January 2025

A Commentary on Isaiah, Part 20: The Valley of Vision 

Having left off in our last presentation with the burden of The Desert of the Sea in the middle of Isaiah chapter 21, we are coming to the end of a series of prophecies which had begun in Isaiah chapter 13 with the burden of Babylon, and, on the surface, the burdens seem to have been against all of the nations or places surrounding ancient Judah. Yet in the course of our discussion we hope to have demonstrated that even though they seem to be quite enigmatic, many of them are actually relevant to the children of Israel, and many of them are even more relevant to the far vision of the future of Israel, from Isaiah’s time, rather than to the immediate circumstances and events which had befallen them in ancient times. 

So for reasons which we have already explained, the burden of Babylon is apparently more relevant to the future world empires and the entity known as Mystery Babylon in the Revelation, than it was to the short-lived empire of Nebuchadnezzar, and the burden against the king of Babylon is relevant to all of the rulers of that same long line of empires which had been in Isaiah’s future. The burden of Moab was actually directed towards the Israelites who had dwelt east of the River Jordan, the burden of Damascus towards the Israelites who dwelt in Syria, and the oracle for “the land shadowing with wings” was meant for Israelites of the Assyrian captivity, while the burden of Egypt served as a warning to the remaining people of Judah, not to flee to Egypt for refuge from the coming Assyrians. The last of these burdens that we have already discussed is the “burden of the desert of the sea”, which we had described as having represented the general mass of the world’s peoples who, in the near vision, would face the coming rise of the empire of the Persians and the Medes. So in that sense, it was another prophecy against Babylon, and therefore the declaration that Babylon is fallen was made near its end. 

A Commentary on Isaiah, Part 19: The Desert of the Sea

In the King James Version of the Bible, the Hebrew name כושׁ or Kush (# 3568) is usually translated as Ethiopia. Exceptions to this are found only in the genealogy of the sons of Ham, in Genesis chapter 10, and in the copy of that genealogy which is repeated in 1 Chronicles chapter 1, where the personal name Kush is properly transliterated as Cush. This is a cause of confusion, because the Cush of Genesis chapter 10 was certainly the patriarch of the tribe of Cush which had inhabited Mesopotamia and parts of the adjacent land to the west which had later become known as Arabia. Cush also inhabited parts of the lands of east of the Tigris River which eventually became part of later Persia. However in modern times the word Ethiopia is only associated with the land to the south of Egypt in Africa.

Doing this, the King James translators had only followed the same convention which had been used in the much earlier Greek Septuagint translation of Scripture. There, in the genealogies found in Genesis chapter 10 and in 1 Chronicles chapter 1 the name was rendered as Χους or Chous in Greek. But everywhere else in the Septuagint, the name is rendered with some form of the word Αἰθιοπία or Ethiopia. Interestingly, the Greek word χοῦς is a common noun which was either a unit of measure, or it was used to describe dust or soil. 

A Commentary on Isaiah, Part 18: The Burdens of Captivity

In our most recent commentaries for Isaiah, presenting chapters 16 and 17 we had discussed the fact that the burdens which the prophet had for Moab and Damascus had actually addressed the Israelites who were settled in the ancient lands of Moab and Damascus. Then as we had progressed through each of these burdens, it had become more and more apparent that they had actually been for Israelites. 

For example, in Isaiah chapter 16 where there is a promise of mercy, we read: “5 And in mercy shall the throne be established: and he shall sit upon it in truth in the tabernacle of David, judging, and seeking judgment, and hasting righteousness”, and all of the cities of Moab which had been named in that chapter were cities in Moab that had been occupied by the children of Israel from the days of Moses and Joshua, for roughly 700 years. 

Then, in chapter 17, in verse 10 we read in part: “10 Because thou hast forgotten the God of thy salvation, and hast not been mindful of the rock of thy strength, therefore shalt thou plant pleasant plants, and shalt set it with strange slips”, and it is clear that since Yahweh was the God of Israel and was only known by Israel in that sense, the words of the prophet had addressed Israelites in Damascus, and not merely Syrians who never knew Yahweh so that they could have forgotten Him. 

Likewise it shall be here, in Isaiah chapter 18, that the words of the prophet are addressing at least a portion of the Israelites in captivity, and in chapter 19, while Egypt is a subject of the Burden of Egypt prophecy in the immediate sense of the prophet, which is the near vision, in the far vision Egypt stands an allegory for the captivity of Israel, and a portion of Israel is being addressed as Egypt. 

A Commentary on Isaiah, Part 17: The Burden of Damascus

As we hope to have demonstrated discussing the Burden of Moab and Isaiah chapters 15 and 16, the prophecy actually concerns the children of Israel who had dwelt in the land of Moab, the northern portion of the original land of Moab which the Moabites had first lost to the Amorites, and which the children of Israel had later taken for themselves in the days of Moses. This is because all of the cities mentioned in the prophesy were in the lands which were occupied by the tribes of Reuben and Gad, with the possible exceptions of Ar and Kir. However the children of Israel had long held the Moabites themselves as a subject state, and it is plausible that Israelites had also dwelt in those places, after an occupation of nearly 300 years from the time of David. But it is also possible that since Ar and Kir are generic terms, they very likely also applied to Israelite cities in other ways. For example, the Ar mentioned in the opening verses of Isaiah chapter 15 is very likely a reference to the city Aroer found on the banks of the river Arnon, a town of Reuben which is mentioned in Joshua chapter 13. While the name Ar simply means city, Aroer means ruins, so it could also be a pejorative for any city. It is used as a pejorative here in a different context in Isaiah chapter 17.

As a digression, this interpretation of the use of the term Moab, which is fully substantiated in Isaiah chapters 15 and 16, also supports our interpretation of the Book of Ruth, and our assertion which is based on several points of evidence within that book, that Ruth was an Israelite in Moab, who was only called a Moabite because of the circumstances of her geographic origin. So if the tribes of Reuben and Gad were called Moab here by the prophet, for reason that they were Israelites dwelling in Moab, then Ruth was also an Israelite dwelling in Moab, as the internal evidence suggests. Certainly Boaz, a pious man, and the elders of Israel with him, portrayed as having been pious men, were also all described as having upheld the law of Moses, so it is not just to imagine that they would transgress that same law of Moses by bringing a racial Moabitess into the congregation, which is contrary to the law. One law cannot force a man to transgress another.