justice and righteousness.[53] Certainly, in Isa 11 it is explicitly stated that the role of the future Davidic ruler is to enforce God’s justice and righteousness in judging cases within a legal system that is meant to uphold social justice (11:3b-4a; cf. 16:5).[54] The same thought is probably also to be discerned in Isa 9.

In line with this view of righteous judgment, the understanding of Isa 32:1 is that the king will reign so as to bring about righteousness (לצדק), and ideal rulers will perform their duty by giving justice (למשפט), so that this is designated as their purpose and function.[55] The ideal king is to be especially mindful of the plight of the poor (11:4; 32:5–7). The human figure of Isa 9:6, 7 (Heb. 5, 6), therefore, is not totally passive,[56] for he is assigned the day-to-day task of judicial administration of God’s kingdom. He is the regent of the divine sovereign, participating in God’s just rule of society. When the type of messianism on show in Isa 9 is properly estimated, it is plain that the promised Davidic ruler is presented in such a way as to place Yhwh’s supreme kingship in the foreground.

IV. Conclusion

I have sought to demonstrate that nothing is said in Isa 9:1–7 (Heb. 8:23–9:6) about the involvement of human agency in the forecast deliverance of God’s people and the setting up of God’s kingdom. These are divine achievements and are not attributed to the promised ruler, who is not spoken of until the last two verses of the passage (9:6, 7 [Heb. 9:5, 6]). The birth of the child (or his accession to the throne) is attributed to God’s activity (v. 6 [Heb. 5]: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; . . . and his name will be called . . .”). Throughout these verses there is a heavy underlining of God’s involvement in events, so that the promised human ruler operates within a theocratic frame of reference. Though the Davidic nature of the ruler is made plain (“upon the throne of David”), he is not as such granted the title “king.” His role is limited to that of chief judicial officer responsible for upholding God’s justice and righteousness. In terms of the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, as the God-man he is to be recognized as the fulfilment of what is anticipated in this passage, being both the promised Davidic child-ruler and the God (of the child) who brings about the deliverance of his people.

This attempt to analyze with some precision the kind of messianism on display in Isa 9 cannot be taken to mean that the Davidic figure is an easily dispensable feature of the Isaianic picture of the future or that his non-mention in Isa 40–66 requires no explanation. The rule of a Davidide, however modified and toned-down, is anticipated in the early chapters of Isaiah, and so its absence in the second half of the book is something that remains to be explained. However, the resolution of this thematic tension within a unified reading of the prophecy of Isaiah is not assisted if the role of the promised Davidide is inflated beyond what is actually presaged in Isa 9.

Notes

1. Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology (trans. D. M. G. Stalker; 2 vols.; London: SCM, 1975), 2:169.
2. For discussion of the notion of theme, see Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic, 1981), 95; Jason T. LeCureux, The Thematic Unity of the Book of the Twelve (Hebrew Biblical Monographs 41; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012), 26-32.
3. P. R. Ackroyd, “Isaiah 1-12: Presentation of a Prophet,” in Congress Volume: Göttingen 1977 (VTSup 29; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978), 41 n. 72; see also Greg Goswell, “Royal Names: Naming and Wordplay in Isaiah 7, ” WTJ 75 (2013): 97-109.
4. Ackroyd, “Isaiah,” 43.
5. For references to recent discussion of the vexed issue of the definition of messianic expectation, see Wolter H. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period (JSOTSup 304; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 22 n. 26.
6. See Jacob Stromberg, “The Second Temple and the Isaianic Afterlife of the חסדי דוד (Isa 55:3-5),” ZAW 121 (2009): 242-55; Jacob Stromberg, Isaiah After Exile: The Author of Third Isaiah as Reader and Redactor of the Book (Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 191-205.
7. E.g., von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2:46; see also 240: “The Messianic hope had no place in his prophetic ideas”; J. L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 20; Garden City: Doubleday, 1968), 143, 144; James D. Smart, History and Theology in Second Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 35, 40-66 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), 223: “There is no room in Second Isaiah’s theology for a Messiah in the sense of a royal individual who comes to rule”; H.-J. Kraus, Das Evangelium der unbekannten Propheten: Jesaja 40-66 (Kleine Biblische Bibliothek; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990), 162; Hans Wildberger, “Die Neuinterpretation des Erwählungsglaubens Israels in der Krise der Exilszeit,” in Wort-Gebot-Glaube: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testament. Festschrift für W. Eichrodt zum 80. Geburtstag (ed. Johann Jakob Stamm and Ernst Jenni; ATANT 59; Zurich: Zwingli, 1970), 321; D. Baltzer, Ezechiel und Deuterojesaja: Berührungen in der Heilserwartung der beiden großen Exilspropheten (BZAW 121; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971), 141-49.
8. Joachim Becker, Messianic Expectation in the Old Testament (trans. David E. Green; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1980), 52: “It is impossible to resist the impression that Yahweh is introduced as king of Israel in a way that leaves no room for an earthly monarch, of which in fact there is no mention.” Cf. Marvin A. Sweeney, “The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in Isaiah,” in Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken (ed. J. van Ruiten and M. Vervenne; BETL 132; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1997), 41-61.
9. The adversative force of the particle כי is supported by the negative particle לא that follows it. Paul D. Wegner, An Examination of Kingship and Messianic Expectation in Isaiah 1-35 (Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen Biblical, 1992), 150, is one among others who argues for כי used adversatively, and he has a long excursus on 9:1 (Heb. 8:23) (pp.150-61).
10. Clements notes the connection between the two passages; see R. E. Clements, “A Light to the Nations: A Central Theme of the Book of Isaiah,” in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts (ed. James W. Watts and Paul R. House; JSOTSup 235: Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 65, 66. This interpretation does not contradict the quotation and use of Isa 9:1-2 (Heb. 8:23; 9:1) in Matt 4:15-16, if the Evangelist is understood to assert the high Christology of Jesus as God the Savior.
11. M. E. W. Thompson, “Isaiah’s Ideal Ruler,” JSOT 24 (1982): 84; cf. Randall Heskett, Messianism within the Scriptural Scrolls of Isaiah (Library of Biblical Studies 456; New York: T&T Clark International, 2007), 98-105.
12. Thompson, “Isaiah’s Ideal Ruler,” 86 n. 10.
13. Wegner, Examination of Kingship, 160.
14. See Jesper Høgenhaven, “On the Structure and Meaning of Isaiah 8:23b, ” VT 37 (1987): 220 n. 4 and the authorities cited there; cf. Klaus Seybold, Das davidische Königtum im Zeugnis der Propheten (FRLANT 107; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), 89-91.
15. Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1-12: A Commentary (trans. Thomas H. Trapp; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 388.
16. Høgenhaven, “On the Structure,” 218; but note the cautions of Wegner (Examination of Kingship, 168, 169), who points out several major dissimilarities to a song of thanksgiving.
17. On the text-critical difficulties of this verse, see Joseph A. Alexander, The Prophecies of Isaiah: Earlier and Later (2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), 1:199; J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1-33 (rev. ed.; WBC 24; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005), 169 n. 2a.
18. See J. P. J. Olivier, “The Day of Midian and Isaiah 9:3b, ” JNSL 9 (1981): 143-49, for the close relation of the passage and earlier Judges traditions; cf. Peter D. Miscall, Isaiah (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1995), 41, who sees an allusion to the story of Gideon and Abimelech, with its dismal view of monarchy.
19. Walter Harrelson, “Nonroyal Motifs in the Royal Eschatology,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (ed. B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson; London: SCM, 1962), 151-53.
20. Cf. Nadav Na’aman, “Literary and Topographical Notes on the Battle of Kishon (Judges 4-5),” VT 40 (1990): 434-36; Edmond Jacob, Esaïe 1-12 (Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament 8a; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1987), 137, 138. Jacob sees a thematic connection in the minimal role of humans in the victory over Midian.
21. H. G. M. Williamson, Variations on a Theme: King, Messiah and Servant in the Book of Isaiah (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998), 33.
22. Those who find reference in vv. 4, 5 (Heb. 3, 4) to the terminology of holy war add to the evidence for seeing a focus here on divine action (for citations, see Wegner, Examination of Kingship, 179 n. 259). Wegner notes: “This same terminology is also reused in Isaiah (10:24-27; 14:25-27) in the context of God’s protection of the nation from Assyrian oppression” (p. 180; emphasis mine).
23. Williamson, Variations on a Theme, 33.
24. The BHS editor would change the third verb (to call) to a passive form (Niphal), but there are many examples in the Bible where the Qal stem of קרא with a non-specified subject takes a passive sense (see Wegner, Examination of Kingship, 147).
25. Stuart A. Irvine, Isaiah, Ahaz, and the Syro-Ephraimitic Crisis (SBLDS 123; Atlanta: Scholars, 1990), 232. The antecedent of “to establish it and to uphold it” (feminine singular object suffix) may refer to either, though משרה is favored by Andrew H. Bartelt, The Book Around Immanuel: Style and Structure in Isaiah 2-12 (Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego 4; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 122.
26. Williamson, Variations on a Theme, 33 (italics mine); cf. Werner H. Schmidt, “Die Ohnmacht des Messias: zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der messianischen Weissagungen im Alten Testament,” KD 15 (1969): 20, 21.
27. This is a point also made by Williamson, Variations on a Theme, 31.
28. J. J. M. Roberts, “The Divine King and Human Community in Isaiah’s Vision of the Future,” in The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall (ed. H. B. Huffmon, F. A. Spina, and A. R. W. Green; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 129.
29. This point is insisted on by Werner H. Schmidt, The Faith of the Old Testament: A History (trans. John Sturdy; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983), 201: “In this way the Messiah is driven into a strange passivity: he exercises his just dominion after victory is already won.”
30. Cf. Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), §33.3.1d.
31. Antti Laato, Who is Immanuel? The Rise and the Foundering of Isaiah’s Messianic Expectations (Åbo Akademi Dissertation; Åbo: Åbo Akademis Förlag, 1988), 177 (referring to Hezekiah); Irvine, Isaiah, Ahaz, 229, 231 n. 51 (referring to Ahaz); Hermann Barth, Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit: Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977), 142. Barth refers the poem to the enthronement of Josiah (pp. 170-77, 250-60). He tries to construe the final line of v. 7 (Heb. 6) as a nominal sentence (p. 146).
32. Høgenhaven, “On the Structure,” 221 n. 12; cf. Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1-39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL 16; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 182; Robb Andrew Young, Hezekiah in History and Tradition (VTSup 155; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2012), 156-58.
33. Young, Hezekiah in History and Tradition, 157 n. 23.
34. Ibid., 158.
35. Wegner, Examination of Kingship, 4 (italics Wegner’s).
36. Cf. Gerhard von Rad, “The Royal Ritual in Judah,” in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken; London: Oliver & Boyd, 1966), 230, 231. In line with this, the LXX version of Isa 9 emphasizes the role of God over that of the human messianic figure (see Johan Lust, “Messianism in the Septuagint: Isaiah 8:23b–9:6 [9:1-7],” in The Interpretation of the Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia [ed. Jože Krašovec; JSOTSup 289; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998], 147-63).
37. Wegner, Examination of Kingship, 183-201; Paul D. Wegner, “A Re-examination of Isaiah 9:1-6, ” VT 42 (1992): 111. This is a modification of the earlier proposal of W. L. Holladay, Isaiah: Scroll of a Prophetic Heritage (New York: Pilgrim, 1978), 106-9. Goldingay more recently has come to a similar conclusion; see John Goldingay, “The Compound Name in Isaiah 9:5(6),” CBQ 61 (1999): 239-44.
38. For a critique of the Egyptian hypothesis and an argument in favor of an Assyrian background, see R. A. Carlson, “The Anti-Assyrian Character of the Oracle in Is. 9:1-6, ” VT 34 (1974): 130-35. Carlson’s view is in turn critiqued by Roberts in his essay “Whose Child Is This? Reflections on the Speaking Voice in Isaiah 9:5, ” in J. J. M. Roberts, The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Collected Essays (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 145, 146. Wagner wants to read the name against the background of Egyptian and Neo-Assyrian enthronement language; see Thomas Wagner, Gottes Herrschaft: Eine Analyse der Denkschrift (Jes 6, 1-9, 6) (VTSup 108; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2006), 217-27. In a long footnote, Wagner tries (unsuccessfully in my view) to combat the interpretation of Wegner and Goldingay (217 n. 40).
39. See Joseph Jensen, “Yahweh’s Plan in Isaiah and in the Rest of the Old Testament,” CBQ 48 (1986): 443-55.
40. Wegner, “Re-examination,” 111 (addition mine).
41. Wildberger, Isaiah 1-12, 405.
42. Wegner, Examination of Kingship, 199-201, 213; Paul D. Wegner, “What’s New in Isaiah 9.1-7?,” in Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches (ed. David G. Firth and H. G. M. Williamson; Nottingham: Apollos, 2009), 239, 247.
43. H. Kruse, “David’s Covenant,” VT 35 (1985): 139-64. We cannot, therefore, accept Marvin Sweeney’s too easy solution that in the final (late fifth century, as he views it) edition of Isaiah, the absence of any reference to a specific Davidic figure (as opposed to an Ahaz or a Josiah) enables 9:1-6 (9:2-7) to be read as portraying Yhwh’s rule as the ultimate fulfillment of the Davidic promise; see Marvin A. Sweeney, “On Multiple Settings in the Book of Isaiah,” in SBL 1993 Seminar Papers (ed. Eugine H. Lovering; Atlanta: Scholars, 1993), 272, 273. The Davidic nature of the hoped-for figure is crystal clear.
44. Harrelson, “Nonroyal Motifs,” 151.
45. Cf. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2:172, who views the term as describing one who is responsible to a higher authority. BDB lists no reference to שר applied to a king, the closest being 1 Sam 22:2 (BDB 978 1.b), which refers to David as “leader” of a marauding band (cf. 1 Kgs 11:24).
46. See BDB 978 3.a.b.
47. Schultz notes that in neither ch. 9 nor 11 is the figure called “king” (מלך); see Richard Schultz, “The King in the Book of Isaiah,” in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts (ed. Philip E. Satterthwaite, Richard S. Hess, and Gordon J. Wenham; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995), 149.
48. Cf. Seybold, Davidische Königtum, 171, who says that for Isaiah, the formation and preservation of Davidic political rule “als Jahwes Werk angesehen sind” and the continued existence of the Davidic kingdom “von Jahwes Rechtswillen (קנאה 9, 6) abhängig ist.”
49. Wildberger, Isaiah 1-12, 64.
50. See Greg Goswell, “Isaiah 1:26: A Neglected Text on Kingship,” TynBul 62 (2011): 233-46.
51. Rolf P. Knierim, “The Vocation of Isaiah,” VT 18 (1968): 66; cf. Christoph O. Schroeder, History, Justice, and the Agency of God: A Hermeneutical and Exegetical Investigation of Isaiah and Psalms (Biblical Interpretation 52; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2001), 63-72.
52. See R. W. L. Moberly, “Whose Justice? Which Righteousness? The Interpretation of Isaiah 5:16, ” VT 51 (2001): 55-68. He speaks of “the text’s quasi-definitional linkage of divine holiness with justice and righteousness” (p. 56); cf. Thomas L. Leclerc, Yahweh Is Exalted in Justice: Solidarity and Conflict in Isaiah (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 61-63.
53. Elsewhere these are said to be the “foundation” of both Yhwh’s throne (Ps 97:2) and that of the Davidic king (Ps 89:14 [Heb. 15]).
54. Moshe Weinfeld, “‘Justice and Righteousness’—וצדקהמשפט —The Expression and Its Meaning,” in Justice and Righteousness: Biblical Themes and Their Influence (ed. Henning Graf Reventlow and Yair Hoffman; JSOTSup 137; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992), 228-46; Leclerc, Yahweh Is Exalted in Justice, 64.
55. John W. Olley, “Notes on Isaiah 32:1, 45:19, 23, and 63:1, ” VT 33 (1983): 446-49.
56. Roberts, “Divine King,” 129, 132, 133.