The options for exegetical OT + Deuterocanonicals sets?

Unix

• How would You compare Hermeneia, Eerdmans Critical Commentary, New Interpreter's Bible, Old Testament Library and would there be some series I've neglected? I would prefer to invest in a series that will have at least Sirach (Ecclesiacticus). Hoping there will be a replacement AYBC 1 Mc volume some day (haven't bought that volume due to its age), not sure any other set will deal with 1 Mc in a historical-critical way,
• Some but perhaps not an overwhelming amount of DSS and Septuagint textual criticism compared to the 1977 BHS,
• If there are recent volumes, the impact of archaological and linguistic discoveries verse-by-verse,
• If it is or will be available in Accordance it would definately be a plus,
• Authors not limited to Evangelical or Reformed scholars.
  - It's OK if it doesn't have Gn-Nm since I have a Reform Judaism volume on that in Accordance, and a print volume on Gn,
  -Doesn't need to have outstanding introductions on every book, would accept OK introductions on some books and that are just up-to-date on scholarship such as the dating of Gn-Nm compared to the dating of the Deuteronomistic work and between a dozen to two dozen pages long - OK if verbose.
• Would be great if the set has a good treatment of Jer,
• Underlying (oral) traditions?

Do You know anything about how the Eerdmans Critical Commentary and Old Testament Library/New Testament Library sets will develop?

Dan Francis

Here is a look at Isaiah 46 in all three... ECC/NIB/HER

Chapter 46

[1–7] A satirical description of the shameful collapse of the Babylonian gods who are hastily thrown on beasts of burden while fleeing the Persian conquerors. The practice described in these verses mirrors the removal of the city’s idols on the eve of an invasion so as to prevent their falling into the hands of the pillaging conquerors, who often would carry off the idols from their temples and display them in their native lands. Compare the propagandistic vitriolic attack in the Cyrus Cylinder against Nabonidus (555–539 BCE), the last Babylonian monarch before the Persian invasion (and Deutero-Isaiah’s contemporary), for removing idols from the Babylonian cities and the praise for Cyrus for restoring the idols to their rightful abodes: “Furthermore, I resettled upon the command of Marduk, the great lord, all the gods of Sumer and Akkad whom Nabonidus had brought into Babylon … to the anger of the lord of the gods [Marduk], unharmed, in their (former) chapels, the places which make them happy” (ANET, 316). One should note that Marduk’s idol itself was captured several times throughout the centuries. The Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta I (1244–1208 BCE) removed the idol from Babylon following his invasion. The Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar I (1126–1103 BCE) retrieved Marduk’s idol from the Elamites, who carried it off in 1189 BCE. And Sennacherib (705–681 BCE) brought the statue to Assyria in 689 BCE. For further instances of idols fleeing their cities or of their removal by conquerors, cf. Jer 48:7; 49:3; Hos 10:5–6; Amos 5:26; Dan 11:8. (See also CAD I-J:274; ANET, 283, 300, 306, 309; ANEP, no. 538; M. Cogan, Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah, and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E., Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 19 [Missoula, Mont., 1974], 21–44; W. W. Hallo, “Cult Statue and Divine Image: A Preliminary Study,” in W. W. Hallo et al,. eds., Scripture in Context, 2: More Essays on the Comparative Method [Winona Lake, Ind., 1983], 13–14.)
The two deities mentioned here, Bel and Nabu, stood at the head of the Babylonian pantheon in the Neo-Babylonian period and are referred to in tandem in the Cyrus Cylinder (ANET, 315–16, lines 22, 35). The first, Bel (= Akk. bēlu, “lord”), is none other than Marduk, who is mentioned in Jer 50:2: “Declare: Babylon is captured, Bel is shamed, Marduk is dismayed”; see also 51:44. The origin of his name is Sumerian: amar.uda.ak (interpreted as “bull calf/son of the sun,” or, “bull calf of the storm”). It appears in the names of the Babylonian kings “Merodach-baladan” (Isa 39:1; cf. 2 Kgs 20:12); “Evil-merodach” (2 Kgs 25:27); and is also the source of the name “Mordechai” in the book of Esther. Marduk’s prestige took a severe blow in the twilight years of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty, when, under Nabonidus’s patronage, the moon god, Sin, was declared Babylon’s new king of the gods. Cyrus, who captured Babylon in 539 BCE, reinstated Marduk as the head of the Babylonian pantheon, thus restoring Marduk’s lost glory. The second deity, Nabu (or Nebo; Akk. nabû), serves as the theophoric element in the names of three Neo-Babylonian kings: Nabopolassar, his son Nebuchadnezzar, and finally, the last king, Nabonidus; cf. also the names of two of Nebuchadnezzar’s ministers (2 Kgs 25:8; Jer 39:9), Nebuzaradan and Nebushazban (Jer 39:13). Nabu, whose cultic center was in the city Borsippa (a few kilometers south of Babylon), was the patron god of writing and during this period was worshiped as Marduk’s son. During the Akitu (the Babylonian New Year) ceremonies, which were celebrated between the second and eleventh of Nisan, Marduk and Nabu were paraded around as part of the festivities. For more on the Babylonian New Year, see J. A. Black, “The New Year Ceremonies in Ancient Babylonia: ‘Taking Bel by the Hand’ and a Cultic Picnic,” Religion 11 (1981): 39–59; B. Leisten-Pongratz, Ina Šulmi Îrub: Die kultspographische und ideologische Programmatik der Akîtu-Prozession in Babylonien und Assyrien im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Mainz am Rhein, 1994). For the cultic vessels and paraphernalia connected with this holiday, see T. W. Mann, Divine Presence and Guidance in Israelite Traditions: The Typology of Exaltation (Baltimore, 1977), 76–79. For pictures of the idols carried on beasts of burden, see ANEP, no. 537.
This chapter is linked to chap. 45 by a string of words and phrases: 45:3: הקורא (בשמך), 4: ואקרא (לך בשמך)—46:11: קֹרא (ממזרח עיט); 45:5: אני ה׳ ואין עוד—46:9: אנכי אל ואין עוד; 45:6: אפס בלעדי, 14: אפס אלהים—46:9 אנכי … אלהים ואפס כמוני; 45:15: אלהי ישראל מושיע, 17: ישראל נושע בה׳ תשועת עולמים, 20: אל לא יושיע, 21: אל (צדיק) ומושיע, 22: וְחִוָּשְׁעוּ—46:7: לא יושיענו, 13: קרבתי צדקתי … ותשועתי … ונתתי בציון תשועה; 45:19: זרע יעקב—46:3: בית יעקב; 45:20: הנֹשאים את עץ פסלם—46:1: נְשֻׂאֹתֵיכֶם … מַשָּׂא, 2: מַשָּׂא; 3: הנשֻׂאים, 4: אֶשָּׂא, 7: יִשָּׂאֻהוּ; 45:21: מִקֶּדֶם—46:10: וּמִקֶּדֶם; 45:23: כי לי תכרע כל ברך—46:1: כרע, 2: כרעו; 45:21: צדיק, 24: צדקות, 25: יצדקו—46:12: מצדקה, 13: צדקתי; and כל, which appears in 45:22, 23 (twice), 24; 46:3; and cf. also 45:21–46:13. There are also a number of thematic links between this chapter and chap. 45. The first verses of chap. 45 deal with Cyrus’s conquests, and chap. 46 describes the removal of the idols from Babylon as it falls to Cyrus’s armies.
Verses 1–4 of this chapter are characterized by many repetitions of key roots: נשׂא appears five times in the space of four verses (vv. 1 [twice], 2, 3, 4); סבל appears twice (v. 4); עמס appears twice as well (vv. 1, 3), as does מלט (vv. 2, 4). The chapter is also replete with imperative forms: שִׁמעו (vv. 3, 12), זִכרו (vv. 8, 9), הִתְאֹשָׁשׁוּ (v. 8), הָשיבו (v. 8). (The two imperatives שמעו and זכרו form a chiastic parallel: vv. 3, 8, and vv. 9, 12.)
[1] The midrash takes its cue from this verse and prohibits all mockery or satire except when it comes to idolatry (b. Meg. 25b; Sanh. 63b). For another prophetic attack on Babylon and its idols, see Isa 21:9: “Fallen, fallen is Babylon, and all images of her gods lie shattered to the ground.” This verse, which mentions Bel and Nabu, may also be a clever allusion to the downfall of both Nabonidus and his son Belshazar, who ruled Babylon as co-regent during his father’s extended stay in Teima (located in what is now Saudi Arabia).
Bel has crouched down—Bel (Marduk), the head of the Babylonian pantheon, has collapsed as his city was invaded. Aside from Jer 50:2, quoted in the introduction to this section, the god Bel is satirically mocked in a double wordplay in Jer 51:44: “And I will punish Bel (בל) in Babylon (בבבל) and make him disgorge what he has swallowed (בִּלְעוֹ).” The Hebrew verb כרע is related to Akk. kurītu, which denotes the area between the knee and the fetlock of animals (CAD K:560); see Exod 12:9; Lev 9:14.
Nabu has stooped low—Nabu cowers. Nabu was number two in the Babylonian hierarchy of deities and according to the Babylonian belief at this time period was Marduk’s son. The verb קרס, a hapax legomenon related to the substantive קרסים, “hooks” (Exod 26:11, 33) and קַרְסֹל, “ankle” (2 Sam 22:37 = Ps 18:37), is cognate to Akk. kursinnu, “the lower leg of animals and humans” (CAD K:566). The verb, vocalized as a present participle in the MT, is translated as a past tense by all the ancient translations and 1QIsaa, thus harmonizing with and creating a chiastic parallelism with the first two words of the verse.
Their images are consigned to beasts and cattle—The Babylonians loaded their idols onto beasts of burden as they prepared to flee the triumphant armies of Persia. The plural substantive עֲצַבִּים, “images of idols” (see 2 Sam 5:21, in connection with the Philistines; Isa 10:11, the images of Jerusalem; Jer 50:2, Babylonian idols; Hos 14:9, Ephraimite images; Ps 115:4, a general term referring to all idols), is derived from the root עצב, “to fashion.” But its homonym, עֶצֶב, denotes “pain” and “suffering” (Gen 3:16; Prov 10:22), and thus the prophet’s implication (through a subtle wordplay) is that these images are the very cause of the Babylonians’ travails. For the same double entendre, see Isa 48:5. According to common belief, the idols were the embodiment of the gods themselves, and thus their removal and exile implied that the gods themselves were being deported from the city; see 40:19–20. For the expression היה ל-, see 45:14.
The things you would carry [in procession] are loaded as a burden on tired animals—The prophet, after his third-person description of the idols being led off, now addresses his audience directly in the second-person. The clause, however, is ambiguous. Though many different suggestions have been offered in light of the prophet’s subsequent rhetoric, which juxtaposes the idol’s impotence with God’s omnipotence, it seems best to vocalize נֹשׂאֹתיכם (Luzzatto, second comment; cf. Tur Sinai, Peshuṭo shel Miqra, III/1:122, who reads נֹשׂאֹתיהם; Ehrlich, Mikrâ ki-Pheshuṭo, 3:109), with the meaning: Your gods, which by all rights should be carrying you, cannot even carry themselves, for they are loaded on cattle and (other) beasts of burden. One could, however, maintain the Masoretic vocalization and interpret נְשֻׂאֹתֵיכם (with Yellin, Ḥiqrei Miqra, 57) as a poʿel participle (on the paradigm of יָקוּשׁ, “hunter” [Ps 91:3; Prov 6:5]; cf. Rabbinic רָכוּב, “mounted”; שָׁתוּי, “drunken”; נָשׂוּי, “married”). If so, it would still have the same meaning and would also rhyme alliteratively with the next word, עֲמוּסוֹת. (See also J. Blau, “The Paʿul Form as an Active,” Leš 18 [1952–53]: 67–81 [Heb.].) For the verb עמס, “to carry a load,” see Gen 44:13: “Each reloaded (ויעמֹס) his pack animal”; Neh 13:15: “Bringing heaps of grain and loading (ועֹמסים) them onto asses.” Compare also the substantive מַעֲמָסָה (“a heavy load”) in Zech 12:3. The word מַשָּׂא refers to a “load” carried by asses (Exod 23:5), mules (2 Kgs 5:17), camels (2 Kgs 8:9), and also humans (2 Sam 15:33). Compare its Akkadian semantic equivalent, biltu, “burden,” from the verb wabālu, “to carry,” which also refers to burdens loaded upon beasts of burden (CAD B:230). The two verbs עמס and נשׂא are parallel in three separate instances in the Phoenician inscription of Eshmunazor, king of Sidon: “And do not carry away (ישא) the coffin of my resting place and move me (יעמסן) from this resting place” (KAI 14:5–6, and see lines 7 and 21). Compare likewise in Ugaritic: “Load me (ʿms), please, Mighty Baal … She [the goddess Shupshu] placed him [tšth—the verb is derived from nšʾ = נשׂא] on Anat’s shoulders” (CAT 1.6.I:12, 14–15). The first three words in this hemistich are all alliterative, created by the repetition of the sibilants shin and samekh. For the form of the Hebrew hapax legomenon עֲיֵפָה, “weary (animal),” cf. יְרֵשָׁה, “possession” (Num 24:18), צְנֵפָה, “winding” (Isa 22:18). In contrast to the idols that must be carried on beasts, the Lord “carries Israel in His bosom” (40:11).
[2] They stoop low, totally crouched down—The verbs form a chiastic parallel to the previous verse with the addition of יחדו, indicating a total collapse. There is some controversy as to the subjects of the verbs: either the beasts of burden (cf. Gen 49:9: “He crouches [כרע] … like a lion”) or the idols. A third option is that they refer both to the beasts and the images that bow and cower. In light of the following hemistich, however, the second option (the idols) is preferable.
They are unable to rescue the burden—Bel and Nabu are unable to rescue their burden (מַשָּׂא, “burden,” is repeated in this verse for emphasis), i.e., their worshipers. The Targum (נָטְלֵיהוֹן) and Peshitta (ṭʿwnyhwn) read מַשָּׂאָם, “their burden,” with the plural pronominal suffix. For the verb מלט, “to deliver, save” (here vocalized as an infinitive absolute), see Isa 49:24, 25.
And they themselves go into captivity—Not only are these idle idols unable to save their pleading penitents, they cannot even save themselves from being captured. For the expression הלך בשבי (“to go into captivity”), see Deut 28:41; Amos 9:4. 1QIsaa has here a plural verb, הלכו, instead of the MT third-person feminine singular.
[3–4] In contrast to the Babylonian gods, who are utterly impotent, unable to save their own people, and must be carried on the backs of beasts of burden, God carries Israel in His bosom (40:11) and is perennially present as Israel’s protector and redeemer, expressed metaphorically by the pair מִנִּי, “since” (v. 3, twice) and עד, “till” (v. 4, twice). For מן … עד, see Gen 46:34: From our youth until now”; Ps 71:17–18: “From my youth … until old age.” The Israelite God shelters His people from day one on. For a similar idea, cf. Ps 71:6: “From birth (מבטן) I depended on You” (similar to v. 3 here: “Who have been carried since birth [בטן]”); and Ps 71:18: “And even until hoary old age do not forsake me, God” (similar to v. 4 here: “Till you grow old … till you turn gray, it is I who will continue to carry you”). For female imagery applied to God, cf. also Isa 42:14; 45:10; 49:15; 66:9, 13; and see Gruber, “Motherhood of God in Second Isaiah.”
[3] Listen to Me, O house of Jacob and the entire remnant of the house of Israel—The prophet addresses the people in the second-person plural. For the parallelism יעקב/ישראל, see 40:27; 41:14; 43:1; 48:1. For שארית as a surviving “remnant” (after the purges of conquest and exile), see 37:32; Jer 23:3. For the expression שִׁמעו אלי, see v. 12 here; 48:12; 51:1, 7; 55:2.
Who have been carried since birth—In contrast to the impotent gods of vv. 1–2, the God of Israel has been carrying and caring for Israel from the very day of their birth, i.e., from the time they became a nation.
Supported since leaving the womb—The verb נשׂא denotes carrying, supporting, providing basic necessities; cf. 63:9: “He raised them and carried them (וַיְנַשְּׂאֵם) all the days of old”; Deut 1:31: “And in the wilderness, where you saw how the Lord your God carried you (נְשָׂאֲךָ), as a man carries his son.” The Akkadian interdialectal and semantic equivalent, našû, also refers to supporting a fellow human being; cf. Hammurabi’s law collection, §148: “He shall continue to support her [i.e., his divorced wife] all the days of her life” (for additional examples, see CAD N/2:95–96). From the moment God chose Israel as His people, He guarded them and provided them with all their needs; see Isa 44:2: “Your Creator from the womb, who has helped you”; cf. 44:24; 49:1, 5. For further instances of the parallelism בטן/רחם (“womb/birth”), see Ps 22:11: “I became Your charge at birth (מרחם); from my mother’s womb (מבטן) You have been my God”; see also Jer 1:5; Ps 58:4; Job 3:11; 31:15; and cf. Isa 49:1: “Before I was born … while I was in my mother’s womb.” For the poetic-archaic preposition מִנִּי, see Ps 78:2; Job 20:4.
[4] God’s constant vigil is reiterated by the fivefold repetition of the personal pronoun אני. God fulfills the role reserved for a parent. But whereas a mother/father cares for their child from birth until adolescence, God watches over the nation from birth until hoary old age. Note the accretion of sibilants in this verse: זקנה, שׂיבה, אסבול, עשׂיתי, אשׂא, אסבל. The verse functions as an encouraging response to the people’s plea in Ps 71:18: “And even until hoary age do not forsake me, God!”
“Till you grow old, I am He”—Till the nation reaches senescence, i.e., throughout all future time, I am He who shall continue to support you. For the expression אני הוא, referring to God, see Isa 41:4; 43:10, 13; 48:12; 52:6. For the synonymous pair זקנה/שֵׂיבה (next clause), see Ps 71:18, quoted above; 1 Sam 12:2: “I have grown old and gray (זקנתי ושַׂבְתִּי)”; see also Lev 19:32; and cf. Prov 20:29.
“Till you turn gray, it is I who will continue to carry you”—God will faithfully shoulder His burden and carry Israel till they are old and gray. Aramaic סבל is the cognate equivalent of Heb. נשׂא; see, e.g., v. 7: “They must bear it (יִשָּׂאֻהוּ) on their shoulders and carry it (יִסְבְּלֻהוּ)”; 53:4: “Yet it was our sickness that he bore (נשׂא), our suffering that he endured (סְבָלָם)”; and cf. 53:11. For its occurrence in Aramaic texts with the meaning “to provide, support,” see saying 106 in the Aramaic proverbs of Ahiqar: “One [day a man said] to the wild ass, [‘Let me ride] on you and I will provide for you (אסבלנך).’ [The wild ass answered: ‘Keep] your support (סבוליך) and fodder to yourself!’ ” (See Lindenberger, Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar, 203, lines 204–5.) Compare likewise the following Aramaic text from Elephantine: “I, Anani, gave it [my house] to Jehoishma my daughter, at my death in affection because she supported me (סבלתני) when I was old of days (ימין סב).” (See Porten and Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents, 2:86, 89, B3.10:16–17; and note the connection between ימין סב [“old of days”] here and in Deutero-Isaiah.) Compare also: “And Tapamet and Jeh(o)ishma her daughter said: ‘We shall serve you, as a son or daughter supports (יסבל) his father, in your lifetime. And at your death we shall support Zaccur your son, like a son who supports (יסבל) his father’ ” (ibid., 72, 73, B3.6:11–12). For further appearances of the verb סבל, see vv. 4, 7. The verbal pair סבל/נשׂא is also attested in Ahiqar (saying 10): “The ass abandons his load and will not carry it (יסבלנה). He will be shamed by his fellow and will carry (וינשא) a burden which is not his own” (Lindenberger, Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar, 62, lines 90–91).
“I was the Creator”—I, the Lord, molded Israel into a people. For עשׂי, “to create,” see Isa 43:7; 44:2; 45:7, 18; 51:13. For the alliterative verbal pair עשׂה and נשׂא (following colon), see Exod 19:4: “You have seen what I did (עשׂיתי) to the Egyptians, how I bore (ואשׂא) you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Me.”
“And I will be the Bearer”—I shall continue to be your support and provider, as I have been in the past.
“And I will carry and rescue [you]”—as opposed to the heathen gods, who cannot save their own worshipers (v. 2). The verb מלט (“to rescue”) also carries an additional nuance, “to give birth”; see Isa 66:7: “Before she labored, she was delivered. Before her birth pangs, she bore (והמליטה) a son”; 34:15: “There the arrow snake shall nest and lay eggs (וַתְּמַלֵּט)”—a nuance that follows well v. 3 and its imagery.
[5–7] For the prophet’s claim that God cannot be compared to anything or anybody in the context of a polemic against idols and idolatry, see 40:18, 25 (which also begins with the same rhetorical question: “To whom can you compare Me?”). For his scathing satire against idol craftsmanship, see 40:18–20; 41:6–7; 44:9–19. There is a structural and thematic link between this unit and the next one (vv. 8ff.) and 44:8ff. In both sections following the polemic against the fashioning of images (44:9–20), there is an exhortation to remember: “Remember these things!” (44:21)—“Remember this!” (46:8). This unit (46:5–7) is linked thematically to the prior one by the derisive tone the prophet employs against the idols and by the verbs נשׂא, vv. 1 (twice), 2, 3, 4, 7; סבל, vv. 4, 7; and עשׂי, vv. 1, 7.
[5] To whom can you liken Me or declare Me similar?—The verse begins and ends with the verb דמי, forming a literary inclusio. The first-person pronominal suffix affixed to the first verb, תְדַמיוני, is implied in the second as well. Is there any god in any pantheon who can be compared to Me? For the same sequence of verbs, see 40:25: “To whom, then, can you liken Me (תדמיוני)? To whom can I be compared (ואֶשְׁוֶה)?” Lam 2:13: “To what can I compare (אֲדַמֶּה) you, Zion, to what can I liken (אַשְׁוֶה) you?” The two verbs, however, carry slightly different nuances, according to Ehrlich (Miqra ki-Pheshuṭo, 3:110): “He who likens (דמי) two things, one to another, and says that this is like that, may be right or may be mistaken. But he who declares two things equal (שׁוי) is making an apt comparison, and the two things are truly similar.” According to this distinction, the bipartite rhetorical question should be interpreted: “To whom can you compare Me, so that the comparison is indeed apt?”
To whom can you liken Me so that we are comparable?—Although the root משׁל does appear in the qal (Ezek 17:2), niphʿal (Isa 14:10; Ps 28:1), and hithpaʿel (Job 30:19) with the meaning “to be likened or compared” to another, this is the only time the verb appears in the hiphʿil in such a context. For Mesopotamian gods who are sui generis, see the references under mašālu/muššulu, “to be similar, equal” (the Akkadian semantic and etymological cognate of משל; CAD M/1:355–57), and šanānu, “to become equal” (another semantic equivalent; CAD Š/1:367–69). 1QIsaa reads ואדמה in the singular. The Masoretic plural conforms to the three previous verbs, which are all in the plural.
[6] More devastatingly derisive words leveled against the idolaters. This time they are satirized for the vast amount of gold and silver they lavish on their idol craft. (For gold and silver as coating and adornment for idols, see Isa 40:19.) The prophet’s sarcastic mockery is accentuated by an extended series of sibilants: הזלים, זהב, מכיס, וכסף, ישׁקלו, יִשְׂכְּרוּ, צורף, וְיַעֲשֵׂהוּ, יִסְגְדוּ, ישתחוו. For a similar taunting tirade, see 44:9–19.
Those who squander gold from the purse—Commentators disagree regarding the exact meaning of the hapax legomenon verb זלים. Some explain it as deriving from נזל, “to flow” (cf. Menaḥem ben Saruq, Sefer ha-Maḥberet [Wadenburg, 1854], 79; Saadyah Gaon; Rashi), i.e., their money flows like water when it comes to providing the material means for the construction of idols. Others take their cue from Rabbinic Hebrew, where זול means “to be of little value, cheap,” and translate זלים as “to squander” (Luzzatto; cf. Kimchi, Sefer ha-Shorashim, 86). Yet others base their understanding of the root on the Arabic cognate zāla, which denotes “removing/taking from,” i.e., they remove the gold from their purses (Ibn Balaam [ed. Goshen-Gottstein], 191; Ibn Ganah, Sefer ha-Shorashim, 128). Nevertheless, the basic meaning of this clause, commonly accepted by all, is that the idolaters squander vast amounts of gold and silver taken from leather “bags” (כיס), which usually hold gold weights and silver (Deut 25:13; Mic 6:11; Prov 1:14). Compare its Akkadian etymological and semantic equivalent, kīsu (CAD K:431–32). 1QIsaa בכיס is influenced by בַּקָּנֶה in the next clause.
And weigh out silver on the balance—Hebrew קָנֶה, “stalk, reed,” refers (only) here to the beam of a scale, and by extension to the scales themselves. It is possible that the prophet selected this specific term to differentiate between a regular scale and a steel yard, on which one weighs particularly heavy objects by means of an iron slab attached to a beam. The first two clauses are chiastically parallel.
They hire a goldsmith to make it into a god—Cf. Isa 44:15: “He makes a god of it.” The use of the verb עשׂי in these verses stands in contrast to v. 4, where God is the “Maker” (עשִׂיתי) par excellence. The LXX, Peshitta, Vulgate, and 1QIsaa all read ויעשה without the pronominal suffix. According to these versions, the gold and the silver are the payment to the goldsmith for making the idol. For the goldsmith’s participation in the fashioning of idols, see 40:19; 41:7.
To which they bow down and prostrate themselves—To this idol of wood and precious metal, they then do obeisance. For the parallel verbs סגד (an Aramaism) and השתחוה, both of which denote prostration, see 44:15, 17. For the emphatic conjunction אף (which is repeated in v. 7 and once again in v. 11), see 40:24 (three times); 44:15.
[7] More derision, which is emphasized this time by a threefold repetition of לא, accentuating the utter impotence of these supposed gods.
They must hoist it on their shoulders and carry it—The idol worshipers have to carry the heavy weight of their idols on their backs and shoulders; cf. above, v. 1; 45:20: “They who carry their wooden images”; Jer 10:5: “They have to be carried, for they cannot walk.” According to Luzzatto, the vocalization of the first three verbs in the plural was influenced by the previous verse, and they should all be vocalized as singulars, so as to agree with the final hemistichs of the verse: “He cries out to it.… It cannot save him from his distress.” This is yet another jab at the idols’ impotence: They must be carried, whereas God bears Israel tirelessly (above, v. 4). Another irony is that these idolaters, who carry their idols on their shoulders, will, in the not too distant future, “carry your daughters on their shoulders” (49:22). For “shouldering burdens,” see also Num 7:9.
When they put it down it stands—When they set the idol down, it remains there motionless. תַּחְתָּיו refers to the place in which it stands; cf. Exod 10:23: “No one could get up from where he was (מתחתיו)”; Exod 16:29: “Let everyone remain where he is (תחתיו). Let no one leave his place on the seventh day.” According to Ehrlich (Randglossen, 4:170), the waw of תחתיו was repeated by dittography and appended mistakenly to the verb ויעמד, and he suggests, similar to LXX, that one should read וְיַנִּחֻהוּ תחתיו יעמד, i.e., once the idol is put in place, it remains standing in that very place. This would also correspond with the Masoretic trope division connecting תחתיו with the following verb. For the intransitive verb עמד (“to stand without moving”), see Josh 10:13: “And the sun stood still and the moon halted (עמד).” For immobile idols, see Ps 115:7: “They have feet but cannot walk.”
It does not budge from its place—The idol remains immobile. ממקומו (“from its place”) is parallel to מתחתיו, as in Exod 16:29, quoted above. For the root מושׁ (ימיש in MT; ימושׁ in 1QIsaa), “to leave one’s place,” see Exod 33:11: “But his attendant, Joshua son of Nun, a youth, never moved out (ימישׁ) of the tent.”
If one cries out to it, it does not answer—If the idolater cries out to his god: “Save me, for you are my god!” (Isa 44:17), there is no sign of an answer. This, of course, is in stark contrast to the God of Israel, who, “in an hour of favor” answers (49:8), and answers His people even before they call to Him (65:24). Hebrew אף is emphatic; cf. v. 6, 11 (three times). For the verb צעק, which almost always denotes a cry in times of distress, see, e.g., 42:2; Exod 22:22; 2 Kgs 8:3. For another example of the sequence of the verbs צעק and ענה, see Job 19:7: “I cry (אצעק) ‘Violence,’ but am not answered (אֵעָנֶה).”
It cannot save him from his distress—The idol cannot save his worshiper in his time of greatest need; cf. Isa 45:20: “And they pray to a god who cannot save.” Israel, however, “has been saved by the Lord, saved for eternity” (45:17); “There is no god but Me, victorious and able to save” (45:21).
[8–11] Once more the prophet proclaims God’s omnipotence and uniqueness attested to by His foretelling the end from the beginning; cf. 42:9. For the structural connection between this unit, which begins with the imperative “Remember!” reiterated again in v. 8, and the polemic against idol craft in 44:9–20, see the introduction to the previous unit.
[8] Remember this and be firm!—What they are supposed to keep in mind (“this”) is clarified in the next verse, i.e., the “things that happened long ago.” The exact meaning of the verb הִתְאֹשָׁשׁוּ is the subject of controversy. Some interpret it as a denominative hapax legomenon derived from the substantive איש, comparing 1 Sam 4:9: “Brace yourselves and be men (לאנשים)” (see Kimchi’s first commentary). It is preferable, however, to derive it from Aram. אשׁשׁ, “to make firm”; cf. Ezra 4:12: אֻשַּׁיָּא, “foundations,” and thus render, “be firm” (cf. Targum וְאִיתַּקַפוּ [“strong”]; Rashi; and Ibn Ezra’s first commentary). This meaning is also attested in Rabbinic Hebrew: “Well-founded (הַמְאוּשָׁשׁוֹת) regulations” (Midr. Song Rab. 2:5). This is another example of the Aramaic influence on Hebrew at the time of Deutero-Isaiah. (See the introduction, §11.A.)
Take it to heart, you rebels!—In the Hebrew text the vocative address, “you rebels,” intervenes within the expression “take to heart,” and thereby intensifies the rebuke against exiled Israel and their grave doubts regarding their imminent salvation. For פשׁע denoting rebellion, see Isa 48:8: “For I knew you are treacherous, and that you were called a rebel (וּפֹשֵׁעַ) from birth”; 2 Kgs 1:1: “Moab rebelled (ויפשע) against Israel.” See also Isa 43:25, 27.
[9] Remember what happened long ago!—“Remember” (repeated from the former verse) all the predicted events of the past that have been fulfilled. For רִאשֹׁנות, see 41:22; 42:9; 43:9, 18; 48:3; and the introduction, §4. For מעולם, “long ago,” see 42:14; 63:16, 19; 64:3.
For I am God and there is none else—The conjunction כי emphasizes the validity of the declaration. For the recurring emphasis on God’s uniqueness, see 44:6, 8; 45:5–6, 21–22. This pronouncement (“I am God”) contrasts with v. 6: “And they make it into a god.” For similar formulae, see 43:12; 45:22. For אין עוד (“there is none else”), see 45:5, 6, 14, 18, 21; and for the two formulae in conjunction, see 45:22.
I am God and there is none like Me—Cf. 45:6: “There is none (אפס) but Me”; 45:14: “Only among you is God, and there is no other god at all (אפס).”
[10–11] God’s authenticity is attested to by His accurate prediction of future events and is proof that His present plan will also bear fruit, i.e., the victory of Cyrus and Israel’s salvation will indeed come to pass. The verb עשׂי is repeated three times in the space of these two verses, so as to accentuate and magnify God’s wondrous deeds. For added emphasis the conjunction אף is repeated three times in v. 11.
[10] I foretell the outcome from the beginning—It is I, God, the Lord of Israel, who predicts the end from the very outset. For אחרית, “future,” see 41:22; 47:7. The two temporal extremes imply the totality of time.
And from the past, things that have not yet occurred—It is I, God, who announces forthcoming events from the dim and dark past. For קֶדֶם (“past”), see 45:21; and for the expression כימי קדם (“like in the days of yore”), see 51:9. For the parallel pair קדם and ראשית, see Prov 8:22: “The Lord created Me at the beginning (ראשית) of His course, as the first (קדם) of His works of old.”
I say: “My plan shall be fulfilled”—For the very same combination of “plan” (עצה) being “fulfilled” (תקום), see Isa 14:24: “What I have planned, that shall come to pass”; Prov 19:21: “Many designs are in man’s mind, but it is the Lord’s plan that will prevail.” For עצה (“plan, purpose”), see also v. 11; 44:26.
“I will do all I have purposed”—I shall accomplish everything I set out to do (referring to God’s plans for Cyrus in the next verse). For the same expression, “to fulfill” (עשׂה) a “purpose” (חפץ), in connection with God’s plans for Cyrus, see 48:14: “He whom the Lord loves shall fulfill His purpose (יעשׂה חפצו) against Babylon”; 55:11: “But performs what I purpose (עשׂה … חפצתי)”; cf. similarly 44:28; 53:10. (The Akkadian semantic equivalent ṣibûtam epēšu also denotes the execution of a plan [CAD Ṣ:169].) For an image of God’s omnipotence couched in identical terms, see Ps 115:3: “And our God is in heaven. All that He wills He accomplishes”; Ps 135:6: “Whatever the Lord desires He does in heaven and earth.” (For this originally juristic expression, also attested in postexilic literature and in Aramaic and Nabatean sources, see A. Hurvitz, “The History of a Legal Formula,” VT 32 [1982]: 257–67.) 1QIsaa reads עשׂה in the third-person and corresponds with the Ketib of v. 11: איש עצתו, “the man of His purpose”; and see 48:14: “He shall execute His purpose against Babylon.” One should note, however, that the final verb in v. 11 is also in the first-person singular, אֶעֱשֶׂנָּה.
[11] “I summoned a bird of prey/counselor from the east”—God summoned Cyrus, who comes from the east to conquer Babylon. Compare also 48:14–15. The geographical reference “from the east” (see also 41:2) refers to Cyrus’s origin as king of Persia and Media, both of which are east of Babylon. Most commentators interpret עַיִט, “bird of prey” (see Gen 15:11; Job 28:7), as a metaphor for Cyrus, who comes from afar to swoop down on his victims, and relate it to Deut 28:49: “The Lord will bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, which will swoop down like the vulture”; Jer 48:40: “See, he soars like a vulture and spreads out his wings against Moab”; Hab 1:6–8: “For lo, I am raising up the Chaldeans.… They come flying from afar like vultures rushing to devour.” In light of the fact that in all these other instances the bird of prey that is specified is the “vulture” (נֶשֶׁר), however, it is possible that the prophet selected the word עַיִט intentionally in order to create a deft double entendre with the parallel clause, איש עֲצָתִי (“man of my purpose”), based on the Aramaic root that means “counsel.” See Dan 2:14: “He responded with counsel (עֵטָא)”; Dan 6:8: “They took counsel (אִתְיָעַטוּ)”; Ezra 7:14: “His seven counselors (יַעֲטוֹהִי)” (see Menahem ben Saruq, Sefer ha-Maḥberet, 132; Rashi; Kimchi, Sefer ha-Shorashim, 262; Yellin, Ḥiqrei Miqra, 58; Ehrlich, Randglossen, 4:171). Ehrlich also suggests that the vocalization be emended to עַיָּט (“counselor”). (For other parallel terms, one in Aramaic and the other in Hebrew, see Isa 44:15, השתחווה/סגד; 46:4: סבל/נשׂא; for Aramaic influence on the prophet, see the introduction, §11.A.)
“From a distant land, the man of My counsel”—Cyrus is identified here as “the man of God’s counsel,” i.e., the one whom God has chosen to execute His plan to conquer Babylon and to redeem the Israelites from exile. (For the same expression in a polemical context, see 40:13.) The Ketib, איש עצתו (“the man of His counsel”), is attested in 1QIsaa and 4QIsad. The Qere, איש עצתי (in LXX, Vulgate, Peshitta, and Targum), fits well with the first-person forms in v. 10 (“My plan,” “I have purposed,” “I will do”). For God’s intention to bring Cyrus and rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple, see 44:26, 28; and for God’s summoning from afar, see 13:3–5: “I have summoned My fighting men to execute My wrath.… They are coming from a distant land (מארץ מרחק), from the end of the horizon”; Jer 5:15: “Lo, I am bringing against you, O house of Israel, a nation from afar (ממרחק)”; cf. also Isa 13:5; Jer 4:16.
“I have spoken, so I will bring it to pass. I have designed it, so I will complete it”—The threefold repetition of the conjunction אף (see vv. 6, 7; 40:24; 41:26 [also repeated three times]), and the series of four verbs in the first-person singular, emphasize the decisiveness and definitiveness of God’s design in history. For the paired verbs יצר and עשׂי, see 37:26 (= 2 Kgs 19:25): “Have you not heard? Of old I planned it (עשיתי). I designed it (ויצרתיהָ) long ago.” For יצר with the meaning to “design, devise,” see Jer 18:11: “I am devising (יוצר) disaster for you and laying plans against you.” (In most other places, e.g., Isa 43:7; 45:18, the pair of verbs refers to acts of creation.) Just as the verbs אֲבִיאֶנָּה (“I will bring it to pass”) and אֶעֱשֶׂנָּה (“I will complete it”) are parallel, so too are the verbs דברתי and יצרתי—both of which indicate the creative power of God’s words. 1QIsaa has יצרתיהָ (third-person feminine singular suffix), which harmonizes with the suffixal endings of the other verbs, אביאנה and אעשנה.
[12–13] In this short pericope the prophet castigates once again the disbelieving Israelites. In the previous unit he called them “rebels” (v. 8), and here, “obstinate of heart,” but he nevertheless proclaims again that salvation is imminent. The substantives צדקה and תשועה are twice repeated here. The root רחק (vv. 12, 13) and לב (v. 12) link this unit with the preceding verses: for the former see v. 11; for the latter, see v. 8.
[12] Listen to Me, you obstinate of heart—those Israelites whose hearts are stubborn, who doubt the imminence of God’s salvation. For similar expressions denoting stubbornness, see Ezek 2:4: חִזְקֵי לב; Ezek 3:7: וּקְשֵׁי לב. (In another context, Ps 76:6, the same expression [אבירי לב] refers to the powerful and mighty.) The LXX translates, “those whose heart fails,” reading אֹבְדֵי לב, instead of אבירי לב (the common ד-ר graphic error); see Jer 4:9: “The heart of the king and the hearts of the nobles shall fail (יאבד לב).”
Who are far from victory!—For the root צדק, “victory,” see the following verse and 59:17; 61:10, 11; 63:1. For the same idea, see 59:11: “We hope for redress, and there is none; for victory, and it is far from us.”
[13]“I am bringing My victory near. It shall not be far off”—God declares that His salvation is just around the corner—truly it is not far away. (For the literary construct of a positive expression followed by a negative one [negative parallelism] see 54:14: “You shall be safe from oppression … and it shall not come near you.”) This hemistich, together with the final one of the previous verse, are chiastically parallel. 1QIsaa קרובה (so too Targum קָרִיבָא) is similar to 51:5: “My victory is near (קרוב). My deliverance has gone forth”; and cf. also 56:1: “For soon (קרובה) My salvation shall come.” In 4QIsac the verb is in the hiphʿil first person, הקרבתי, instead of MT qal.
“And My triumph shall not be delayed”—This is to be contrasted with v. 7, where the prophet declares that the gods of Babylon cannot save them. Compare also 47:15: “There is none to save you.” For the parallel pair צדקה/צדק and תשועה/ישועה/ישע (“victory,” “triumph”), see 51:5, 6, 8; 56:1; Ps 71:15. For the expression לא תאחר, see also Exod 22:28; Deut 23:22; Eccl 5:3.
“I will grant salvation in Zion”—The beneficiaries of God’s deliverance are now mentioned—both Zion and Israel (next clause).
“To Israel, in whom I glory”—Some commentators explain תפארתי, “My glory,” as the second object of the verb “I will grant” in the previous clause. (Cf. Ibn Ezra’s first comment: “[The verb] נתתי takes an additional [object], and thus [one should read]: ‘I will grant My glory to Israel’ ”; and cf. Vulgate, Peshitta, 1QIsaa, and 4QIsac, which read ולישראל.) The preferable understanding, however, is “I shall grant My salvation to Israel, in whom I find glory” (cf. ibn Ezra’s second comment, where he adds: “And this is the correct [understanding],” and then quotes Isa 49:3: “Israel in whom I glory [אתפאר].”) Compare also 44:23: “He has glorified Himself (יתפאר) through Israel”; and see 49:3; 55:5; 60:21; 61:3. (It should be noted that one medieval Hebrew manuscript reads here [in 46:13] ובישראל, parallel to בציון in the previous stich.)

Shalom M. Paul, Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary, Eerdmans Critical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012), 274–286.

----------------------------------------------

Isaiah 46:1–13, Heavy Laden

COMMENTARY

This chapter is brilliantly crafted. It is possible to detect shifts that are for the most part rhetorical in character; that is, they are not evidence of once independent form-critical units. Imperatives at v. 3, v. 8, and v. 12 mark these. The motifs of “bearing” (עמס ʿms), “carrying” (נשׂא nśʾ), and “delivering” (מלט mlṭ), associated with God’s life with Israel (vv. 3–4), are introduced in the opening verses in connection with the Babylonian deities Bel and Nebo (vv. 1–2). Unfortunately, these verses present considerable translation difficulty, persuading many commentators to adopt some sort of emendation scheme or simply rearrange the word order. Part of the complication is traceable to the craftsmanship of the author, who wishes to make an ironic contrast between God’s carrying Israel into “old age” (שׂיבה śêbâ) and “the going into exile” (שׁבי šĕbî) of gods or idols or the beasts carrying them (v. 2). It is a brilliant play on who carries whom and what in fact is burdensome, but the exact sense of the opening lines is unclear.86
In addition, the term משׂא (maśśāʾ, “burden”) has a further association—namely, a prophetic utterance (used, e.g., within the nations oracle section of Isaiah, at 13:1; 14:28; 15:1; 17:1; 19:1; 21:1; 21:13; 22:1; 23:1). The author may wish to associate the great effort expended, resulting in no delivery of a maśśāʾ (v. 2), with the failure of Bel or Nebo to deliver a word. This same motif is present in v. 7, applied to the idol (“it does not answer”), and in vv. 8–11, where God can point to speech of old, now coming to pass (v. 11), in a manner with which we are now familiar. Israel is to listen (vv. 3, 12) and remember (vv. 8–9) because God speaks and has spoken. The gods do not speak or deliver a “burden” (maśśāʾ) but are themselves compelled to go into exile, weighted down to the point of collapse.
The goal of the chapter is revealed in the final verse. God will put salvation in Zion. Here we come into contact with what will be the major theme of the second major section, beginning at chap. 49. The Zion introduced here has a counterpart, the city under special protection of Bel-Marduk: Babylon. In chap. 47, “daughter Babylon” is introduced and her ignominious defeat portrayed. The personified Zion does not speak until 49:14, but with the humiliation of Babylon, Zion’s exultation is signaled as now possible. God promised to return to Zion (40:10) that God’s glory might be revealed (40:5). As God’s agent, Cyrus would be Babylon’s vanquisher (45:1). With Babylon’s defeat, the glory promised in 40:5 would again be possible. The various strands of the discourse (sanctuary, Cyrus, idolatry, former things, the gods) are beginning to coalesce. Yet to find full expression, however, is the plight of Zion. This strand of the discourse is taken up following Babylon’s fall and the stepping forward of God’s special servant in 49:1–12.
46:1–2. The chapter opens with this brief two-verse depiction of idols, anticipating themes employed to describe God’s way with Israel (vv. 3–4). I agree with Torrey that the textual problems are slight compared with the “unexpected vigor of the poet’s language.” I will follow his lead here in attempting an interpretation.
Bel and Nebo are Babylonian deities, the former (with Marduk) associated with the city Babylon, the latter with dynastic legitimation (the names “Nebuchadnezzar” and “Nabopolassar” reflect this). We know of accounts of Babylonian kings gathering together the gods (idols) from their shrines and hustling them off to safety. In this way, the idols were protected from theft and could presumably continue to offer protection. Such is the trope the author of Isaiah exploits.
The first line is the difficult one. In a case like this it is helpful to work with what is known, and that is only revealed subsequently. Israel has been a “burden” carried by God “from womb to tomb” (vv. 3–4). Animals are likewise able to bear burdens, even very heavy and wearying ones (v. 1b). Now we have the ingredients necessary to read the text. Bel and Nebo are sinking under an undesignated load. In this they are like beasts and cattle. If we think of the resolution involving Israel and God’s carrying of them, then the gods should be weighted down from carrying their national burden. Instead, the idols are themselves the weight that makes animals groan and stoop and are thus carried into exile (šĕbî), while Israel is carried to old age (śêbâ). Here is another instance in which idol manufacture is stunningly polemicized in conjunction with a word of assurance to Israel.
46:3–4. The remnant of Jacob referred to here has a counterpart introduced in the previous chapter, the “survivors of the nations” (45:20). Babylon’s anticipated fall, heralded by the faltering of Bel and Nebo, has ramifications, as we saw, beyond Israel’s borders. But here God returns to speak directly to the people, whom God formed in the womb (44:1) for a special task within the clay of humankind (45:12), a potsherd among other potsherds (45:9). Israel has been borne, carried, and conducted from the womb. Finally, Israel will also be “delivered” (ואמלט waʾămallēṭ), in the very same way a prophet delivers a burden under divine compulsion. The result in this case is the reverse of Babylon’s destiny. Babylon goes into exile as Israel comes forth. The motif of lifting up, employed in the last line (v. 4), anticipates the following depiction of idols being lifted on the shoulder (v. 7). It also sets the stage for the stunning portrayal of Zion’s children being carried back home on the shoulder of nations in the role of foster parents (49:22). All this will serve to complete God’s original promise to Zion (made at 40:11) that God will gather and carry the people back home. God can be relied on to carry them not just from the womb, but through the hardship of exile and into old age.
46:5–11. The polemic against idol manufacture found here is familiar enough; one thinks of the extensive satire found at 44:9–20 or the briefer treatments at 40:18–20 and 41:7. The first of these (40:18–20) is particularly close to this passage, and it also can be found in connection with appeal to former testimony (40:21–23; 46:8–11). The connection here serves to remind the reader/listener that Cyrus stood at the center of God’s former purpose of old and that the collapse of Babylon is not due to Cyrus’s strength or even to his claim that Marduk sent him to punish his own people (so the Cyrus Cylinder). Idols, by contrast, cannot speak, no matter how much attention one lavishes on their manufacture and care.
Even the double call to remember is set in sharp contrast to the silence of the idol and those who would take guidance from it; instead they hear nothing and can recall nothing. God not only speaks, but has spoken. The famous “plan” (יצר yēṣer) of Isaiah (see 14:26; 22:11; 30:1; 37:26) finds its own special expression in this discourse, where it is viewed in retrospect and is seen as now coming to pass and even giving way to new things. The plan of old, as it found earlier expression in Isaiah, was clearly connected to God’s sovereignty over the nations. The outstretched hand of God was “over all the nations,” based upon God’s plan “that is planned concerned the whole earth” (14:26). Even at 37:26, the plan concerning Sennacherib’s downfall is regarded as having been established “long ago,” in God’s counsel from eternity. The dispatching of Cyrus belongs to that same plan of old, and the glimpse that is given us of Babylon’s fall in chaps. 13–14 is chilling. Striking there as well is the reference to God’s stirring (the verb used of Cyrus at 41:25 and 45:13) of the Medes to crush mighty Babylon, “who have no regard for silver and do not delight in gold” (13:18). This reference may have influenced the author of 45:13 (“not for price or reward”); it presents as well a nice contrast to the pouring forth of gold and silver here, as idols that cannot save are made even heavier and more burdensome.
The forward influence of this passage can be seen as well. Chapter 55 speaks of a nourishment that costs nothing and that is contrasted with costly expenditure that provides nothing (55:1–2). God’s word accomplishes for free what God intends for it (55:11). Here we have costly silence, preparatory to heavy-laden captivity.
46:12–13. Cyrus is called from afar (v. 11). The same term is used to describe the distance of the stubborn of heart from God’s righteousness and deliverance. Then the verb employed in the final verse depicts the inexorable approach of God’s righteousness. God will overcome the distance by divine effort. God will put salvation in Zion. The stubborn of heart consist of more than an Israel in exile, despondent on that basis. Those far from God’s righteousness are to be found all over, including within the exiled Zion, in the wasteland and desert it has become, forfeit of God’s presence (49:19).

REFLECTIONS

1. “Come unto me all ye that are heavy laden and I will refresh you” is one of the best-known lines in the Gospels (Matt 11:28). These are “comfortable words,” as The Book of Common Prayer puts it. There is an honesty about the description that underscores its compelling character. To be “heavy laden” is not an accident of fate, occasioned by an unfortunate mishap or a sudden loss or bad news. It belongs to our existence at some basic level that we cannot shed by our own effort.
Striking in the depiction here is the even heavier burden borne by those things in which hope is wrongly placed in times of hardship. Not only do they fail to sustain us, but also they are themselves the source of great captive weight, and they bow down to the point of exhaustion and collapse.
This is the last time Isaiah speaks of the futility of idolatry, for the proof of that is now to be established beyond any doubt as the once mighty Babylon is humiliated and cast down, even further than the fallen gods and idols in which Babylon had placed its hope (chap. 47). To be sure, there is an occasional backdraft (48:5), but the discourse is shifting away from present events spoken of long ago to Israel toward new things. Even the threat of idolatry must give way to new challenges, and central among these is the despondency of Zion itself. This is occasioned not by the heavy-laden fruit of idol reliance, but by the core conviction that God had forgotten Israel’s plight altogether (49:14). Which form of heavy-ladenness is heavier is hard to gauge, but God deals with each one in a manner appropriate to its own character and to God’s sovereign design. False religion is exposed first, and then God is free to address the heaviness of Zion’s heart as a matter of utmost importance.

2. It is unclear how and why God suddenly decides to close the gap between divine righteousness and those far from deliverance. There is little calculating in the discourse about just why Zion could now be regarded as having paid its penalty, reckoned as having received “from the LORD’S hand double for all her sins” (40:2). There is no recourse to a time-scheme (Jeremiah’s 70 years), no death of one generation, giving rise to a new one (the book of Numbers). Isaiah’s former “How long?” received a reply so ghastly as to defy numbering and adding up altogether (6:11), and even it appeared to entail yet further cleansing and smelting (6:13). The promise of an end to Babylonian “justice” was uttered long enough ago, and in sufficiently vague terms for those wanting to calculate, that it could not serve as the cause of God’s forgiveness, but only the manifestation of it, for the “tenth part remaining, burned again” (Isa 6:13).
Once the decision was made, however, the discourse hastens to its denouement, displayed in a series of interlocking episodes: Israel forgiven, Cyrus commissioned, Babylon defeated, Zion restored, God’s glory revealed, the nations drawing near in obeisance and confession. God’s salvation is “nearer to us now than when we became believers,” to use the New Testament equivalent for this perspective. Still, it remains an eschatological event when all is said and done, for all the haste that is being evidenced. To know that the gap is being closed, at God’s own initiative, within the logic of God’s own eternal plan, is good news enough to amount to salvation and glory for those with ears to hear (46:13). Faith, then and now, is the substance of things hoped for, built upon the sure rock of God’s word.

Christopher R. Seitz, “The Book of Isaiah 40–66,” in New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck, vol. 6 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994–2004), 404–408.

----------------------------------------------

46 “Bel is broken down, Nebo bends down” (46:1*)


1 Bel is broken down, Nebo bends down.
Their images are packed onto beasts and cattle,
loaded onto them as a burden for the exhausted.

2 They are bent down, they are all broken down.
They were not able to save a burden,
and they themselves went into captivity.

3 Listen to me, house of Jacob,
and the whole remnant of the house of Israel,
who have been borne from birth,
who were carried from the womb—
4 and even until your old age it is I,
and until you turn gray I will drag you along.
I have done it and I will carry
and I will drag and save.

The text is clearly divided into two halves. In vv. 1–2* an action is described; in vv. 3* and 4* it is interpreted. In structure, and probably in genre too, this is comparable with the narrative visions and their interpretation in the book of Daniel. The action serves as an oracle. This partly explains the difficult choice of words in the text, a difficulty intensified by the auditory effect that the writer intends. In this passage particularly, it is again obvious that the text is not written merely to be read; it should be heard.
The essential catchword is “burden” (מַשָּׂא maśśāʾ). It is found explicitly twice in vv. 1* and 2*. In addition we twice have the root נשׂא (“bear”) in vv. 1* and 3*. In sound, maśśāʾ is striking for its double sharp s. We need only imagine what it sounded like when it was cried out by a big crowd! Until the final “I will … save” there is no section of text without a more or less sharp s sound. One only needs to underline them. In vv. 3* and 4* the shift among the different degrees of sharpness in the s sound is fascinating. But this may also have to do with the content. The hiss is a gesture of repulsion and defense. According to Jer 50:13*, “Everyone who passes by Babylon shall be appalled and hiss (יִשֹּׁם וְיִשְׁרֹק) because of all her wounds.” On the other hand Yahweh can “whistle” in order to call up the forces of destruction (Isa 5:26*; 7:18*). In Zech 10:8* “whistling” is used in a positive sense, for the gathering together of the exiles for their return. In its interaction of listening and performance, the dramatic action here is still close to the cult.
The term “burden” (מַשָּׂא) also shows that form and content cannot be divided in this text. Derived from the root נשׂא, “carry, lift,” the word means especially the “load” that has to be carried. But it can also be a technical term for the prophetic oracle. Jer 23:33–40* is already a play on this ambiguity.4 In the text the “load for pack animals” is initially the primary meaning. The animals can no longer carry their burden, the idols. It is useless to flee with these valuables. The end is “captivity” (v. 2*).
At the same time the text can also be viewed as a prophetic oracle—as “burden” (מַשָּׂא) in this sense—about the downfall of Babylon, or more precisely as the fulfillment of this oracle, for the downfall is now taking place. This leads to the question whether DtIsa would have been able to draw upon prophetic oracles about Babylon of this kind.6
For this there are examples in connection with the book of Isaiah. Isa 13:1* begins: “The oracle (‘burden’) concerning Babylon that Isaiah son of Amoz saw” (מַשָּׂא בָּבֶל אֲשֶׁר חָזָה). One may doubt Isaianic authorship and yet agree with Wildberger: “Thus the possibility is still worth mentioning that the author of Isaiah 13 may have written at a time before the Persian leader Cyrus seized control of the empire of the Medes and that the destruction of Babylon at the hand of the Medes may indeed have been anticipated.” According to Wildberger, this would mean dating the text before 539 B.C.E. Isa 13:1* is the beginning of a collection of oracles that describe the downfall of Babylon in various ways. What is worth noting for the present DtIsa text is that “the burden” (מַשָּׂא) can be seen, and is therefore part of a visionary action. The reference back to what was proclaimed earlier—in 46:10* in this case—becomes comprehensible through such texts. Whether details in DtIsa also derive from prophecies of this kind can hardly be established.
Isaiah 21 is of interest, since it is also a “burden” (מַשָּׂא, v. 1*) about the fall of Babylon. According to vv. 6–7*, a watchman is to be posted to await a “caravan of pack animals”8—horses, donkeys, and camels. The caravan comes and the message is announced: “Fallen, fallen is Babylon, and all the images of her gods lie shattered on the ground” (v. 9*). For the person who was familiar with an oracle of this kind, the train of pack animals would already be an indication of Babylon’s fall, which is otherwise not explicitly mentioned.
But the irony surely goes further. What is expounded here is the parody of a solemn procession (Latin pompa). This was one of the most important public religious and political occasions in the whole of the ancient world. In a ceremonial procession, the gods, their images and symbols, as well as vessels used in cult and sacrifice, were carried around.11 The pompa was an essential element in festivals. There the particular society presented itself in the identity and power it assumed for itself.
In his commentary, Delitzsch already detected a connection between the DtIsa text and the pompa. The carrying of images of the city and state gods, as well as other precious objects, and finally the inclusion of animals of all kinds (לַחָיָּה וְלַבְּהֵמָה) were all part of a procession of this kind. But what was otherwise an occasion for the greatest admiration is here profoundly called in question as a glorification of human power directed against God.
■ 1–2* To come down to details: in v. 1* Bel and Nebo are named as Babylonian deities. “Bel” is really only the designation for “lord” (Akk. bēlu), comparable to the OT “Baal.” It then became one of the names for Marduk, the chief god of the Babylonian kingdom. His temple in the capital city Babylon was Esagila, with the famous temple tower Etemenanki. “Nebo” (Akk. nabû) was the god of the town of Borsippa, which was not far from Babylon. He was the god of science and was responsible for determining destinies, among other things. In the Babylonian pantheon he was reckoned to be Marduk’s son. He was later identified with Hermes-Mercury. In the text of the clay Cyrus cylinder found in Babylon, Bel and Nebo are named as Cyrus’s tutelary gods.14 In the OT the name of the god “Nebo” occurs only in the present text. It is probably included in the name Nebuchadrezzar, Heb. נְבוּכַדְרֶאצַּר (Akk. Nabū-kudurri—uṣur, “may Nabu protect the border”), Nebuchadrezzar being the Babylonian king who conquered Jerusalem. The last Babylonian king, Nabonidus, also had a name incorporating the element Nabu. More important is the picture of Bel that OT tradition built up. The earliest OT instances are probably in Jer 50:2* and 51:44*, that is, again in prophetic oracles about Babylon that are also similar in content to the present DtIsa text. In the additions to the book of Daniel that have come down to us in Greek, Bel has become the quintessence of Babylonian deity, and the object of polemic against idols.16 Verse 1* here too is polemic; and polemic is generally an indication that a nerve has been touched. Bel “is broken down.”17 The verb כרע means first of all the kneeling in homage or prayer. The people kneeled as the procession passed by.
Because of the context of the sentence, כרע is rendered “he is bent.” Both in the oracle to Judah (Gen 49:9*) and in the blessing of Balaam (Num 24:9*), the word is used for the “crouching” of the lion. It is the quintessence of power. The verb can be used in a positive sense for kneeling in prayer and homage.19 It has this sense in the immediately preceding text, Isa 45:23*. To Yahweh “every knee shall bow” (תִּכְרַע כָּל־בֶּרֶךְ).
If one takes account of this context, an ironical note can at all events be detected. “Bel bows down.” The variant in Isa 10:4* is then strange, where a possible reading could be: “The one who does not bow down among the prisoners will fall under the slain.” Or—a reading closer to the present text of 46:1*—“Belthi collapses, Osiris is broken and they fall among the slain.”20
But now it is the “Bel” who collapses. We would like to know more exactly what the emblems for the gods Bel and Nebo were. The text may be thinking of statues. Marduk is represented by a mythical beast, half serpent and half griffin.
The text immediately adds here that it is certainly not the gods themselves who are being carried; “these are their images, (lit.) their fabrications.” The suffix can be related either to the gods—they are only pictorial representations—or to the worshipers who have made the images (cf. 48:5*). At all events I would relate the comment to Bel and Nebo, not to the pack animals.
עָצָב is the “fabrication, image of a god (used derogatorily).” In this sense the Babylon oracle in Jer 50:2* is a close parallel: “Babylon is taken, Bel is put to shame, Merodach is shattered. Her images (עֲצַבֶּיהָ) are put to shame, her idols are shattered.” On the other hand in the Babylon oracle in Isaiah 14 עצב II is used in the sense of “complaint, hardship,” in the same series as “agitation,” “excitement” (רֹגֶז), and “hard servitude” (הָעֲבֹדָה הַקִּשָׁה). Yahweh will “give rest” from them. In Isa 46:1* עצב stands in connection with a series of “burdens.” One asks who the bearer is here.
“Collapse” and “bend” are chiastically emphasized. Even the pack animals break down under the load, until with the end of v. 2* the whole nightmare vanishes: they “go into captivity.” This also announces the exit from the stage.22 It is curious that “their soul” (וְנַפְשָׁם) is explicitly mentioned. This is usually understood as an intensification meaning “they themselves.” But perhaps “soul” is really meant (cf. 44:20*; 47:14*). What does the suffix in “their soul” (וְנַפְשָׁם) refer to? Could it be the citizens of Babylon, their supporters, just as the suffix on עֲצַבֵּיהֶם, “their images/fabrications” refers to the supporters of “the gods”? For they go along with this procession, as “chorus.” The “soul” would be comparable with the “breath of our nostrils” (רוּחַ אַפֵּינוּ) in Lam 4:20* as the title of the imprisoned king, describing his vital importance23 for the inhabitants of Jerusalem. People expect of “Babylon” what only Yahweh can actually give: life (cf. Gen 2:7*; Ps 104:29*).
After the taunt song about Babylon has been raised in Isa 14:3–23* (וְנַשָׂאתָ הַמָּשָׁל הַזֶּה, v. 4*), Babylon disappears into the underworld (שְׁאוֹל, v. 9*). Is “captivity” in the present DtIsa text thinking only of prisoners of war, or does it also mean being carried away without there being any return? Is this a “burden” (מַשָּׂא) for a “weary person” (עֲיֵפָה)—that is, Babylon—whose name is not yet mentioned?
■ 3–4* These verses directly continue the play on the double sense of “burden” (מַשָּׂא) as prophecy and load. Here the prophetic oracle is a new interpretation of the Babylon oracle. It is in some sense a third level of meaning. First, Babylon’s triumphal procession and its gods turned into a lamentable caravan; but out of this now comes the promise of salvation for Jacob/Israel.
The technique of interpreting oracles is handled with complete mastery. The most important words are taken up again and acquire a new meaning. Instead of “(kneeling before) Bel” we now have “listen to me” (אֵלַי ʾēlay), where it will surely be permissible to hear the echo of אֵלִי ʾēlî, “my God.” The person who has not grasped this immediately hears once again “Israel.” Then follows the assurance “I am the one,” as catchword from the revelatory utterance, in all five times “I” (אֲנִי). The conclusion is “I will save” in the sense of “and I will bring to a safe place,” instead of v. 2*: “they were not able to save a burden” in the sense of “they were not able to bring it to a safe place.” The sound changes too: instead of “they [their soul] went (off),” הָלָכָה with a triple ā sound (as in the lament?) as the final word in v. 2*, a triple short a (וְאֲמַלֵּט) is used in v. 4*. In chiastic alternation “your burdens are laid upon them” (v. 1*) becomes “borne from birth and carried from the womb” (v. 3*).26 In “womb” (רֶחֶם) one can hear the ancient acknowledgment of the God who is “compassionate” (רַחוּם). “To carry a child” is what a mother does especially. Here it is a divine predicate. But then the text talks about the carrying of the old. That is not a task for the woman.
It emerges yet again how problematical it is to transfer our notions of gender to God. The important thing is the “carrying.” That runs across the whole semantic range, from the tender carrying of the baby, by way of “carry” (נשׂא) as catchword in vv. 1–2*, down to the dragging (סבל) of burdens.
The statements apply initially to Jacob/Israel as a collective. But the text also appeals to the individual, and its emotional content must also be noted. It is characteristic of DtIsa to describe in personal categories something that applies to all Israel. First of all, one can really say of an individual that he is “carried” from the womb until he is old. God gives life its continuity. It is not the human being who “drags” him- or herself through to the end. It is Yahweh who “drags” the human being. But what applies to the individual is also true for all Israel. Again the argument is quite precise. That which was true in the past (“I have done it”) will be true in the future too (cf. the futures in v. 4*). In contrast to the gods “who are unable to save a burden” or load (v. 2*), v. 4* says: “I will carry and I will … save.” That is the real climax of the text in the interpretive part.
“Until you are gray” (עַד־שֵׂיבָה ʿad-śêbāh) again metamorphoses a catchword from vv. 1–2*, replacing “in captivity” (בַּשְּׁבִי baššebî). 47:1* sounds like an echo: “sit down in the dust” (שְׁבִי šebî, twice addressed to Babylon).
According to v. 3* “the whole remnant of the house of Israel” is told to listen. We may ask whether some special group is meant by this. One proposal among others is that it is those who remained in the country who are the target, as distinct from the Babylonian gōlâ. I have the impression that it is again initially a matter of a scriptural proof. Investigations have continually shown that the term “remnant” is an ambivalent one. The “remnant” of a people actually served originally as a witness to its complete downfall in judgment and war. It was a long time before the remnant idea could be interpreted positively, as a sign of the compassion of Israel’s God.31 It was probably only in the postexilic period that it became a sustaining theologoumenon with which to acknowledge new salvation after the catastrophe. Jer 50:20–22* is important for the present DtIsa text because it belongs within the framework of the collection of oracles about Babylon. “In those days and at that time, saying of Yahweh, the iniquity of Israel shall be sought, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and none shall be found; for I will pardon them those whom I have spared.” According to W. Rudolph,33 “those whom I have spared” (אֲשֶׁר אַשְׁאִיר) is a play on the usual שְׁאֵרִית—the “remnant.” It therefore seems possible, because of the Babylon context, that it is the Babylonian gōlâ who are initially meant. But in view of the tradition history of the “remnant” concept, the decisive point is the unequivocal character of the promise of salvation in the present text.35

A. 2.  46:5–8*
Procession of the Merchants in Honor of Their God
46 “To whom could you liken me …” (46:5*)


5 To whom could you liken me and make me equal
and compare me, as if we were alike?

6 Those who pour gold out of the purse
and weigh out silver in the scales,
they hire a goldsmith that he may make it into a god,
they bow down, even throw themselves down,
7 lift it on to their shoulders and carry it,
so that they may put it in its place, so that it may stand—
it will not move from its place—
yes, one cries to it, but it does not answer,
it will not save anyone from his distress.

8 Think of this and <be ashamed>!
Take it to heart, you apostates!

The parody of a procession continues. The next group follows. The catchwords “carry, lift” (נשׂא) and “drag” (סבל) are maintained (v. 6*). But the text is much more serious than the preceding one, the burlesque elements being almost entirely lacking. The personal disquiet and concern is greater, as will become clear from the content. The structure is clear. The action in vv. 6–7* is framed by two introductory questions in v. 5* and a first application in v. 8*.
The very sounds intensify the sinister impression. When the text talks about “making a god” (v. 6*), five verbs end with û (v. 6*) and the following three verbs with ûhû (v. 7*). “It will stand” in v. 7* gives ô seven times in all, three of the instances being lô (“not,” לאֹ). Verse 7* closes: “he/it will not (לאֹ) help him/save him.” This, then, is once more a text designed to be heard.
■ 5* The introductory questions about the incomparability of God establish a link with the proem in 40:18* and 25*. This underlines the importance of these questions. For in 40:19* the “goldsmith” (צֹרֵף) already made an appearance. And we already asssumed that the person who can afford “a wise expert” means the merchant.
■ 6–7* The “purse” (כִּיס ḳîs) as an appurtenance or emblem is the sign of the merchant or trader. Who else can “pour out gold” (זוּל zul)? Perhaps there is also an echo of (זלל zalal), “to be immoderate, irresponsible.” In the texts that polemicize against idols in DtIsa we were already struck by the list of classes or social groups, lastly—in 44:9–20*—the artisans (v. 12*, “specialist for iron/metalwork”; v. 13*, “specialist for wood”) as well as the shepherd (v. 14a*) and the farmer (v. 14b*). For an urban community, whether it be Babylon or Jerusalem, the merchant is an important figure.
A noticeable feature of the text is that v. 6* immediately uses the plural. The people do everything together; it is only in his or her distress that an individual cries out (v. 7b*). My guess is that the merchants are presented as a guild who are performing their public and religious duties. If this is so, we may assume that the deity who is represented is also the god of the merchants, whether his name be Nebo, Hermes, or Mercury. If the figure typifies Hermes/Mercury, the irony in v. 7* is particularly apt, for he is the god who actually hurries from land to land, with his winged shoes or cap. But here (literally) he “will stand still, he will not move from his place.”
The text is full of action, the series of imperfects announcing what is happening in each given case. The procedure in which the idol is worshiped is precisely described in a long series of imperfects (from v. 6aβ*): “then they will.…” In style the piece can very well be compared with the instructions for a ritual.38 According to Westermann, “A description is given of the three most important acts [of such worship]: the obeisance or proskynesis, the procession, and the prayer.” Just as in the texts about the making of the idol, we can assume that the description of the ritual was in no way a source of offense for Israel’s surrounding world. Even the carrying of the god or its image is not in itself derogatory. The polemical stings probably lie initially in small modifications.
The gold or silversmith is not commissioned to make an image; he makes “for him [the commissioner of the work] a god.” But that is precisely the point from which the argument in DtIsa often starts: a god cannot be “made.” If the carrying is described by the word “drag it away” (סבל, v. 7*), this has a flavor of “burden, forced labor.”41 But this is precisely the term that establishes the unity with what has gone before (v. 4*) and that is used in 53:4* to desribe what the Servant of God does in his suffering.42
That a cultic image should be set up in its place is a matter of course. This is generally accompanied by particular rituals. The irony emerges only through the clause “it [the cultic image]—or: he [the god]—will not move from its/his place” (v. 7*). But the same verb (מושׁ muš) is used again in DtIsa, this time in a positive sense, in 54:10*: “Even if mountains depart (move) from their place … my steadfast love (חַסְדִּי) will not depart from you.”
Finally, the catchword “save, help” (ישׁע Hiphil) in v. 7* associates the text with one of DtIsa’s themes. In the dispute about the gods a fundamental question is: Who can really help in distress? It is only the confession of the experienced and hoped-for help of its God that makes the worship of other gods and their images an absurdity for Israel. The conclusion in the text is that a god of this kind is no help in distress (v. 7*); how can it be, when it is the product of human hands?43
■ 8* The line of argument seems convincing and the application in v. 8* takes this up explicitly: “Think of this.…” Two further imperatives follow. They require a particular kind of behavior, but what is really meant at first remains unclear. The derivation of the second verb is disputed, and we do not know why the text suddenly talks about “sinners, apostates.”
In order to understand the real point of dispute, a comparison with a text from the apocryphal Epistle of Jeremiah can, I believe, be helpful. Here we shall for the moment exclude the question about the literary and historical context.
A copy of a letter which Jeremiah sent to the prisoners who were to be taken to Babylon as exiles by the king of the Babylonians, to give them the message that God had commanded him. (1) Because of the sins that you have committed before God, you will be taken away to Babylon as exiles by Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Babylonians. (2) When you have come to Babylon, you will have to remain there for many years, for a long time, up to seven generations; after that I will bring you away from there in peace. (3) Now in Babylon you will see gods made of silver and gold and wood, which people carry on their shoulders, and which cause the heathen to fear. (4) So beware lest you become like the foreigners or lest fear for these gods possesses you, (5) when you see the multitude (which goes) before and behind them worshiping them. But say in your hearts, “It is you, O Lord, whom we must worship.” (6) For my angel is with you, and seeks your souls.
The text offers an interpretation of history that is not far from DtIsa’s. The Babylonian exile is the consequence of sin. We may assume that there is a reference to Jeremiah 10, especially to v. 5*, which mentions the carrying of gods (נָשׂוֹא יִנָּשׂוּא). But “carrying on the shoulders” is still closer to the DtIsa text, and so is the connection with a procession: “When you see the crowd before and behind them (the gods made of silver, gold and wood).…” The decisive thing, however, is the mental reservation that is enjoined: “Say in your conscience (τῇ διανοίᾳ): ‘It is you, O Lord, whom we must worship’ ” (Ep Jer 5). For this an angel is at hand to help, who “seeks your souls (ψυχὰς)” (Ep Jer 6). In my view this is the precise opposite to the position taken by the DtIsa text. There the demand is: “Turn away!” In practical terms that would mean: neither take part in the spectacle, nor look on. The “pure heart” is not possible. “Sinners, apostates at heart” are addressed.
Here a difficult decision has to be made about the rendering of עַל־כָּתֵף (lift, carry) , “on the shoulders” and “to the heart” (lit. “on the heart,” עַל־לֵב). I think it is possible that the second application contains a further intensification. The verb וְהִתְאֹשָּׁשׁוּ cannot be understood as it stands. But if the double š sound (שׁ) is replaced by a double r (ר), we have the root ארר. In the Piel it means “to bring about a curse” (cf. Num 5:18*, 19*, 24*, 27*). A Hitpael would mean “to lay a curse on oneself.” But that would be the equivalent of a renunciation, with a conditional self-curse: “If I continue to do this, may I be cursed.”
The change from ר to שׁ can already have been made in the text itself. In the preceding text we also noticed the frequency of s sounds. There it was a question of “repelling demons.” A conditional self-curse is no less dangerous. But the demand would then correspond to the requirement later made of those brought for Christian baptism: to renounce the devil and his pompa!
With so strict an attitude as the one DtIsa maintains, how would it still have been possible to live as a merchant in the Babylonian gōlâ? Could a merchant hold aloof from public and religious occasions? Could he trade without cooperating with the “guilds”? It is the old and ever new question: how far can one “go along” with things? That is the question here. For DtIsa there was only one possibility: “Go out from Babylon!”

A. 3.  46:9–13*
Yahweh’s Plan
46 “Remember the former things since earliest time” (46:9*)


9 Remember the former things since earliest time:
Yes! I am God,
and there is no other deity,
and nothing is as I am!

10 Who from the beginning declares the end,
and from primordial time things that have not (yet) happened,
who says: “My plan will be fulfilled!”
and “I will carry out all my purposes!”
11 who from the rising (of the sun) calls the bird of prey,
from a far-off land the man of his purpose—
yes, I have spoken, I will also bring it about,
I have formed (it), I will also do (it).

12 Listen to me, you who are mighty of heart/courage,
who are far from righteousness/salvation:
13 I have brought my righteousness/salvation near, it is not far off,
and my help will not tarry.
And I will give help in Zion,
give Israel my glory.

■ 9* The procession with the idols has gone off, and it is not likely that anyone “turned back” from it (cf. v. 8*). The elements in the action will be intensified with the appearance of “Babylon” in 47:1*. Between the two episodes is a divine speech with hymnic self-predications (vv. 9–11*) and a further critical appeal: “listen to me” (v. 12*). The initial “remember”47 acts as a catchword linking the passage with what has gone before (v. 8*). But there it had a negative overtone: in a time of disaster the people will remember that gods made by human beings cannot help them. Now it is a positive remembrance of “earlier things that have happened48 from time immemorial/the earlier events since earliest times.” This can refer to creation or to history. But the little signal “Yes!” (כִּי) makes clear that God is in any case the origin of events. The unalterable declaration that God is incomparable is cited. The resemblance to the First Commandment is clear. This is a revelatory speech: “I am.…”
The special subtlety of the text is that in the double divine statement it begins with the name “El” for God. This is the term that DtIsa often uses when he is talking about the whole world, including the “Gentiles”—and in this particular case, when the subject is Babylon and Cyrus. The God of the whole world is Israel’s God too.
The name Yahweh is not used here (cf. 45:6*), but the divine name “Elohim” (אֱלֹהִים) does occur in the parallelism. It then echoes throughout this whole text—literally so, for v. 9* has the e sound (as in Heb. ʾĕlōhîm) three times, v. 10* seven times and v. 11* also seven times. This would hardly be by chance. The first declaration sounds the keynote. In content, the assertions of incomparability are certainly directed at Babylon’s claim: “I and none else” (אפס, 47:8* and 10*). The ancient confessional formulas are highly topical, or better: their consequences must be discovered afresh. It is a widespread modern misunderstanding that hymns make only general declarations; they are allegedly merely poems without any binding force. But the hymnic declarations in the text allow us to perceive precise reflection. They have to do with the relationship between divine proclamation and divine action; that is, they have to do with the mode of God’s rule. The three hymnic verbal participles stand parallel to three statements about God’s activity (עשׂה). This makes it clear: God has acted and he acts still!
■ 10–11* The declarations develop what the Being of God means (“who declares …,” v. 10*; “who says …,” v. 10*; “who calls …,” v. 11*). These are the modes of revelation. They are always directed to human beings. The human being is permitted to know what is from the beginning. God’s plan does not remain secret. In these declarations the most extreme past and future are linked in a unique way. The world is a unity in time and space—the greatest unity that can be thought. But the recognition does not remain a purely general one. It is bound up with concrete political events in the calling of Cyrus.
The argument could run as follows: one can accept that the creation was announced beforehand (v. 10*); that is the case in Genesis 1 too. That God has a plan and decides according to his good pleasure is continually called in question on the basis of experience, but for all that, it is the essential substance of prophetic proclamation and tradition. The rule of God is not something arbitrary. According to the testimony of this text, God binds himself to his word as it has been revealed through “the law and the prophets.” His “plan” belongs here too (cf. Isa 44:28*; 48:14*; 55:11*). But once again, what about Cyrus? The catchword “counsel” (עֵצָה) is taken up once more.
Does God need a “man of counsel” such as every ruler has, with his often problematical advice? The answer is no! Here too, the “man of his counsel” is clearly the person who is called on the basis of the divine resolve.
Cyrus’s name is not mentioned any more. After his appearance in Act III (44:24–45:25*) he gradually disappears. More important than this particular person is his place in God’s “plan.” Consequently he is here described in his function as “bird of prey” (עַיִּט ʿayyîṭ). It is difficult for us to grasp exactly what is meant by this. The word עַיִּט is used for a number of different birds of prey. They have been identified as eagles, vultures or falcons.54 But initially the name derives not from the bird’s predatory character but from its cry: the verb עיט means “screech.” But I do not think we should start from the zoological question, which bird? For the text contains a throng of set formulations. It should be noted that it is “the (bird) from the rising.” On the basis of the anonymous Cyrus text in 41:25* we can say more precisely: “from the rising of the sun” (cf. also 41:2*). If one assumes a Near Eastern tradition here, the bird could be the legendary Anzu bird, which is associated with the sun and the ruler. In Egyptian traditions there is the special kind of Horus falcon who, as Harachte, is linked with the rising sun, and with whom the pharaoh is identified. This is not out of the question if we remember that the tutelary deity represented in Cyrus’s palace in Pasargadae has the inscription: “I (am) Cyrus the king an Achaemenian” and wears an Egyptian crown. We must also remember that according to Isa 43:3* and 45:14* Egypt, Cush, and Sheba are assigned to Cyrus. There is evidence that the Horus title was ascribed to Cambyses in Egypt.
The Persians therefore certainly laid claim to foreign symbols of power too. For more or less peaceable countries to be depicted in the form of birds of prey of various kinds has been common practice down to the present day. In the ancient world the symbol stressed the worldwide, divine power of the ruler. But if one reverts to the beginning of the argumentation in v. 9*, with its thesis: “there is no other deity (אֱלֹהִים ʾelohîm),” then even Cyrus as ruler is not divine. He too is called—but called he is! That is his legitimation.
If the text thus forms a single unit in content, we may go on to ask whether the theme “fulfillment of earlier prophecies” does not run throughout as well. In v. 10* this was generally assumed to be the case with “creation” and “history.”56 But where does the specific announcement of Cyrus belong here? The biblical references to “birds of prey” shed little light where prophecies are concerned. More interesting is the detail “from a far-off land” (מֵאֶרֶץ מֶרְחָק), for this particular form occurs only in Isa 13:5*, the oracle about Babylon. There vv. 1–4* describe the summoning and gathering of an army by Yahweh. Then we are told in v. 5*: “They come (בָּאִים) from a far-off land.” The LXX uses the singular for Yahweh and his army at this point: “He comes.…” Had this prophecy about Babylon and the Day of Yahweh been interpreted as referring to Cyrus?
Now, it is true that 48:15* says in reference to Babylon, again taking up a Cyrus text: “I have let him come/ brought him in” (Cyrus; masc. suffix). That would also fit in well with the prophecy according to Isaiah 13. But here in 46:11* we have a feminine suffix: “I [fem.] will bring in.” The close of the verse corresponds to this: “I [fem.] will do.” To what do these two suffixes refer? Possibly there is here a further “scriptural proof” that is picking up the prophecies of disaster to Babylon. According to Jer 51:59–64*, Jeremiah writes “in a scroll all the disasters that would come on Babylon.” This is intended to be understood literally. Jeremiah asks a certain Seraiah “when you come to Babylon” to read it aloud there (v. 61*). Then, in a symbolic act, he is to weigh down the scroll with a stone and throw it into the Euphrates: “Thus shall Babylon sink, to rise no more, because of the disasters that I am bringing on her.” So there was already an oracle about Babylon, ascribed to Jeremiah, the heart of which are the catchwords “come in, bring in” (בוא) and “evil, disaster” (רָעָה). “Evil, disaster” (רָעָה, fem.!) is what is brought into Babylon.
DtIsa can say of disaster too that it is “made” by Yahweh; this was already explicitly declared in 45:7*, where “weal and woe” are linked with “create” (ברא). But these two Cyrus texts are so similar in content and choice of words that they can explain one another. The fall of Babylon, as it will then immediately be depicted in chap. 47, really is then an event that was announced “earlier”!
■ 12–13* The announcement of Babylon’s immediately impending fall means salvation for Israel. It is easy to imagine the national rejoicing that news of this kind would have caused. So the continuation of the text in 46:12* is all the more astonishing—so astonishing indeed that the LXX already changed the wording in order to make it a clear oracle of salvation: “Who are strong in heart” becomes “whose courage is failing.”57 Many commentaries have followed the LXX here, down to the present day. But if we note the context and the choice of words, it emerges that the text is critical and does not permit cheap rejoicing, since it begins: “Listen to me.” This critical note was sounded first in 46:8*: “Rebels, apostates, take it to the heart.” Here in v. 12* it is also a question of the “heart,” surely in the sense of “innermost ideas, attitude of mind.” This therefore sounds the theme that is then further developed after the judgment over Babylon in chap. 48—the critical dispute with a contemporary Jacob/Israel. The slogan “And we were victorious in spite of it all” is impossible here. Salvation and disaster come from God alone.
The negative note is already indicated in the description “the stouthearted, the stubborn of heart” (אַבִּירֵי לֵב). In the only other passage where this compound occurs in the OT, Ps 76:6* (5*), it refers to the proud warriors who have come forward against the God of Israel and Zion, and who are destroyed in the judgment. It means the power and strength characteristic of great animals, especially the bull. So when the attribute is applied to human beings it can stand for the mighty as such (Isa 10:13*; Job 24:22*; 34:20*; Lam 1:15*). The saying about Egypt and the reference to Apis in Jer 4:15* suggest that the connection with the bull’s potency still plays a part.60 That was why the ancient description of God as “the Mighty One of Jacob” was suspect. The Masoretes tried to establish a differentiation between “bull” and “Mighty One” by way of a different pointing (אביר with or without dagesh in the second radical, respectively). The five instances are in Gen 49:24*; Isa 49:26*; 60:16*; Ps 132:2*, 5*; also Isa 1:24*: “Mighty One of Israel.” In this series, Isa 49:26* also gives an indication of why “mighty” has a negative sense in the present text. The attribute “mighty” in this sense can be applied only to “the Mighty One of Jacob,” the God who helps and redeems.
If we remember the critical position taken by v. 12a*, we may assume that v. 12b* too is meant in a negative sense. The acts of these people are “far from righteousness.”61 But they do not escape “the righteousness of God.” They must take responsibility and will be called to account. There is a play both on the term “righteousness” and on the term “far off.” The “far-off” God is neither an excuse nor a way of escape. He reaches human beings both near and far. “Righteousness,” both as “judgment” and as “help,” characterizes God’s activity. Whereas 46:7* establishes that the gods and their images do not help, the commentary on this pseudo-procession ends with the assurance of help for Zion.
After 40:9* and 41:7*, this is the first mention of Zion prior to the Zion texts from 49:14* onward. Before the description of Babylon’s downfall, “Zion” is mentioned once more; everything is directed toward nothing less than its renewal. That this announcement seems to be made almost in passing should not be allowed to diminish its importance.64 It is an indication of the closely woven fabric of DtIsa’s text, which cannot simply be cut up into separate pieces. The glory of this God appears in his help for human beings, who are summed up in “Zion” and “Israel” as unity. This makes it possible for human beings to have the assurance of faith in an alien environment.

Klaus Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah: a Commentary on Isaiah 40–55, ed. Peter Machinist, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001), 253–266.

Hope this helps you a bit... I am not aware if the ECC will be doing deutro-canon books.

-Dan