Messianic Expectation In Isaiah 11

By Greg Goswell

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

Isaiah 11 is routinely identified as an OT messianic passage, and I have no wish to dispute that evaluation, but what I do seek to do is to determine exactly what kind of messianism is on display in this key text.[1] In his study of messianic passages in Isa 1–35, Paul Wegner says that “the image [in 11:1 is] describing this deliverer as coming from the âوٍ [= stem] of Jesse,”[2] that is, for Wegner, a messianic figure is by definition a deliverer. His 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.”[3] If such a definition were accepted, I would have to say that messianic expectation is not on show in Isa 11, for the future Davidic ruler in this passage does not act as deliverer nor does he set up the kingdom over which he exercises rule. Yhwh himself is depicted as doing both these things.[4] Likewise, I will seek to show that the paradisial conditions of 11:6–9 are not due to the actions of the promised ruler, nor is he the agent of the gathering of the nations and the new exodus of Israelites depicted in 11:10–16. My aim is not to downplay the messianic character of Isa 11 but to analyze with precision the role of the messianic personage featured in this key Isaianic passage.

I. Isaiah 11 As A Literary Unit

There is a syntactical break at Isa 10:33, as indicated by the introductory particle הִנֵּה, “Behold” (v. 33a).[5] Then, vv. 33 and 34 predict Yhwh’s action against the arrogant foreign enemy depicted in 10:27–32, and the announcement of punishment is phrased in metaphorical terms of the cutting down of a forest of trees (an echo of the metaphor of Assyria as a forest, used in 10:18, 19).[6] An alternate view is that these two verses describe Yhwh’s judgment on Jerusalem through Assyria, and it must be said that the transition is smooth if the felled forest refers to the fallen house of Judah.[7] The chapter division is perhaps unfortunate, for 10:33, 34 are clearly connected to 11:1, with the lopping of the lofty boughs being preliminary to the growth of the Davidic shoot, which now applies the tree metaphor to the arrival of a new leader (this being a common literary typos; cf. Ezek 17, 31 and Dan 4).[8] The conjunction at the beginning of 11:1 (וְיָצָא) likely has adversative force (“but” or “on the other hand”), and the verb form sets the event in the context of the future (“But there shall come forth…”).[9] Isaiah 10:33, 34, therefore, make it patently clear that it is Yhwh, and not “the shoot from the stem [גזע] of Jesse,” who deals effectively with the Assyrian threat (if that is what 10:33, 34 describe) (v. 33a: “The Lord, the Lord of hosts, is about to lop the boughs…”).[10] Alternatively, if 10:33, 34 are understood to depict the divine destruction of the proud Judahite leadership, 11:1 describes the renewal of the kingdom under a new David provided by Yhwh himself.[11]

The subunit 11:1–9 is demarcated by the inclusion of v. 2 (“the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord” [יְהוָה … דַּעַת]) and v. 9 (“the knowledge of the Lord” [דֵּעָה אֶת־יְהוָה]),[12] and the total subunit may be divided into three main parts: the ruler’s origin and equipment for office by the Spirit (11:1–3a); his principal office as arbiter (11:3b–5); and the accompanying paradisial peace (11:6–9). It is neither said nor implied that 11:6–9 are the result of the activities of the ruler (see below).[13] Two further subsections are signaled by the conjunctive formula “on that day” (וְהָיָה בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא) (vv. 10a, 11a), namely, v. 10 and vv. 11–16. The formula is an indicator of prophetic subsections (cf. Isa 7:18, 20, 21, 23), though it need not be viewed as marking redactional appendices. It is best to view 11:10 as a transitional verse, which picks up terminology from v. 1 (“from the stem of Jesse … out of his roots” [יִשָׁי… מִשָּׁרָשָׁיו]) in summary form (“the root of Jesse” [שֹׁרֶשׁ יִשַׁי]).[14] Furthermore, the root ًهç (to rest) in v. 2 (“the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him”) is picked up by the cognate noun “[his] resting place” (מְנֻחָתוֹ) in v. 10. In the other direction, the mention of “the root of Jesse” and the gathering of the nations (גּוֹיִם) to him as an “ensign” (נֵס) (v. 10) anticipates what is described in greater detail in vv. 11–16 (esp. v. 12). The third subsection is enveloped by the inclusio formed by “the remnant of his people who are left from Assyria…” (v. 11) and “for the remnant of his people who are left from Assyria” (v. 16). The noted features suggest that v. 10 is to be viewed as a hinge between vv. 1–9 and 11–16, with these three subunits together making up a coordinated literary unit encompassing Isa 11 as a whole.[15]

II. Divine Kingship In Isaiah 11:1–9

As noted by J. D. W. Watts, there is an interplay throughout this passage between Davidic themes (11:1; cf. 11:10) and the highlighting of Yhwh’s gifts and actions, with the emphasis being on Yhwh’s Spirit (v. 2), the fear of Yhwh (v. 3), and the knowledge of Yhwh (vv. 6–9).16 As helpfully clarified by Jacob Stromberg, there is a causal relationship between the peace of the animals and the “the knowledge of Yhwh”: “they [the animals] will not hurt or destroy because of (כי) the universal knowledge of Yhwh (v. 9).”[17] He finds a similar causal relation on show in Jer 5:4–5 and Lev 26:3–6. As also noted by Stromberg, the pairing of “[the spirit of] knowledge and the fear of Yhwh” in 11:2 indicates that the knowledge of Yhwh means reverently obeying him. The link established in v. 2 between God’s Spirit and knowledge suggests that the universal knowledge of God (and the resultant pacification of nature) depicted in v. 9 is also due to the influence of his Spirit and is not an outcome of the reign of the Davidic ruler (cf. 32:15–20; esp. v. 15a: “until the Spirit is poured out upon us from on high”).[18]

Given the repetition of the phrase “the fear of Yhwh” (2x in vv. 2b, 3a) and its climactic placement in the list of Spirit-induced attributes, it is “the conclusive merit” of the future ruler whose status is that of “a faithful regent” of Yhwh.[19] This passage, like Isa 9, does not designate the coming ruler as “king,” even though both passages explicitly indicate that he has a Davidic lineage (9:7 [Heb. 6]: “upon the throne of David”; 11:1: “from the stem of Jesse”). This person is described as a “shoot” (חֹטֶר) and this is in parallel relationship to “branch” (נֵצֶר) (11:1); both refer to new vegetative growth, and neither can be said to have messianic overtones as such.[20]

In v. 2 we are told that “the Spirit of Yhwh” will rest upon the figure who is being described, whose dependence upon God’s enabling is thereby stressed.[21] This, according to Williamson, is not the usual idiom for the spirit-endowment of kings or judges: the closest parallels are found in Num 11:25–26 and 2 Kgs 2:15 (though the terminology is not exact, for in neither case is the “spirit” in question termed “the Spirit of Yhwh” as here; cf. Judg 3:10; 6:34, etc).[22] The parallels indicate that the role in mind is “one of deputy, assistant or successor,” so that the figure in question is equipped to act in relation to Yhwh as God’s deputy. This is not far from the portrait of the messianic figure given in ch. 9, so that in both cases (despite the different terms used) the human figure has a restricted function within a theocratic frame.[23] Roberts is right when he notes that the Davidic ruler “is not so much the agent to bring to fruition God’s plan as he is the beneficiary of that plan.”[24]

The role for which the figure is fitted by possession of God’s Spirit is described in vv. 3b–5 as primarily judicial, given the repeated verbal pairs “judge/decide” (הוֹכִיחַ/שָׁפַט).[25] The focus is on the ruler’s judicial role or, as Horst Seebass expresses it, his “domestic” (innenpolitische) activities.[26] He is not a savior-figure (Heilsbringer), nor is anything said of his having military exploits.[27] This is a role fitting a king,[28] but, as in Isa 9:7 (Heb. 6), the overall construction of the textual unit subordinates it to the wider view of Yhwh’s work and the exercise of the role is contingent on the Spirit, fear, righteousness, and knowledge of Yhwh.[29] The role of the ruler is severely circumscribed, in the words of Richard Schultz: “The future ruler simply administers the kingdom or sustains the changes,” with the text picturing him as a judicial officer rather than as military conqueror.[30] The terms used in the dual expression “the spirit of counsel [עֵצָה] and might [גְבוּרָה]” (v. 2) can have links to military function (cf. 36:5), but here refer to the ability to weigh factors and the strength to carry through difficult decisions in the exercise of a judicial function.[31] This figure punishes the wicked of the earth “with the rod of his mouth … with the breath of his lips,” that is, by means of his judicial pronouncements as chief legal officer. Roberts, for his part, says that the promised figure “inherits and enhances the results of Yahweh’s prior intervention.”[32] Likewise, in his judicial role, the Davidic ruler is “simply the regent of the divine sovereign, participating in what is ultimately the divine rule.”[33]

In vv. 6–9 Yhwh presumably is speaking (n.b. v. 9: “in all my holy mountain”), and the ruler of vv. 1–5 does not as such feature in the verses.[34] The juxtaposing of vv. 1–5 and vv. 6–9 is not evidence enough to claim that the paradisial conditions are brought about on account of this ruler, namely, that 11:1–5 and 11:6–9 are cause and effect, though this is commonly assumed without argument by commentators.[35] They are better understood as separate depictions that together constitute a comprehensive picture of the new era (see below). Wegner finds the origins of the picture given in vv. 6–9 either in the paradise myths or the royal ideology of the ancient Near East, and we need not dispute that this is the case in Ps 72 (vv. 6, 16) where a direct connection is made between the king’s reign and paradisial conditions,[36] but the point must be insisted on that Wegner assumes rather than proves any such connection in Isa 11. Likewise, R. E. Clements (following J. Vermeylen) sees vv. 6–8 as directly influenced by Ps 91:13, so that the miraculous protection from wild animals in these verses is a royal motif, and Clements sees this supporting a strong link with vv. 1–5.[37] It is only the placement of 11:6–9 after 11:1–5 that would imply that the paradisial conditions are the outcome of the judicial activities of 11:4, but the juxtaposition can be otherwise (and better) explained as the final outcome of divine rulership: the Davidic figure is equipped by Yhwh’s Spirit to act as God’s deputy (vv. 1–5) and Yhwh (through his Spirit) brings about a paradisical renewal (vv. 6–9). There is a similar juxtaposition of the divine promise of a new David and the removing of dangerous animals in Ezek 34 (vv. 23–24, 25), but, as in the present case, the noted features are two aspects of God’s provision for his people, and nothing is said about the Davidic figure being responsible for the pacification of the animal kingdom.[38] This finds further confirmation by an examination of the inner-biblical connections between the present passage and (what is generally understood as) the abbreviated quotation of the passage in Isa 65:25.[39]

III. A Comparison With Isaiah 65:25

Noting the failure to mention the righteous shoot in 65:25 (cf. 11:6–9), Christopher Seitz rightly points out that nothing is said explicitly of a new conception of kingship rendering Davidic conceptions obsolete.[40] Richard Schultz excuses the non-mention of a human king in 65:25 with a similar comment, though he extends Yhwh’s dominant role to include the whole book.[41] Isaiah 65:25 completes the description of the new cosmos (65:17–25). Van Ruiten argues that 65:25 is embedded very well in the literary context of ch. 65,[42] going on to explore in some detail the intertextual relationship between 65:25 and 11:6–9.[43] The majority of commentators view 65:25 as a summarizing quotation of 11:6–9, yet it is important to note that it is placed in a different literary context. Whereas 11:6–9 has some relationship to the prediction of ideal Davidic rule (11:1–5), this connection is entirely absent in 65:25, where “my holy mountain” explicitly refers to Yhwh’s mountain, followed as it is by the speech attribution “says the Lord” (אָמַר יְהוָה), and it comes at the end of a long first-person speech by Yhwh (65:17–25). In 11:4 the righteous ruler will judge the poor and meek with equity and slay the wicked; however, in 65:11–16 (immediately preceding 65:17–25) it is God who will separate his servants and the wicked (with another reference to “my holy mountain” found in 65:11). Van Ruiten does not note the different agency, but only the thematic connection (cf. 65:15: “The Lord Yhwh will slay you”). The passage in Isa 65 is non-polemical, but the omission of a Davidic ruler cannot be viewed as accidental, nor can we presume to say that what has been omitted is assumed, given the stress upon divine agency.

Benjamin Sommer finds allusions to Isa 11 in numerous passages (42:1–9; 49:22; 53; 60:17–61:1; 62:10; 65:25).[44] He notes that any reference to an enduring Davidic line is consistently omitted, so that the Isaianic author often, in Sommer’s terms, “repredicts” ch. 11, but without adopting its focus on things Davidic, implying (according to him) that the promises earlier vouchsafed to the Davidic line now apply to the people as a whole.[45] What appears the consistent failure to take up this feature of ch. 11 cannot be viewed as accidental, and this disallows Seitz’s unwillingness to see that Davidic kingship has dropped from sight in Isa 65. What I am arguing is that Isa 65:25 supports the supposition that the paradisical conditions depicted in 11:6–9 are not due to the agency of the Davidic figure of the previous verses, but are the result of direct divine intervention in a fully eschatological context.[46]

IV. The Analogy Of Amos 9:11–12, 13–15

The juxtaposition of Isa 11:1–5, 6–9 can be compared to the twin pictures of the end time provided in Amos 9:11–12, 13–15.[47] In regard to Amos 9, Williamson links Davidic restoration (which he finds in vv. 11–12) and national prosperity (vv. 13–15) on the basis of ancient Near Eastern ideology and Ps 72,[48] but the context of Amos 9 suggests an alternate explanation. In Amos 9, God says: “I will restore the fortunes of my people Israel” (9:14a; cf. Hos 6:11b), and this promise is unpacked and expounded in 9:14b–15. The “catchword expression” of restored fortunes in 9:14a is found earlier in Joel 3:1 (Heb. 4:1).[49] According to Erich Bosshard, Joel 3:1 (Heb. 4:1) and Amos 9:14 (in both God says: “I will restore the fortunes…”) encompass the last part of the book of Joel and the whole of the book of Amos.[50] In line with this view, James Nogalski asserts that “the way in which Joel and Amos are related through quotations indicates an intentional association.”[51] The message in Joel 3 (Heb. 4) about eschatological judgment on the nations is historicized in the Oracles against the Nations of Amos 1–2. Like Amos, Joel 3 (Heb. 4) combines the paradisical renewal of the land of Israel and judgment on the nations (esp. Egypt and Edom). Specifically, Joel 3:16–21 (Heb. 4:16–21) provide a framework for the prophecy of Amos that follows, with Joel 3:16 (Heb. 4:16) (// Amos 1:2) and Joel 3:18a (Heb. 4:18a) (// Amos 9:13), in effect bracketing the beginning and end of Amos,[52] suggesting that the prophecy of Amos is to be interpreted within that frame of reference, namely, one in which there is no Davidic agency behind the end-time transformation predicted in Amos 9.[53]

Amos 9:13–15 assumes the restoration of the people to the land (v. 15), which will be given miraculous fruitfulness. Verse 13 (“the mountains shall drip sweet wine, and all the hills shall flow with it”) picks up and repeats Joel 3:18a (Heb. 4:18a). In the first chapter of Joel a causal connection is established between the (Jerusalem) temple and the land, for the famine means that there are no offerings, interfering with the temple cultus (1:9, 13, 16). The cause-and-effect connection between the Jerusalem temple and the land is reversed in Joel 3:18b (Heb. 4:18b): “a fountain shall come from the house of the Lord and water the valley of Shittim.”[54] This pictures the sanctuary-city of Jerusalem/Zion as the rejuvenating center of the land (cf. Ezek 47:1–12; Zech 14:8).[55] In the case of Amos 9, the causal connection between vv. 11–12 and 13–15 is implied rather than stated, but taking into account the context provided by Joel 3 (Heb. 4) in the order of the Book of the Twelve, it is the restoration of God’s effective rule (denoted by restored Jerusalem with its temple [= “the booth of David”]) forecast in 9:11–12 that causes the paradisical renewal of the land (9:13–15).

Coming back to Isa 11, the causal agency behind the paradisical transformation pictured in 11:6–9 is presumably the same, given the fact that the renewal is described as located on “my [= God’s] holy mountain” (11:9), a phrase that elsewhere in the prophecy of Isaiah refers to Mount Zion and its temple (cf. 56:7 [// “my house of prayer”]; 66:20 [“my holy mountain Jerusalem”]). The expression “his resting place” (11:10; מְנֻחָתוֹ), coming as it does after “my holy mountain” (11:9), is an interpretative reference to the same thing. The same expressions are found in the same sequence in successive verses in Isa 65:25 (“my holy mountain”) and 66:1 (מְנוּחָתִי),[56] and both are to be understood as referring to God’s “house.”[57] The term “resting-place” is used in association with finding a home for the ark in Ps 132:7–8 and 2 Chr 28:2, suggesting that in both 11:9 and 11:10 the reference is to the Jerusalem temple.[58] Likewise, “his resting-place will be glory [כָּבוֹד]” (11:10) picks up the imagery of glorified Jerusalem in Isa 4:5–6.[59] The fact that the natural antecedent of the personal pronoun in “his resting-place” (11:10b) is “the root of Jesse” (11:10a), that is, the Davidic ruler, not Yhwh, is no barrier to seeing this expression as designating the temple mount, where the Davidic ruler has his capital, given the similar topographical referent behind the comparable expressions “the tent of David” (Isa 16:5) and “the booth of David” (Amos 9:11).[60] In summary, in the absence of anything in Isa 11 that would suggest otherwise, the reader is meant to understand the paradisical conditions of 11:6–9 as the result of divine rulership.

V. “The Ensign To The Peoples”

Turning to the second half of Isa 11, the Davidic ruler, while present under the designation “an ensign to the peoples/nations” (11:10, 12), is again placed in a subordinate position, for Yhwh’s actions are put in the foreground. As noted above, 11:10 is a transitional bridge to the prophecy of the gathering of Israel and the nations in 11:11–16, which occurs when God raises the “ensign” (11:12: “He [= Yhwh] will raise an ensign for the nations”).[61] It is explicitly stated, therefore, that Yhwh is the one who will signal and cause the return. The use of the image of the “ensign” (נֵס) picks up the concept of the battle standard from 5:26 (cf. 30:17; 49:22), and 11:10 says that the Davidic ruler introduced in 11:1 will be a standard to which the peoples rally (cf. 66:18–20). In 11:10 we are told that the nations will “seek” him (RSV).[62] The nations will come to the Davidic ruler with their questions and receive guidance, and he will administer justice and issue decisions regarding disputes between the nations. In other words, “the root of Jesse” will carry out the same kind of judicial role described earlier in 11:3b–5. The terminology used in those verses (“judge” // “decide” [2x]) picks up the earlier use of the same word pair in 2:4. The Davidic figure will administer Yhwh’s kingdom, but the passage makes clear that it is Yhwh who is the active agent in providing him as an “ensign” (11:12a), just as Yhwh’s provision and equipping was stressed in 11:1–3a. What is portrayed in 11:12 is that the nations will be drawn by God and scattered Israelites will be gathered by him (these movements being conceptually distinct but happening at the same time).

Furthermore, the passage is explicit that it is Yhwh who enables the regathering of his remnant people to his holy mountain (cf. 56:7, 8; 66:18–21), with this process pictured as a second exodus. The exodus typology is indicated in v. 11 by the reference to God’s hand (cf. Exod 6:1; 8:19, etc), to God doing what he does “again” (the adverbial force of יוֹסִיף), and to God’s action being for “a second time” (שֵׁניִת used adverbially; BDB 1041),[63] namely, just as once before he acquired (קנה) his people from Egypt (the verb is associated with the exodus rescue in Exod 15:16 and Ps 74:2).[64] On this understanding, there is an inclusio around vv. 11–16, given the clear new exodus theme found in v. 16, with the reappearance of Yhwh’s hand in that verse and an explicit reference to the original exodus event (“as there was for Israel, when they came up from the land of Egypt”).[65] The action of Yhwh enables the returning exiles to pass over bodies of water (paralleling the original Red Sea crossing) (v. 15). The agent throughout vv. 11–16 is Yhwh (alone),[66] so that Wildberger sees the author as “already within striking distance of an apocalyptic understanding of history.”[67] Also to be noted is the lack of any Davidic agency when the new exodus theme is taken up in extenso in Isa 35 and 40–48.[68]

There will be an end to the (traditional) rivalry between Ephraim and Judah (v. 13; cf. 7:17; 8:14; Ezek 37:15–23), reversing the situation described in 9:21 (Heb. 20).[69] The picture is of a reunited kingdom, presumably with the Davidic ruler as its figurehead. Next it is said that “they [= Judah and Ephraim]” will conquer surrounding nations and “together [יַחְדָּו] they will plunder” these nations (v. 14). There is, however, no hint of a restoration of the old Davidic empire as such (i.e., one achieved through the Davidide’s military prowess); rather, it is said that as a result of the united efforts of Ephraim and Judah “the Ammonites [shall be] their subjects [מִשְׁמַעְתָּם].”[70] This is similar to the statement found in Amos 9:11a (“that they may possess [surrounding nations]”), with both passages best viewed as showing a democratization of Davidic promises.[71] The point I am making is that, just as in 11:1–9, so also in 11:11–16 the role of the Davidic figure is highly restricted, and it is Yhwh himself who is the active agent in establishing his worldwide kingdom.

VI. Conclusions

In this article I have sought to clarify exactly what kind of messianic figure is on show in Isa 11. Though the Davidic lineage of the coming ruler is plain, he is not granted the title “king.” This ruler is not a military leader; it is Yhwh himself who brings about the needed deliverance (if 10:33, 34 is understood to depict the judging of Judah’s enemies). The Davidide is not the founder of the kingdom that he administers as Yhwh’s deputy. Instead, the text depicts him as the chief judicial officer within God’s kingdom. He is equipped for this role by Yhwh’s Spirit, so that his dependence upon divine enabling is stressed. It is neither said nor implied that the paradisical conditions on “[God’s] holy mountain” in 11:6–9 are due to the activities of the Davidide. This is confirmed by an examination of the intertext found in Isa 65:25. The analogous picture of the end time in Amos 9:11–15 supports the supposition that Yhwh is the agent of the transformation. In line with this, though “the root of Jesse” features in the second half of Isa 11, it is Yhwh himself who brings about a new exodus of God’s scattered people and gathers together the nations. The importance of properly gauging the circumscribed role of the future Davidic ruler in Isa 11 is that it makes the move to a focus on divine kingship in Isa 40–66 less radical than it might otherwise appear. In terms of NT fulfillment, the Lord Jesus, as God in human flesh, is to be seen as the fulfillment of what is anticipated in this passage, being both the promised Davidic ruler who will maintain justice in the end-time kingdom and the God who brings about the regathering of God’s people and causes the eschatological transformation.

Notes

1. The present study builds upon my previous investigation of the theme of kingship in the early chapters of Isaiah; see Greg Goswell, “The Shape of Messianism in Isaiah 9, ” WTJ 77 (2015): 101-10.
2. Paul D. Wegner, An Examination of Kingship and Messianic Expectation in Isaiah 1-35 (Lewiston, NY: Mellen Biblical Press, 1992), 231, additions and emphasis mine.
3. Ibid., 4, italics Wegner’s. For messianism more generally, see Ronald E. Clements, “The Messianic Hope in the Old Testament,” JSOT 43 (1989): 3-19; Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Concepts of māšah. and Messianism in Early Judaism,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, The First Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 79-115.
4. Joachim Becker is right to stress the theocratic emphasis of the passage as presently constituted (the result of redaction according to him), but I cannot follow him in his argument that 11:1 is reinterpreted as “die Geburt des neuen Israel” (Joachim Becker, Isaias: Der Prophet und sein Buch, SBS 30 [Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1968], 56; cf. pp. 58-62 and his summary on p. 69). For a recent refutation of this view, see Jacob Stromberg, “The ‘Root of Jesse’ in Isaiah 11:10: Postexilic Judah, or Postexilic Davidic King?,” JBL 127 (2008): 655-69. As part of his argument, Stromberg shows that ùׁفّخùׁ (“root [of Jesse]”) in 11:10 can mean “descendant.”
5. Ronald E. Clements, Isaiah 1-39, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 120, 121.
6. Kirsten Nielsen, There Is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah, trans. Christine and Frederick Crowley, JSOTSup 65 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 131-34.
7. See Gordon C. I. Wong, “Deliverance or Destruction? Isaiah X 33-34 in the Final Form of Isaiah X–XI,” VT 53 (2003): 544-52, esp. 547, 550.
8. Wegner, after surveying and critiquing other views, argues strongly for a connection between 10:33-34 and 11:1-5 (Examination, 243-49); cf. Jean-Pierre Sternberger, “David est-il parmi les prophètes? La mention du nom de David dans les Oracles des prophètes postérieurs,” ETR 69 (1994): 56; Marvin A. Sweeney, “Jesse’s New Shoot in Isaiah 11: A Josianic Reading of the Prophet Isaiah,” in A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders, ed. Richard D. Weis and David M. Carr, JSOTSup 225 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 105-8; Randall Heskett, Messianism within the Scriptural Scrolls of Isaiah, LHBOTS 456 (New York: T&T Clark International, 2007), 122, 123; Willem A. M. Beuken, “‘Lebanon with Its Majesty Shall Fall. A Shoot Shall Come Forth from the Stump of Jesse’ (Isa 10:34-11:1): Interfacing the Story of Assyria and the Image of Israel’s Future in Isaiah 10-11, ” in The New Things: Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy. Festschrift for Frank Lenne, ed. Ferenc Postma et al. (Maastricht: Uitgeverij Shaker, 2002), 17-33; Robb Andrew Young, Hezekiah in History and Tradition, VTSup 155 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 169, 170.
9. According to Stuart A. Irvine, Isaiah, Ahaz, and the Syro-Ephraimitic Crisis, SBLDS 123 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 281.
10. In line with this observation, Antti Laato sees a difficulty in interpreting Isa 11 in terms of Hezekiah, seeing that he did not become king only “after the destruction of Assyria” as 11:1 postulates, though he still wants to say that Hezekiah prefigures the Messiah here presented; see Antti Laato, “About Zion I will not be silent”: The Book of Isaiah as an Ideological Unity, ConBOT 44 (Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1998), 122; Antti Laato, Who Is Immanuel? The Rise and the Foundering of Isaiah’s Messianic Expectations, Åbo Akademi Dissertation (Åbo: Åbo Akademis Förlag, 1988), 316.
11. The alternate views are evaluated by Hugh G. M. Williamson, “The Messianic Texts in Isaiah 1-39, ” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day, JSOTSup 270 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 261-64.
12. For this paragraph, I acknowledge my substantial dependence upon 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, vol. 4 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 171-75.
13. Beuken, “Lebanon with Its Majesty Shall Fall,” 23; pace Wegner, Examination, 233.
14. Verse 10 appears to combine the two phrases in 11:1 to produce שֹׁרֶשׁ יִשַׁי. Many scholars view 11:10 as a late redactional addition, e.g., Hugh G. M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 67; 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), 185-91.
15. The same tripartite division of ch. 11 is indicated by the paragraphing found in 1QIsaa; see D. W. Parry and E. Qimron, eds., The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa): A New Edition, STDJ 32 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 20-23.
16. John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1-33, WBC 24 (Waco: Word, 1985), 170.
17. Stromberg, Isaiah After Exile, 107. See also Richard L. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets, JSOTSup 180 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 253.
18. Edmond Jacob sees a link back to v. 2, viewing the Spirit as the agent of transformation in vv. 6-9; see Edmond Jacob, Esaïe 1-12, Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament 8a (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1987), 164. For the connection with Isa 32, see Hilary Marlow, “The Spirit of Yahweh in Isaiah 11:1-9, ” in Presence, Power and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, ed. David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner (Nottingham: Apollos, 2011), 225; see also David G. Firth, “The Spirit and the Renewal of Creation: An Old Testament Perspective,” in As Long as the Earth Endures: The Bible, Creation and the Environment, ed. Jonathan Moo and Robin Routledge (Nottingham: Apollos, 2014), 107-24.
19. Wonsuk Ma, Until the Spirit Comes: The Spirit of God in the Book of Isaiah, JSOTSup 271 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 183.
20. See BDB 310, 666.
21. Ma, Until the Spirit Comes, 38.
22. Hugh G. M. Williamson, Variations on a Theme: King, Messiah and Servant in the Book of Isaiah (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998), 46.
23. This is a point made also by J. J. M. Roberts, “The Divine King and the 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. Herbert B. Huffmon, Frank A. Spina, and Alberto R. W. Green (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 127-36; Walther Eichrodt, “Prophet and Covenant: Observations on the Exegesis of Isaiah,” in Proclamation and Presence: Old Testament Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies, ed. John I. Durham and J. Roy Porter (London: SCM, 1970) 183.
24. J. J. M. Roberts, “Isaiah in Old Testament Theology,” in Interpreting the Prophets, ed. James Luther Mays and Paul J. Achtemeier (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 70.
25. Leonidas Kalugila, The Wise King: Studies in Royal Wisdom as Divine Revelation in the Old Testament and Its Environment, ConBOT 15 (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1980), 124-28; Thomas L. Leclerc, Yahweh Is Exalted in Justice: Solidarity and Conflict in Isaiah (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 69, 70.
26. Horst Seebass, Herrscherverheißungen im Alten Testament, Biblisch-Theologische Studien 19 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1992), 26.
27. For discussion of the non-militaristic portrayal of the future ruler, see Ulrich Kellermann, Messias und Gesetz: Grundlinien einer alttestamentlichen Heilserwartung. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Einführung, BibS(N) 61 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971), 22-26.
28. See Marc Zvi Brettler, God Is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor, JSOTSup 76 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989), 109-12, for a survey of biblical evidence for the role of the king in the judicial system.
29. Watts, Isaiah 1-33, 170.
30. 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 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 152.
31. Ma, Until the Spirit Comes, 40 (dependent on Franz Delitzsch).
32. Roberts, “Divine King,” 129; see Hans W. Wolff, “Herrschaft Jahwes und Messiasgestalt im A.T.,” ZAW 54 (1936): 168-202. Wolff describes the Messiah as the “manifestation” (Erscheinungsform) of Yhwh (p. 191).
33. Roberts, “Divine King,” 133.
34. As noted by Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1-12: A Commentary, trans. Thomas H. Trapp (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 479: “There is no more mention of the Messiah after this point [i.e., after v. 5]” (addition mine). Becker views the whole of 11:6-12:6 as a “redaktioneller Zusatz” with a theocratic emphasis (Isaias, 52).
35. E.g., Stromberg, Isaiah After Exile, 108, 183, 203; Jacob Stromberg, An Introduction to the Study of Isaiah, T&T Clark Approaches to Biblical Studies (London: T&T Clark International, 2011), 67-72; Lea Mazor, “Myth, History, and Utopia in the Prophecy of the Shoot (Isaiah 10:33-11:9),” in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism, ed. Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz, and Shalom M. Paul (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 73-90. But see Erich Zenger, “Die Verheissung Jesaja 11.1-10: Universal oder partikular?,” in Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken, ed. Jacques van Ruiten and Marc Vervenne, BETL 132 (Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1997) 137-47; David G. Firth, “Spirit, Creation and Redemption in Isaiah,” in New Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Essays in Honor of Hallvard Hagelia, ed. Markus Zehnder, Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and Its Contexts 21 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014), 45.
36. Stromberg, Examination, 257, 258; cf. Antonine de Guglielmo, “The Fertility of the Land in the Messianic Prophecies,” CBQ 19 (1957): 306-11; Klaus Seybold, Das davidische Königtum im Zeugnis der Propheten, FRLANT 107 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), 94.
37. Ronald E. Clements, “The Wolf Shall Live with the Lamb: Reading Isaiah 11:6-9 Today,” in New Heaven and New Earth: Prophecy and the Millennium: Essays in Honour of Anthony Gelston, ed. Peter J. Harland and Robert Hayward, VTSup 77 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 89.
38. The Ezekiel text is dependent upon Lev 26; see Michael A. Lyons, From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code, LHBOTS 507 (New York: T&T Clark International, 2009) 124, 125.
39. Risto Nurmela, The Mouth of the Lord Has Spoken: Inner-Biblical Allusions in Second and Third Isaiah, Studies in Judaism (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2006), 127, 128; Stromberg, Isaiah After Exile, 101-7.
40. Christopher R. Seitz, “Royal Promises in the Canonical Books of Isaiah and the Psalms,” in Word without End: The Old Testament as Abiding Theological Witness (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 167.
41. Schultz, “King in the Book of Isaiah,” 161.
42. Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, “The Intertextual Relationship between Isaiah 65:25 and Isaiah 11:6-9, ” in The Scriptures and the Scrolls: Studies in Honour of A. S. van der Woude on the Occasion of His 65th birthday, ed. Florentino García Martínez, Antonius Hilhorst, and Casper J. Labuschagne, VTSup 49 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 31, 32.
43. Ibid., 34n11; cf. Wolfgang Lau, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie in Jes 56-66: Eine Untersuchung zu den literarischen Bezügen in den letzen elf Kapiteln des Jesajabuches, BZAW 225 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994), 134-42; Odil Hannes Steck, “‘…ein kleiner Knabe kann sie leiten’: Beobachtungen zum Tierfrieden in Jesaja 11:6-8 und 65:25, ” in Alttestamentlicher Glaube und biblische Theologie: Festschrift für Horst Dietrich Preuß zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Jutta Hausmann and Hans-Jürgen Zobel (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992), 104-13; Konrad Schmid, “New Creation Instead of New Exodus: The Innerbiblical Exegesis and Theological Transformations of Isaiah 65:17-25, ” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Chronological and Thematic Development in Isaiah 40-66, ed. Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer and Hans M. Barstad, FRLANT 255 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 184-87.
44. Benjamin D. Sommer, “Allusions and Illusions: The Unity of the Book of Isaiah in Light of Deutero-Isaiah’s Use of Prophetic Tradition,” in New Visions of Isaiah, ed. Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney, JSOTSup 214 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 174, 175. Marvin A. Sweeney would understand the anointed of 61:1-3 as a reuse of 11:1-16; see “The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in Isaiah,” in Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken, 43; cf. p. 49, where Sweeney notes that ch. 11 plays a particularly prominent role in chs. 56-66. He sees a reappearance of ch. 11 in 56:8; 59:21-22; 60:21; 61:1-4; 62:10-12; 65:25 (p. 55).
45. Sommer, “Allusions and Illusions,” 175n38, 84-88.
46. Schultz, Search for Quotation, 256; Martin Rehm, Der königliche Messias im Licht der Immanuel-Weissagungen des Buches Jesaja (Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker, 1968), 302, 303.
47. The relation between Amos 9:11-12 and 13-15 is touched on in the course of arguing that “the booth of David” (9:11) refers to the city of Jerusalem with its temple; see Gregory R. Goswell, “David in the Prophecy of Amos,” VT 61 (2011): 243-57.
48. Hugh G. M. Williamson, “Hope under Judgement: The Prophets of the Eighth Century BCE,” EQ 72 (2000): 303n27.
49. Hans W. Wolff, Joel and Amos (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 354.
50. Erich Bosshard, “Beobachtungen zum Zwölfprophetenbuch,” BN 40 (1987): 41.
51. James Nogalski, “Joel as ‘Literary Anchor’ for the Book of the Twelve,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney, SBL Symposium 15 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2000), 95.
52. As noted by Nogalski, “Joel as ‘Literary Anchor,’” 99; cf. Aaron Schart, Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs: Neubearbeitungen von Amos im Rahmen schriftübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse, BZAW 260 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998), 261-74. Schart argues that Joel and Obadiah were incorporated into the Twelve to frame Amos (p. 261: “Joel und Obadja [beziehen sich] so stark aufeinander, daß man davon sprechen kann, daß diese Schriften die Amosschrift rahmen”).
53. Nogalski, “Joel as ‘Literary Anchor,’” 99: “Joel causes the reader to hear Amos differently.”
54. The verb “to flow” in v. 18a (“and all the stream beds of Judah shall flow with water”) is literally “go” (הלך); the name “Shittim” (הַשִּׁטִּים) at the end of this verse is derived from the root “to go” (שׁוט), and the same pun is found in Josh 2:1 (for the roots as a word pair, see Job 1:7; 2:2); see Moshe Garsiel, Biblical Names: A Literary Study of Midrashic Derivations and Puns (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1991), 108.
55. See Terje Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2-3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature, CBET 25 (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 357-72. Stordalen sees such passages as reflecting Gihon symbolism.
56. As noted by Stromberg, Isaiah After Exile, 184.
57. Cf. Johannes Goldenstein, Das Gebet der Gottesknechte: Jesaja 63:7-64:11 im Jesajabuch, WMANT 92 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2001), 216, 217.
58. For detailed argumentation, see Stromberg, Isaiah After Exile, 18-27.
59. The connection is also noted by Dominique Janthial, L’oracle de Nathan et l’unité du livre d’Isaïe, BZAW 343 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 140.
60. See Goswell, “David in the Prophecy of Amos,” 253, 254; Gregory R. Goswell, “Isaiah 16: A Forgotten Chapter in the History of Messianism,” SJOT 28 (2014): 100-103.
61. For what follows, I acknowledge my substantial dependence upon Stromberg, Isaiah After Exile, 183-91.
62. דרשׁ אל, “to resort to, inquire of (someone),” being a pregnant construction, meaning “to turn inquiringly to (someone)” (GKC §119 ff.).
63. The omission of פַעַם is noted by Davidson (Benjamin Davidson, The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, 2nd ed. [London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1850; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000], §48 Rem. 3), but this should be understood as present, and indeed may be redundant after יוֹסִיף (Bruce K. Waltke and Michael O’Connor, An introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990], §15.4a). The word שֵׁנִית is commonly emended, but if the MT is retained, it is necessary to see an ellipsis of an infinitive dependent on יוֹסִיףand governing יָדוֹ (RSV “the Lordwill extend his hand yet a second time”).
64. For a different reading of this verse, removing any allusion to the first exodus, see Williamson, Book Called Isaiah, 130-34.
65. For Yhwh waving his hand, see 2 Kgs 5:11 and Isa 19:16.
66. Cf. Janthial, L’oracle de Nathan, 142.
67. Wildberger, Isaiah 1-12, 498.
68. Note also the “highway” (מְסִלָּה) theme in 11:16 (cf. Isa 35:8-10; 40:3-5; 42:14-17).
69. As noted by Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 19 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 268.
70. מִשְׁמַעַת is glossed “obedient band, body of subjects” in BDB 1036.
71. See Goswell, “David in the Prophecy of Amos,” 257.