Isa 2:1-22

Home > The Old Testament > Isaiah > Chapter 2
Previous page: Chapter 1                              Next page: Chapter 3

This page would ideally always be under construction. You are invited to contribute.

Summary

This heading should be very brief. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Discussion

This section is for detailed discussion such as the meaning of a symbol, how a doctrinal point is developed throughout a passage, or insights that can be further developed in the future. Contributions may range from polished paragraphs down to a single bullet point. The focus, however, should always be on understanding the scriptural text consistent with LDS doctrine. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Isa 2-4. Isaiah chapters 2 through 4 contain a prophecy of the future of Jerusalem. This prophecy is a mixture of a vision of a people overrun and ruined because of their disobedience, mingled with hope for a glorious future in which the Lord reigns personally among his people. It begins with a prophecy of the temple in the last days (2:1–5).

• Isa 2:1: Superscription. Verse 1 is a superscription, meant to introduce a section of text. Commentators often point out that this superscription seems superfluous after the superscription of 1:1. (2:1 adds no new information: 1:1 had already introduced Isaiah as the son of Amoz and used the words "saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.") The best explanation seems to be that this superscription is meant to serve, canonically, to introduce a unit within the larger book of Isaiah (likely chapters 2-12; see 13:1), though it may have been drawn from an originally independent collection of oracles (likely chapters 2-4; see commentary below on verse 2).

Interestingly, the way Isaiah is worked into the Book of Mormon may suggest another interpretation. Nephi begins his quotation of the "Isaiah chapters" with Isaiah 2 (rather than Isaiah 1, a text that finds no place in the Book of Mormon). It therefore seems possible that Isaiah 1 is a later editorial creation, produced specifically as a preface to the canonical collection of Isaiah's writings. (The Latter-day Saint might take as a parallel to this the non-chronological positioning of section 1 of the Doctrine and Covenants—the Lord's "preface" to the volume—in a collection of otherwise chronologically arranged revelations.) Such an interpretation would make the superscription to Isaiah 2 less a superfluous, second superscription than the crucial, original superscription to Isaiah.

At any rate, commentators disagree as to what exactly is being introduced by verse 1. Some assume it introduces a few verses (usually verses 2-4), some a few chapters (usually chapters 2-4 or 2-5), and others a great portion of the book (usually chapters 2-12).

• Isa 2:1: The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw. Two theologically significant terms deserve particular attention here: "word" (in Hebrew: dbr) and "saw" (in Hebrew: khzh). Unless careful thought is given to these two terms, verse 1 can sound a bit strange: Isaiah saw the word. The first of these two terms ("word") has an almost technical sense in the prophetic literature, where it denotes God's consistent active intervention in Israelite affairs, particularly through the medium of the prophets. The second term ("saw") does not translate the usual Hebrew word for seeing (r'h), but instead translates a word used exclusively for prophetic visions and experiences of the supernatural (another word from the same root is translated as "vision" in Isa 1:1). Since "the word" here need not be thought of strictly in terms of language or verbal communication, and because "seeing" here is not exactly a question of what comes before one's physical eyes, there is nothing particularly odd about saying that Isaiah "saw the word." Indeed, the straightforward meaning of Isaiah's "seeing" the "word" seems simply to be that his visionary experiences gave him to understand God's active intervention in Israel (his "work," as Isaiah often calls it).

• Isa 2:1: Concerning Judah and Jerusalem. The "word," the text explains, concerns Judah and Jerusalem. What should be read into this coupling of Judah and Jerusalem? Are the two terms to be taken as poetic doubles? Is Judah meant to denote a larger geographical or political area (say, the countryside) than does Jerusalem (the city, more narrowly), such that the coupling broadens the scope of Isaiah's often city-centered prophetic messages? Is Judah to be taken as a geographical or political region while Jerusalem, as the center of Israelite cultic life, is to be taken as a religious rather than geographical/political point of reference? How do the references in verses 5 and 6 to the "house of Jacob"—or to the "house of Israel" in 5:7—change the scope of the text (or contravene the intentions of the superscription)?

In the end, one is perhaps simply free to follow one's proclivities in interpreting the scope implied by this phrase.

• Isa 2:2. Modern biblical interpreters have tended to argue that verses 2-4, which form an obvious unit, were actually added to Isaiah's own writings by a later editor. More recent studies have, however, ignored such historical questions in order to ask instead what place the present unit plays in the larger canonical shape of the book of Isaiah, regardless of when or by whom it was written. These "canonical critics" have pointed out the obvious intention of the editor of the material to set verses 2-4 here in a kind of balancing relationship with Isaiah 4:2-6, another clearly eschatological text. Sandwiched between these two eschatologically inflected bookends are three heavily critical oracles against "Judah and Jerusalem" (verses 6-22 of the present chapter; verses 1-15 of chapter 3; and verses 16-26 of chapter 3 through the first verse of chapter 4). The whole of chapters 2-4 thus appear to function as a single collection, to which verses 2-4 in this chapter serve as an introduction (verse 5 serves as a kind of transition from eschatology to the unfortunate present of Judah's apostasy).

• Isa 2:2: And it shall come to pass in that last days. It is important to interpret carefully the meaning of the phrase, "the last days," particularly given the too-quick inclination of Latter-day Saints to take it as referring—somewhat vaguely—to the time between the First Vision and the Second Coming, an interpretation that in turn leads to the idea that all Hebrew prophets were, through their visions, witnesses to and interpreters of events peculiar to modern times. When this interpretive framework is applied to Isaiah, the present text (running through verse 4) is unfortunately assumed to record Isaiah's prophetic anticipation of the establishment of the institutional Church (or at least of Temple Square) in Utah (generally justified by the claim—the truth of which has been stretched—that "Utah" is a Native American word for "top of the mountains"). Not only does such an interpretation overlook all kinds of important aspects of Hebrew and particularly Isaianic prophecy, it also ignores the fact that one of Joseph Smith's revelations (D&C 133:13) unmistakably associates Isaiah's saying from this passage with Jerusalem (not with Utah, and not even with the Zion of the New World): "let them who be of Judah flee unto Jerusalem, unto the mountains of the Lord's house." (For detailed commentary on the relationship between Isaiah 2:3 and D&C 133:12-13, see below.)

What, then, does the phrase, "the last days," mean? First, it translates the Hebrew 'khryth hymym, the most literal translation of which would be "the back side of the days." Commentators often point out that in the Hebrew conception of time, in this radically distinct from Western conceptions of time, the open future was understood to lie behind one (where, in effect, one could not see its shape), while the past was understood to lie before one. The emphasis in the Hebrew phrase, 'khryth hymym, thus seems to be on the invisible or inaccessible "part" of time, less on its being located at some kind of linearly "last" point ("the end") than on its being indiscernible because it is that part of time that is situated outside of one's sight. "The last days," then, might be understood to be, neither a fixed point nor a more loosely defined segment of an absolute timeline, but as the vanishing point of all time, as the closure of time that—precisely because it closes time in on itself—cannot fall within time itself. (In this regard, it is certainly of interest that a cognate of 'khryth means "other" or "foreign" in Hebrew.) The "time" to which Isaiah looks in this, his only word concerning "the last days," is anything but a historically identifiable "period" or "era." His focus is rather on the collapse of time, on the invisible reverse of time, on the proper inexistent of time. As some commentators have put it, the present passage attempts to give a sense to the breaking of God's time into human time.

It is interesting, then, that in the Hebrew Isaiah does not, strictly speaking, speak about what shall come to pass, but simply about what shall be (in Hebrew: hyh). Where time's endless flow of becoming and passing away—of coming only to pass—Isaiah fixes being. And what he sees there is the vision that follows in the remainder of verses 2-4.

• Isa 2:2: That the mountain of the Lord's house. There are two different ways the phrase "the mountain of the Lord's house" can be understood. On the one hand, it might mean something like "the mountain that is the Lord's house"; on the other hand, it might mean something like "the mountain pertaining/belonging to the Lord's house" (the mountain on which the Lord's house stands). The first of these might be called the "metaphorical reading," since it takes "mountain" here to be a metaphor for the temple. The second might be called the "literal reading," since it takes "mountain" here to be a straightforward reference to an identifiable mountain. Is either of these readings to be definitively preferred? So far as the metaphorical reading is concerned, one can point out that mountains and temples often serve parallel purposes in scripture (both serve as sites for human contact with God, whether in the form of visions, of law-giving, of sacrifice, etc.). There would thus be nothing surprising about metaphorizing the temple as a mountain. So far as the literal reading goes, one can point out that the Jerusalem temple was indeed located on a specific mountain, differentiated from the other mountains that surrounded it. From these details alone, it is impossible to say which reading is the better.

Another way of trying to determine whether the metaphorical or the literal reading is the better is to ask whether "mountains" in the next phrase should be interpreted literally or metaphorically. Is it that the Lord's temple is to be exalted above all other temples (authorized or otherwise), or is it that the mountain on which the Lord's house stands is to be exalted above all other mountains? (Interestingly, in the common—and, as pointed out above, deeply problematic—Latter-day Saint interpretation of this passage, the "mountain" of the first phrase is read metaphorically while the "mountains" of the second phrase is read literally: The Salt Lake Temple, as the metaphorical "mountain of the Lord," is literally established/built in the tops of the physical mountains of the Wasatch range.) Of these options, the most sensible and consistent would seem actually to be the fully literal reading, taking the mountain of the Lord's house as the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which shall, with the Lord's house positioned on its crest, eschatologically tower above all other mountains.

• Isa 2:2: Shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills. The phrase "in the top of the mountains" translates a Hebrew phrase that could be justifiably translated in several ways: "in" could just as well be rendered "as," and "top" translates what in Hebrew is literally "head" and could be rendered "chief," "most important," "uppermost," or even "summit" (in Hebrew the different parts of a mountain are referred to by using names of parts of the body: the summit is the head, a shelf is a shoulder, etc.). Also important to the interpretation here is the poetic parallelism between "established in the top of" and "exalted above," the latter phrase helping to make clear the meaning of the former. Put in simplest terms, what is described here is the mountain associated with (or equivalent to) the Lord's house towering over all other mountains and hills, taking up a position of authority over them, as it were. Theologically, the point seems to be that the Lord's house—the temple, as the sacred center of Israelite religion and the earthly anchor of Israel's covenant with the Lord—here finally assumes the position it ought to have.

But that position is actually, in some ways, a bit surprising. Nothing in the remainder of this verse or in the two subsequent verses gives Israel a place in this picture. Indeed, in verse 5 there is a clear suggestion that Israel's non-place in this vision is intentional: Isaiah takes the vision as providing him an opportunity to suggest to Israel that they need to find a place in the vision ("O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord"). Even here, where all that distinguishes this mountain from all the other mountains is the presence of "the Lord's house," there seems to be a hint that there is something troubling about this beautiful eschatological picture. The mountain that towers above all the others has no necessary connection, it seems, with Israel.

It may be, however, that the reference to "hills" is meant to give this eschatological prophecy a somewhat narrower focus, since "the country of the hills" is a Hebrew phrase that seems clearly to refer to the hilly region of Judah, Benjamin, and Ephraim (see Josh 9:1; 10:40; 11:16; see also Gen 49:26: "The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren"). An interpretation along these lines would suggest that the mountain of the Lord's house is to be exalted to its rightful place in a specific region, specifically of the area surrounding Jerusalem. Here a connection with Israel might be implied.

• Isa 2:2: And all nations shall flow unto it. Following up on the preceding comments, it is important to ask here whether Israel is included in "all nations." Importantly, inclusion and exclusion here both have somewhat ominous implications. Exclusion would, of course, be troubling, since then it would seem that Israel has been completely removed from the picture. But inclusion would also be troubling, since Israel's election would be to some extent compromised by their being included simply in "all nations." (Though "nations" here translates the Hebrew word gwyym, often translated as "Gentiles," there is no clear implication that Israel is excluded. The same Hebrew word is often used to describe Israel itself, and it is only used occasionally to speak unmistakably of the nations distinct from Israel.)

The image of nations "flowing" unto the mountain of the Lord seems to be connected with traditions surrounding Eden. The word translated as "flow" is a unique verbal usage of the Hebrew word for "river" ("stream" would be a good translation, catching the connection between verb and substantive). In the Hebrew tradition, Eden is often figured as being located on a mountain (see, for example, Ezekiel 28:11-16) from which rivers flow forth into the world (see Gen 2:10). Here, though, rather than describing waters flowing from the mountain of the Lord to heal the nations (see Rev 22:2), the nations are themselves flowing into the mountain of the Lord to seek His ways. There is here, then, a kind of inversion of the usual Eden imagery: the eschaton as a reversal that effects a return to Eden, as it were.

• Isa 2:3. Despite the versification, there is no actual break between verses 2-3, since it is clear that "many people shall go and say" is a poetic double of "all nations shall flow unto it" ("all"/"many"; "nations"/"people"; "shall"/"shall"; "go"/"flow").

• Isa 2:3: And many people shall go and say. It should be noted that the KJV translation is slightly misleading. The Hebrew does not speak of "many people" (lots of individuals), but of "many peoples" (lots of collectivities: the Hebrew mym could just as well be translated "tribes"). Though a different Hebrew word from that translated as "nations" in verses 2 and 4 appears here, the meaning is parallel. The image presented is thus not one of individuals calling one another to the mountain of the Lord, but of whole nations or peoples communicating one with another about their mutual allegiance to the Lord.

What of this distinction between "go" and "say"?

If the "say" follows after they "go" up to the temple, then it could be read that there are many peoples (nations) which go and then return to encourage others to go. It could even suggest that as one nation understands the significance of the temple, they leave they tell the other nations about it, spreading the news by word of mouth. If the "go" and the "say" are happening at the same time, then it seem as the people are going they yell to whoever is around to come with them. This would give a sense of urgency to their speaking. Lastly, the people may be "going" in order to do the "Saying. Among many peoples, there are those going forth to call others, in preparation for a large, group movement.

The "come" of the next line is actually a translation of this same verb ("to go") in Hebrew. (Note that "let us go up" does not translate this same verb, but a verb that literally means "to ascend": "let us ascend the mountain of the Lord.") To clarify, the verse could be translated instead as: "And many peoples shall go and say, Go ye, and let us ascend." While the translation of the "come" as "go" might have suggested an addressee away from the speaker, the word "us" in the next line makes it clear that the speaker is inviting the addressee to join in and ascend together.

So the question remains: to whom is the "saying" addressed? Perhaps it should be noted that telling others to go to the temple is only one part of what they are saying. This will be explored further in the following commentary, but it may influence the way we read this "saying." In addition to the speaker wanting to include the addressee by using the words "us" and "we," it is important to note that this collective group will be taught of his ways. Is the implication that no one in the proposed group knows of the Lord's ways? If so, then the addressee would likely not be the house of Jacob.

At what point does this "saying" end? Certainly all of verse 3 is included. Verse 4 does not use any second or first person pronouns, but refers to all the nations as "they." This suggests that the discourse from verse 2 has ended, but is not necessarily the case. The speaker could be inferring that after "we" learn of God's ways, this will be the natural outcome. Indeed, first and second person pronouns are also absent from the last part of verse 2: "for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." Is this also outside of the speaker's invitational call? Or does the word "for" at the beginning link it too strongly to the proceeding words? Verse 5 will again use first and second person pronouns. Does this suggest that all of verse 3-5 is a part of the same message? If not, who is speaking in verse 5? This of course will be worked out in the commentary for verse 5, but the answer to that question may influence the reading of verse 3 being worked out here.

Another angle to explore is the "saying" as a sort of interruption, the saying being a kind of pause in the middle of the going? Is there a link here with scriptural themes of "ye must needs say," etc., where a truth or an event causes someone to speak?

Does there need be a kind of authentic going, a going coupled with a resolute announcement of one's desire to go?

• Isa 2:3: Come ye, and let us go up. This "come ye" is clearly repeated in verse 5, where the house of Jacob are the ones invited.

The word "up" builds on the imagery in verse 2, where the nations will flow "unto" the house on the mountain. All the nations will go "up" because now they see the temple as exalted above all the hills, in the top of the mountains.

The Hebrew word translated as "go up" literally means to ascend, but it should be noted that it is also a technical term in Israelite ritual settings. One "sends up" or "makes ascend" what is usually rendered as "a burnt offering." (The idea seems to be that the smoke of the burning sacrifice ascends into the presence of God, its savor into the nostrils of the Lord; see Gen 8:20-22.)

How does this ritual connection recast the meaning of this line? Are the peoples actually physically ascending the mountain? Or are they perhaps offering sacrifices at the outer limits of the mountain, something like the Israelites before Sinai?

• Isa 2:3: To the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob. Here "the mountain of the Lord's house" is broken up and distributed into two parallel clauses, clauses that suggest a parallelism between "mountain" and "house": "the mountain of the Lord" and "the house of the God of Jacob." This parallel may be what originally motivated the common LDS interpretation verse 2 discussed above. But what is the status of this breaking up and distributing of terms?

• Isa 2:3: And he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths. The phrase "we will walk" here translates the same Hebrew word that is translated in verse 5 as "let us walk." There thus seems to be a much closer relationship between the words of the peoples here and what is said in verse 5 than appears at first. Verse 5's "Come ye, and let us walk" (two words in Hebrew: lchv vnlchh) appears in verse 3, but separated ("Come ye ... and we will [let us] walk ..."). The close connection between these two passages is suggestive: Israel has to be called from outside, as it were, to the paths they already know they are to follow, but the nations must themselves to the work of following those paths.

• Isa 2:3: For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. This line has often been used by Latter-day Saints to talk about there being two "world centers" during the millennial reign of Christ on earth. Interpreters more familiar with the style of Hebrew poetry, however, often point out that what one finds here is actually just a classic instance of poetic parallel (in which the poet says substantially the same thing twice over, employing different words each time): Zion is clearly intended to be equivalent to, not distinct from, Jerusalem ("Zion" was, indeed, the name of one of the mountains on which Jerusalem was built). One might, though, point the clear distinction drawn in section 133 of the Doctrine and Covenants between Zion and Jerusalem at the end of times in order to justify the "traditional" reading. Is there a way for the Latter-day Saint to decide between these two interpretive options?

The relevant passage in the Doctrine and Covenants is D&C 133:12-13: "Let them, therefore, who are among the Gentiles flee unto Zion. And let them who be of Judah flee unto Jerusalem, unto the mountains of the Lord's house." Several remarks must be made about this passage:

(1) The passage clearly distinguishes between Zion—located, given not only the words of the passage but also the historical setting in which the revelation was given, in the New World&mdsah;and Jerusalem.

(2) The passage states that the final gathering will be divided between the two world centers: scattered Israel (among the Gentiles) to Zion in the New World, and Judah (the Jews) to Jerusalem in the Old World.

(3) The passage clearly draws on the language of Isaiah 2, while offering several subtle, creative interpretations of it:

(3a) The Lord's house in question is clearly to be understood as located in Jerusalem (not in Utah or even in the New World Zion).

(3b) The house/mountain relationship is clarified: given that "mountains" is plural, it is clear that the mountain is not a stand-in for the house, but that the mountains are those generally that are associated with the house.

(3c) The Jews are told to flee, not to the house of the Lord (the temple), but to the city or to the mountains associated with the house of the Lord. (Thus here, as well as in Isaiah 2:2-5 strictly speaking, the Jews are not necessarily among those going up to the house of the Lord.)

(3d) The Gentiles (nations) are here mentioned, but they are not described as approaching either "world center" in the actual passage, though in Isaiah 2 they are said to approach the house of the Lord in Jerusalem.

The only detail here that comes close to suggesting that the "traditional" interpretation of Isaiah 2:3 is justified is the sheer fact that D&C 133:12-13 draws a distinction between Zion and Jerusalem. Every other detail, interestingly, seems to confirm—as well as to build on—the most straightforward contextual meaning of the Isaiah passage. And in fact, every way in which the D&C passage builds on the Isaiah passage suggests that even the division between Zion and Jerusalem is a building on, rather than a clarification of, the original, exegetically detectable meaning of the passage. In the end, even modern revelation seems to suggest that Zion and Jerusalem should be understood as equivalent in Isaiah 2:3.

(Note that one might point to the language in D&C 133:21—"And he shall utter his voice out of Zion, and he shall speak from Jerusalem"—may point in the direction of the "traditional" interpretation. But a closer look reveals that the language of that verse draws not on Isaiah 2:3, but on Joel 3:16.)

• Isa 2:4: And he shall judge among the nations. The is some similarity to this verse and the idea that the various tribes of Israel go to a center place to find out where their lands of inheritance will be.

It is possible to read "last days" as the time when the Lord personally reigns upon the earth, in which case this verse would be read as a time not yet fulfilled, in which God will judge disputes between nations from Mount Zion, and men will live in peace.

• Isa 2:4: They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks. A pruning hook was an implement used to prune vines, i.e., to cut off extra leaves and young shoots. It was a short knife with a curved hook at the end sharpened on the inside like a sickle.

The imagery of farming could imply that now the nations have come up, had dispute settled, and know exactly where to settle in and start farming. Or, it could mean that now that there is peace, there is no need for weapons so they may as well be used for farming.

There is a fascinating reversal of this verse in Joel 3:10: "Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong."

• Isa 2:5. While verses 2-4 are describing an event, verse 5 stops and talks directly to the house of Jacob. Because of the word "us," it is unlikely that this is the Lord speaking in Isaiah's description of the "last days" event, but rather is Isaiah speaking to the people as himself.

Why this exhortation here? It may be suggested that Isaiah concludes with an exhortation to his brethren to live the Law so that this great day described in 2-4 may be ushered in. Or, perhaps it may be that once the house of Israel has seen all these nations streaming to the temple, they will also call to one another and say "Come ye, let us" go to the temple too. Certainly, the repetition of this phrase "come ye, let us" can not be overlooked. Perhaps it could even be read as the nations calling to Jacob to join them (similar to other places where the Gentiles carry a remnant of Israel on their shoulders).

Some have also suggested that this is a liturgical addition, meant to be spoken directly to whomever one was teaching.

In any case, verse 6 will change the mood drastically by saying that the Lord has "forsaken" the house of Jacob.

• Isa 2:9: Boweth down. This verse seems a bit troubling—if the man here humbles himself, why is he not forgiven? Different translations of this verse have dealt with this differently. In 2 Ne 12:9 this is emended to "boweth not down." The NET takes the bowing in this verse as bowing before the idols, noting "these prefixed verbal forms with vav (ו) consecutive appear to carry on the description that precedes and are better taken with the accusation. They draw attention to the fact that human beings actually bow down and worship before the lifeless products of their own hands." The Word Biblical Commentary takes a similar approach translating 9a "So that mankind became degraded and a person became humiliated." Other translations (e.g. NASB and NRSV) follow the KJV in describing the man as humbling himself and yet not being forgiven.

Unanswered questions

This section is for questions along the lines of "I still don't understand ..." Please do not be shy. The point of these questions is to identify things that still need to be addressed on this page. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Isa 2:3. Are Zion and Jerusalem referring to two religious centers or are they one and the same? Is there a difference between the "law" and the "word of the Lord?"

Prompts for life application

This section is for prompts that suggest ways in which a passage can influence a person's life. Prompts may be appropriate either for private self reflection or for a class discussion. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

Prompts for further study

This section is for prompts that invite us to think about a passage more deeply or in a new way. These are not necessarily questions that beg for answers, but rather prompts along the lines of "Have you ever thought about ..." Prompts are most helpful when they are developed individually, thoughtfully, and with enough background information to clearly indicate a particular direction for further study or thought. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Isa 2:9: Bowing. The 1830 Book of Mormon does not add the "not" to this phrase, though it does to the following ("humbleth himself not"). I am working out a trade to acquire the three-volume critical edition, so I don't know which is the better reading yet for the "original" Book of Mormon. As I've been working through the 1830 text I've been noticing quite a lot of these sorts of issues in the Isaiah chapters specifically. I wonder what to make of it. --71.115.234.190 01:54, 25 Sep 2006 (UTC)

• Isa 2:20. What significance can we draw from verse 20 in that a man casts his idols to the two mammals that are blind when the fear of the Lord falls upon them?

Resources

This section is for listing links and print resources, including those that are also cited elsewhere on this page. A short comment about the particular strengths of a resource can be helpful. Click the link above and to the right to edit or add content to this heading. →

• Isa 2:3. Jeffrey R. Holland, "Prophets in the Land Again," Ensign, Nov 2006, pp. 104–7. Elder Holland states: "We are coming to the close of another marvelous general conference. We have been blessed to hear messages from our leaders, including and especially President Gordon B. Hinckley, the man we sustain as God's oracle on earth, our living prophet, seer, and revelator... It is no trivial matter for this Church to declare to the world prophecy, seership, and revelation, but we do declare it. It is true light shining in a dark world, and it shines from these proceedings."

Notes

Footnotes are not required but are encouraged for factual assertions that average readers cannot easily evaluate for themselves (such as the date of King Solomon’s death or the nuanced definition of a Greek word). In contrast, insights rarely benefit from footnoting, and the focus of this page should always remain on the scriptures themselves rather than what someone has said about them. Links are actively encouraged on all sections of this page, and links to authoritative sources (such as Strong's Bible Concordance or the Joseph Smith Papers) are preferable to footnotes.

---

Previous page: Chapter 1                              Next page: Chapter 3