Isa 28:1-29

From Feast upon the Word ( Copyright, Feast upon the Word.
(Redirected from Isa 28:2)
Jump to: navigation, search

Home > The Old Testament > Isaiah > Chapter 28
Previous page: Chapter 27                              Next page: Chapter 29

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


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


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 28:1: Crown and fading flower. The Hebrew word `trh (crown) can mean either a wreath of flowers or a crown in the more traditional gold or metallic sense. This double meaning suggests both the wreath that drunkards might wear ("boozers in ancient times loved to crown themselves with flowers that had been interwoven" according to Wildeberger; cf. Ezek 23:42) and a city on a hill as a crown (Wildeberger writes "it makes sense to compare a city to a crown upon a head when one considers how a city is positioned on the upper part of a hill, with its walls looking very much like a crown"). The idea of a crown as a wreath of flowers that drunkards wear highlights the temporariness of the exalted state—the drunkard will have a hangover and the flowering of a fading flower only lasts a little while (cf. Isa 40:6, 7; Ps 103:15; Job 14:2). Interestingly, the word for "flower" also occurs in reference to the crown that the high priest would wear (cf. Ex 39:30; Lev 8:9), likely in reference to the budding and flowering of Aaron's staff in Num 17:8 which indicated Aaron's house was to be the bearers of the priesthood. This allusion serves to magnify the mocking tone of the drunkards wearing crowns.
  • Isa 28:1: Drunkards. The LXX has "hirelings" instead of "drunkards" (skr instead of shkr). The "hirelings" rendering might be taken as a reference to spiritual leaders (like the priest and the prophet in v. 7) that want to be paid for their work (as opposed to working for free like, for example, Elisha—see 2 Kgs 5:16, 20-27).
  • Isa 28:1: Fat. The Hebrew word shmn can mean both "fat or rich" and "oil." Olive oil had many uses in the ancient world and was a symbol of propserity, a symbol is sometimes used (e.g. Isa 6:10; Deut 32:15; Jer 5:28) to indicate unresponsiveness of a people to God because of their prosperity (cf. Hel 12:2). Oil is also used to in annointing kings and in temple ceremonies. If Isaiah is indeed making reference to Ps 23 (see note below), then fat here may form an intentional contrast with the God's annointing in Ps 23:5. The religious significance of wine, oil and crown are employed here by Isaiah to describe what seems to be a people who have perverted the true meaning of religion (cf. Isa 1:11-15).
  • Isa 28:1: Wine. According to Lev 19:9, priests were not supposed to drink wine. Also, in Num 6:3, Nazerites were forbidden to drink wine, and in Deut 28:53. See also Isa 3:14 for a reference to premature (cf. "hasty" in 28:4) "eating" of the vineyard. The theme being developed here seems to be that of workers in the vineyard who are prematurely (and illicitly) plucking the fruit of the wine for themselves rather than waiting for the command from the Lord of the vineyard to pluck the fruit in proper celebration—see Isa 5:11-12; Isa 16:10; Isa 22:13 (cf. verse 12 where the call is to mourning not celebration); Isa 24:7-11; Isa 25:6; Isa 36:17; Isa 55:1; Isa 56:12; Isa 62:8; Isa 65:8). Later in Isaiah, the wine theme is employed as a symbol of blood (cf. Isa 29:9; Isa 49:26; Isa 51:21).
  • Isa 28:1: Relation to wisdom writings. The mention of valley, oil, and food motifs (table in cup) also occurs in Ps 23. If Isaiah is intentionally alluding to Psalm 23, then the contrast between the "still waters" in Ps 23:2 and the "tempest of hail" and "flood of might waters overflowing" here in verse 2 is particularly suggestive(note overflowing may also be making an allusion to the "runneth over" phrase in Ps 23:5; note also the temple allusion in Ps 23:6 in the phrase "I dwell in the house of the Lord for ever" which contrasts with the "flower" reference to the high priest's crown). Also suggestive is the similarity with the Book of Widsom that Adam Clarke notes: "Let us fill ourselves with costly wine and ointments, And let no flower of the spring pass by us: Let us crown ourselves with rose-buds before they are withered" (Wisd. 2:7-8).
  • Isa 28:1. Undeniably, the first verse of this most curious chapter is written in an exalted and exulting style: the poetic ring, the celebratory meaning of the words chosen, the subtle allusions to the glories of the temple priesthood, etc., all mark the verse most clearly as an anthem of praise. Isaiah and irony: the words are, read quite simply, terrifically condemning. In other words, the verse his shockingly sarcastic: by taking up the style of celebration, Isaiah criticizes the "drunkards of Ephraim" in the harshest manner possible. But such an interpretation is already too hasty: irony is more complex than just that. Irony and sarcasm allow for a sort of ambiguity, a curious ambiguity that Isaiah often employs: the prophet is, it must be admitted, celebrating, even as he is--it cannot be denied--condemning. The paradoxical nature of the prophetic word that opens this most difficult chapter is all too fitting: is Isaiah commending or rebuking?
The ambiguity of Isaiah's irony is reflected more subtly in his word choice--words whose ambiguous character almost cannot come out in translation. Careful consideration of these words should open, not only the ambiguity of this verse, but the complex setting with which Isaiah opens this prophecy.
To begin with, the Hebrew word translated "flower" in the second line of this first verse is tsyts. It undoubtedly means "flower" or "blossom," but only to translate it so is to miss the careful word choice Isaiah is making. The word is almost exclusively a question of temple decor, and it is specifically the word used to denote the blooming flower/plate that sits on the forehead of the High Priest, upon which it is written qdwsh lyhwh, "holiness to the LORD" or "sanctified to YHWH." The word translated "fading" might have several meanings: "fading" or "wilting" is a good translation, but the Hebrew term (nbl) is also the word for "fool" or "folly." The High Priestly plate Ephraim wears is one of folly, the fool's plate (like fool's gold?). The word translated "glorious" also has another meaning. It (tp`rh) is the word used in Ex 39:28 and Ezek 44:18 for the turban ("mitre" or cap) of the High Priest. It is precisely on this turban that the priestly plate hung. The inscribed plate and the turban explain why the phrase "which are on the head" opens the last line of the verse. That same last line offers another possible ambiguity: the word (shmn) translated "fat" means more literally oil, specifically olive oil, and might have reference to the priestly anointing. What all of this suggests is that Isaiah is using his words very carefully to offer an ambiguous and powerfully ironic image: Ephraim is proffered in this verse as the High Priest, as wearing the turban, which is adorned by the golden flower inscribed with the name of the LORD. The golden plate is, however, wilting, is the wilting flower of folly, as it is worn by Ephraim. These ambiguities work throughout the first verses, but for the moment, the point is clear: the prophet makes the defiance of Ephraim a question of the priesthood, and ultimately a question of ironic ambiguity.
Of great interest in this condemnation, however, is the theme of drunkenness, especially since this theme runs throughout the first half of this chapter. The ambiguities described above collectively open onto the most significant ambiguity of all: the fruit of the vine as a sanctified part of ritual versus the fruit of the vine as the source of idiocy. That wine is supposed to be connected to the priesthood anciently is clear, but, as verse 7 makes quite explicit, here the priesthood, "the priest and the prophet," have misused the sacred wine: they "have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine," thereby erring "in vision" and "in judgment." All of this combines to present Ephraim as having a legitimate place in the priesthood, but at the same time as using that place to seize prosperity and power. As is the usual theme in Isaiah, the problem is a question of riches, prosperity, and pride.
  • Isa 28:2: Mighty and strong one. Most scholars seem to consider the mighty and strong one referred to here as an Assyrian king who (historically and also possibly prophetically/eschatologically) destroys Israel. In D&C 19:1, the "mighty and strong ones" are described as those that that "the weak things of the world shall come forth and break down." In contrast, D&C 85:7 uses the phrase "mighty and strong" to describe a righteous agent of God who is "clothed with light" that comes to "set in order the house of God." It seems most likely that D&C 85:7 is making a play on the phrase "mighty and strong" which is used here to describe an agent that is not (necessarily) righteous but is used by God for the purpose of punishing Israel. The Hebrew word chzq (mighty) is used prominently, particularly in Deuteronomy and in Exodus, in describing Israel's exodus out of Egypt and—more often than not—in conjunction with the Hebrew word yd (hand) which occurs at the end of this verse in Isaiah (suggesting an intentional allusion).
  • Isa 28:2: Waters overflowing. The Hebrew word shtp (overflowing) is used again in vv. 15, 17-18 (as well as Isa 8:8 and Isa 30:28, and in a uniquely positive sense in Isa 66:21). In addition to the "overflowing" meaning, shtp also has the meaning of "cleansing or rinsing" particularly in regard to ritual purification (cf. Lev 6:28; Lev 15:11, 12). In creation, water is a primordial element that plays a unique role in the creation process (that is, water—in contrast to land and other parts of creation—is never referred to as one of God's creations; cf. Moses 2:9 exegesis). This cleansing aspect of water has important symbolic significance in baptism. So, although the storm of water here seems to be used in a context of wrath and judgment, it might also be read in a loving-chastening way (cf. Heb 12:5ff). This dual nature of the word shtp is highlighted in the book of Isaiah itself by its use in Isa 66:21 where peace is extended to Israel "like a river, and the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream." In Ps 124:4, the term shtp is used in a similar context—related to creation—where Israel praises God for sparing them from their enemies who, like a flash-flood, would've drowned them had not YHWH, "who made heaven and earth" (Ps 124:8), spared them. See also Ps 69:2, Ps 69:15, and Ps 124:4 for use of the term shtp; see 1 Kgs 18:38 for discussion and links regarding God's power over water (compared to Baal's impotence).
  • Isa 28:2: Cast down to the earth. The direct object of this verb phrase is not specified. The NET explicitly inserts "that crown" so that the direct object is clear.
  • Isa 28:2. This verse maintains the ambiguity and irony of the first. Though it announces "a mighty and strong one," the identification of the figure is left undetermined. While many scholars assume that the figure is meant to be Assyria, the enemy who would, within just a few years, conquer Ephraim, it must be pointed out that the verse leaves the point completely open: it might, in fact, be that Ephraim is "the mighty and strong one," and that verse 2 is another moment of ironic exultation in the tribes of the Northern Kingdom. The point here is not, however, to suggest that Ephraim is the figure in question, but that Isaiah explicitly leaves the figure open, explicitly avoids identifying the figure. In other words, Isaiah wants, for whatever poetic reasons, to keep the figure ambiguous, even multivalent (is it Assyria, Ephraim, Isaiah, even the Lord?). This broad ambiguity suggests that one must read Isaiah's description of the figure quite closely, rather than passing it off rather facilely as a reference to Israelite enemies who were obviously a threat.
Perhaps the common identification of "the mighty and strong one" with Assyria is due to the final phrase of the verse: the figure is to "cast down to the earth with the hand," and since Ephraim is declared in the following two verses to be the recipient of unfortunate affairs, there is the implication that verse 2 is the beginning of the negative prophecy. However, there are some major difficulties of translation to be worked out concerning the last phrase of this verse. The phrase: hnych l`rts byd. The verb (hnych) is a causative for the verbal root nwch, which means to rest or to settle (to rest in the sense of settling down, not necessarily in the sense of repose). In the causative, this verb is most often translated "to put" or "to place": God puts Adam in the Garden in Gen 2:15, God chooses Israel and places/settles them in a certain land in Isa 14:1. The KJV translation of "cast down" seems to have come from an attempt to fit this phrase with the theme of the following verses. The NRSV maintains the violence in its translation: "with his hand he will hurl them down to the earth." The NIV does as well, though in a more justified manner: "he will throw it forcefully to the ground." The translators of the NIV render byd ("by the hand") as "forcefully," reading the violence, that is, into the mention of the hand of "the mighty and strong one" rather than into the verb nwch. This is certainly a more justified reading--a more responsible translation--than the KJV or even than the NRSV, but it still is obviously interpretive: the Hebrew says quite simply that the figure "shall place [something?] on the earth by the hand." That "[something?]" marks the ambiguity of the final phrase, an ambiguity that matches the ambiguity mentioned above that characterizes "the mighty and strong one" him/herself: no recipient of the placement is made explicit, just as the identification of the figure remains undetermined. The fact of the matter is that the verse is so profoundly ambiguous that it cannot be decided what exactly is at work. Again, the student is turned over to a careful consideration of the figure as a whole.
Perhaps before this consideration, a further point of ambiguity might be explored. All of the ambiguities already at work in the above comments--as well as what carries over from the first verse--are doubled by the textual form of this verse. Though the verse begins in poetic form, it is interrupted by a prose statement at its conclusion, just before verse 3 returns to the poetic structure (the prose line is the same "shall cast down to the earth with the hand"). Francis Landy explains that Isaiah's writings as a whole are characterized by "the alternation of a poetic idiom that is traditional, sophisticated and compressed, with one that is strange, naive and diffuse. Isaiah combines poetry of extraordinary density and polysemy with exorbitant repetition and syntactic fragmentation. This results not only in extreme difficulties of interpretation but in a dialectic of structure and anti-structure" (p. 146). This fragmentation and and interruption of structure by anti-structure is at play in verse 2 here: the metaphors fail (perhaps because there is none on whom they are specifically cast: the storm and mighty waters make a great deal of noise, but without rushing upon anyone) as prose interrupts the flow of the poetic form. This dialectic of flow and interruption only doubles the ambiguities mentioned above: at the very moment of perfect obscurity (verse 2 is as obscure as Isaiah gets), there is a complete failure of poetry itself, and the removal to prose is even more pathetic than any poetic one. One is left in an almost absolute confusion. Again and again, one is sent back to the figure itself to do the work of interpretation.
Paving the way to the interpretation of the figure is a parallel between this text and two verses in Isa 6: verses 5 and 7. In verse 5 of that chapter, Isaiah is struck by the appearance of the celestial council, and he shout out an inarticulate word, the word that marks his language as without any absolute pole of reference. When he is, two verses later, visited by an angel, the angel speaks with a likewise inarticulate word, but one that is inarticulate precisely because it functions as a marker of the possibility of articulation, as a simple reference to an absolute pole of reference. The two words: Isaiah's is `wy, and the angel's is hnh. These two words (or very near to them) are at work in these first two verses of this chapter. Verse one begins with hwy, basically the same inarticulate word Isaiah utters when struck by the appearance of the Lord. Verse two opens with hnh, the very word the angel speaks when pointing the absolute pole of reference (there, the stone from the altar). There is, then, a hint here of something similar at work: the ambiguity of the first verse is perhaps marked by the completely inarticulate hwy, while the possibility of an absolute pole of reference in this second verse is marked by the hnh Isaiah speaks in turn. The hint, at least, is that while Ephraim dwells in the homely realms of the inarticulate earth, this "mighty and strong one" comes from the realm of absolute reference, from the realm of the angelic tongue (the tongue that will be a major question in this very chapter). This "mighty and strong one" is, so goes the implication, a heavenly figure, a prophetic/angelic figure, or even the Lord Himself. The possibility remains open, nonetheless, that the figure is Ephraim, in which case the irony would become extreme: Ephraim would itself be the doubly inarticulate word, spoken without any referential ability and then with perfect referential capacity. Whatever the identification of the figure, however, it must be read here as a question of absolute reference.
The two Hebrew words (chzq and `mts) translated "mighty" and "strong" are a curious pair. They show up together most often in the writings attributed to the Deuteronomist historian (in Deuteronomy and Joshua, specifically), by far most frequently in injunctions given to Joshua ("be strong and of good courage"). The two terms, paired together, seem to have reference, then, to invasion, to the necessity of staying true to one's work of accomplishing captivity. Here, the words are not offered as encouragement, but as unquestioned adjectives describing the conquering one. This idea of sacking or invading perhaps already begins to interpret the last phrase of the verse: to be placed in the land, one must first empty it of inhabitants.
The language of tempest, storm, and flood are likewise common images of invasion. But they are also common images of hearing the Lord's voice, of theophany. It may be, in the end, that the visitation of the Lord is meant to be an invasion, or, contrarily, that an invasion is meant to be a visitation of the Lord. At any rate, the two experiences are parallel in scripture, and both senses seem to be at work here. If the Assyrians are meant, then there is obviously some sense of an invasion, but since the "mighty and strong one" is left unidentified, there is the possibility that the invasion is the invasion of an angel or even the Lord, one who speaks as the voice of many waters. The parallel concepts of invasion and theophany together suggest a connection with the final phrase of the verse, the placement in the land (according to covenant). All of the ambiguities work together in the identification of this figure: it might be Ephraim, conquering the land and claiming it from the Canaanites, and yet it might be God, speaking through the Assyrian swords, as others are settled in the Northern Kingdom. The ambiguity, of course, parallels the difficulties of the first verse, where Ephraim is both celebrated and scorned. In the end, everything is left quite open.
  • Isa 28:3: Passive voice. Wildberger, who interprets verse 2 as the Lord himself intervening with his hand, notes as significant the change to an impersonal passive construction in verse 3: "Only for a fleeting moment does Yahweh appear as the active subject affecting history; then he disappears once again behind those who are commissioned to bring his judgment to completion on earth" (p. 10).
  • Isa 28:3: Trodden under feet. Isaiah here seems to be building on Deut 32:35 where God seems to prophesy that he will take vengeance on Israel when their foot slips. The image Isaiah seems to have in mind is Israel stumbling and falling and being trampled on the ground with foot serving as the poetic link: Israel's stumbling foot leads to their being "trodden under feet" (either by foreign—Assyrian?—invading army and/or by the mighty and strong one mentioned in v. 2). The "trodden under feet" expression also furthers the wine theme (since wine is made by trampling grapes; cf. Isa 16:10; Isa 63:3, 6).
  • Isa 28:3. The conventions of the English language somewhat obscure the poetic structure of this and the following verse. In Hebrew, the verse begins with "shall be trodden under feet" so that the verse reads--literally--thus: "Shall be trodden under feet the crown of pride, the drunkards of Ephraim." The effect is that in between this treading down and the odd simile drawn in verse 4, there appears most all the content of verse 1 in repetition (there are slight differences, which will be discussed below). The very structure of these two verses, then, serves to surround the earlier lament/exultation with threats of destruction. As Isaiah returns, then, to the earlier, exultant poetic word of the first verse, he is able entirely to circumscribe Ephraim with threats of destruction.
In other words, verses 3-4 seem to accomplish what verse 2 could not. Verse 2 could not quite come to a clear declaration of destruction, while these verses quite explicitly make such a declaration, in the beautiful poetic words that open verse 3 and close verse 4. On the other hand, one might read the threats of destruction in verses 3-4 as reinterpreted the rather passive conclusion of verse 2: the mighty and strong one is to cause them to rest in the height of their drunkenness, is to let them pass out on the ground, precisely so that there, immobile and unconscious, they might be trampled, etc. The threats of destruction are postponed, as it were, until the drunkenness comes to its height. This reading seems to be a better reading on the whole, but it does present the difficulty of understanding exactly what the role of the mighty and strong one is in the end.
Something of the impending destruction should be discussed. Perhaps of most interest is the fact that it is precisely the crown itself that is to be trodden under feet. It is the clothing of the priesthood that will be trampled. Again, the violence implicit in the language is somewhat displaced. Though there is a trampling going on, the trampling is a trampling of clothes, rather than a trampling of people (and the same will obtain in the following verse). What the significance of this displaced violence is will be discussed in the context of the doubled threat in verse 4.
  • Isa 28:7: Out of the way through strong drink. Compare this drunken stupor of the priest and the prophet to the slothfulness of the servants and sleeping of the watchman in D&C 101:47-54.
  • Isa 28:9-10: Prophet speaking or quoting opposition? In ancient Hebrew script there are no quotation or question marks leaving it uncertain whether Isaiah (or whoever the author-prophet is) is still speaking here. Several translations render verses 9-10 in quotation marks, suggesting use of a rhetorical device used frequently in Isaiah where the opposition is first quoted then followed by a threatening response from Isaiah (cf. 5:19, 10:8-10, 14:13-14, 29:15b). The NASB rendering of verses 9-11 is:
   9 "To whom would He teach knowledge,
        And to whom would He interpret the message?
        Those just weaned from milk?
        Those just taken from the breast? 
   10 "For He says,
        'Order on order, order on order,
        Line on line, line on line,
        A little here, a little there.'" 
   11 Indeed (very well then), He will speak to this people
        Through stammering lips and a foreign tongue,
  • Isa 28:9: Whom shall he teach knowledge. This seems to mark the beginning of a teach-hear-understand motif that continues to develop in later verses of this chapter (cf. verses 11-14, 19, 26).
  • Isa 28:10: Precept. The Hebrew word rendered “precept” is tsaw, which appears to be a shortened form of mitswah meaning “commandment.” The word seems to mean “command, ordinance,” as in its only other occurrence in the Old Testament, Hosea 5:11: “because he willingly walked after the commandment [tsah].” (There are, however, other Hebrew words translated precept in the KJV.) This meaning is not certain, however, and could be be a nonsensical word (see "repitition and rhyme" discussion below).
  • Isa 28:10: Line. The word rendered “line” is qaw and means a measuring line, such as a surveyor would use, not to a line of scriptural text. (The Hebrew sense is somewhat captured by Sidney Rigdon’s comment on this Isaiah passage in his article “Millennium,” The Evening and the Morning Star (July 1834): 170 where he quotes verse 17: “Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet. . . .”) Some have understood tsaw as meaning “carpenter’s rule,” to go along with qaw “measuring line”, thus referring to measuring out judgment.
  • Isa 28:10: Other scriptures. The phrase "line upon line, precept upon precept", which is a reversed order rendering of what occurs here in Isaiah, also occurs in 2 Ne 28:30, D&C 98:12 and D&C 128:12. Interestingly, the word "counsel" is used in parallel with "precept" in 2 Ne 28:30.
  • Sarcastic tone. One transliteration of this verse is tsaw latsaw tsaw latsaw qaw laqaw qaw laqaw zeer sham zeer sham. Given the rhyming, repetitive, monosyllabic words, most scholars take this expression to have a sarcastic tone (cf. "mockers" in verse 22). As noted above, tsaw is an unusual (possibly nonsensical) shortened form of the word mistswah and seems to contribute to the sarcasm of the phrase, possibly implying a rejection of what Ephraim leaders regard as the simplistic solutions offered by the prophet which insult their educated intelligence. Others doubt that the words are meant to be sensical, taking them as sarcastic nonsense syllables, something like “blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda”. Since the tone of the same phrase being used in LDS scripture (viz. 2 Ne 28:30, D&C 98:12, and D&C 128:12) does not seem to be ironic, the Hebrew rendering of these LDS scriptures might more appropriately use mistswah instead of tsaw for the word precept and be teaching a true (lost) principle of the prophets which Ephraim is mocking here.
  • Ecstatic speech. Some scholars have suggested that Ephraim is mocking ecstatic speech, either by Isaiah or by some other (possibly false) temple prophets. In some Qumranic and early Christina circles, this text did seem to be referring to glossalalia (speaking in tongues). (For more on this, see the Anchor Bible reference below.)
  • Gibberish of drunkards.' The Anchor Bible Commentary (see reference below) notes, "Some scholars note the drunkenness of the rulers of Ephraim described earlier in the chapter and take verse 10 as a drunken man’s muttering. This seems to be the approach of the NEB, which paraphrases: “It is all harsh cries and raucous shouts, ‘A little more here, a little there!’” It seems incongruous, however, to compare drunkards to weaned children (or the gibberish spoken by them) to clearly enunciated letters of the Hebrew alphabet."
  • The letters tsade (t) and qof (q). These are the first letters of the Hebrew words for precept (tsav) and line (qav). They are also consecutive letters in the Hebrew alphabet and, as used in this verse, suggest school type learning—learning by rote (see Gileadi reference below) and/or the learning method of small children (the repitition and rhyme in the verse is reminiscent of a nursery rhyme). Also, these letters are the first letters of the words for vomit (qe') and filthiness (tsow'ah) as used in verse 8—if the prophets of Ephraim are talking in v. 10, their words have an ironic similarity to verse 8. Less directly related to the text, a few scholars have suggested tsade and qof represent a presumably true teaching about commandments (tsivvah) and hope (qivvah).
  • Isa 28:10, 13. How one understands verses 10 and 13 depends on whether verse 10 is read as Isaiah (or the author-prophet) speaking or Ephraim speaking (see lexical notes above).
  • Isa 28:10: Isaiah speaking. Most LDS commentators (see references below) read verse 10 as Isaiah speaking (as shown in the KJV). According to this view, the emphasis in the last phrase in verse 9 is on the maturity of those "that are weaned . . . and drawn from the breasts." Verse 10 tells us the manner the Lord teaches, and verse 13, in that view, speaks of those who do not head the word that they have received. To them, the knowledge they have received, rather than leading them to more knowledge, is a snare. They fall backward losing that which they have and are taken. (See Ludlow below.)
  • Isa 28:10: Opposition speaking. Although there are several variations of this view (see lexical notes above), the general idea is that verse 10 is an Ephraimite (a drunkard or corrupt spiritual leader) asking the author-prophet who should "understand doctrine." The question is posed in a sarcastic tone (or possibly a drunken slur of a true teaching; see variations on this point in the lexical notes above) mocking the prophet or God; the author-prophet responds using their own words against them in verse 13.
  • Isa 28:11, 13. If Ephraim is talking in verse 10, then the repetition in verse 13 may be Isaiah (or whoever the author-prophet is) turning their own words against them. This enriches the irony of verse 11 where Isaiah says "and another [foreign] tongue will he speak to this people".
  • Isa 28:12-14: Weaned from the milk. Heb 5:12-14 discusses milk versus meat in terms of understanding the gospel which may be a reference to this verse. In Hebrews, the writer contrasts milk with "strong meat [which] belongeth to them that are of full age." The contrast seems more consistent with the NASB where the immaturity (relative to an adult) of the child just weaned seems to be emphasized, as opposed to the KJV where it could be the maturity (relative to an infant) of the child that is being emphasized. Ps 101 also seems to contrast a weaned child to someone older implying the same kind of emphasis.
  • Isa 28:12-14: Question or statement? The phrase "them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts" is punctuated with a period in the KJV, but a question mark in most other translations (NASB, RSV, ESV, ASV, NKJV, and HCSB). If the prophet of God is speaking in verse 9, then it probably makes more sense to use a period (or exclamation mark like the NET), emphasizing the maturity of those who are weaned from the milk. On the other hand, if the drunkards or prophets of Ephraim are speaking in verse 9, then it probably makes more sense to punctuate the phrase with an question mark interpreting the people of Ephraim as asking a sarcastic question that is emphasizing the immaturity of those just weaned from the breast.
  • Isa 28:18: Shall not stand. The word "stand" (qwm) in Hebrew is used several different though related contexts: in military settings (e.g. Ex 2:17; Josh 7:22; Judg 7:15; cf. Num 23:24 where the lion stands or rises up to eat its prey), in legal settings where the word of testimony "stands"; in covenantal settings God "makes good" on his covenant (e.g. Num 23:19). The covenantal setting seems to make the most sense here in the sense that Israel has made a covenant with death that will not stand. Understanding the other senses in which this word is used adds poetic richness to the meaning here. First, not only will the agreement with hell not stand (up), but it will be trodden down. Second, the courtroom setting of justice doubles echoes the judgment dewscribed in verse 17. Third, it prefigures the Lord rising up in verse 21 and may help expound what the "strange act" the Lord is doing (see lexical notes for verse 21).
  • Isa 28:21: Strange act. The Hebrew root for the word "strange" is nkr which means "to recognize, acknowledge, know, respect, or discern." Although these connotations seem almost opposite the meaning of strange or foreign, the etymology seems to come from the idea of marking something to set it apart and make it known and recognizable. So something that is foreign or strange is marked so that it is recognized as unrecognizable. Here Isaiah's poetically rich writing may be playing off this very double-meaning of the root to convey the idea that God will send a foreign (recognized as unrecognized) people to help Israel recognize that they failed to recognize God as their God. The rising up of God to accomplish this act suggests a legal setting (see lexical notes for verse 18) that is consistent with viewing this "strange act" as a type of indictment against Israel.

Unanswered questions[edit]

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. →

Prompts for life application[edit]

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[edit]

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 28:1: Drunkenness. Here and elsewhere in Isaiah, drunkenness seems to be a major question, something condemned severely by the prophet. Why is drunkenness of such importance to a prophet who lives in an era without the Word of Wisdom?
  • Isa 28:2: Whose hand? Is the hand that casts down in this verse referring to God's hand or the mighty and strong one's hand?


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. →

  • See Francis Landy's article "Tracing the Voice of the Other: Isaiah 28 and the Covenant with Death" in The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible, edited by J. Cheryl Exum and David J. A. Clines (ISBN 156338079X), for an excellent discussion of a number of themes in this chapter.
  • Isa 28:6-10: Anchor Bible Commentary: Much of the material on verses 6-10 is based on Joseph Blenkinsopp’s commentary in the Anchor Bible Commentary (ISBN 0385497164, 1:389), mostly as quoted in Kevin Barney's blog thread mentioned below.
  • LDS Cpmmentary: Isaiah speaking:
  • Gileadi. In The Book of Isaiah: A New Translation with Interpretive Keys From the Book of Mormon (ISBN 087590763, 1988), pp. 80-81, Avraham Gileadi claims the Hebrew rendering of this verse "makes a broad allusion to the schoolmaster method of learning, repeating parrot fashion what the mentor articulates." Gileadi then makes a case that this type of learning stands in contrast to a higher form of learning involving revelation. The contrast can be found in this verse as well as in 2 Ne 28:29-30, D&C 98:12, and D&C 128:21. The spiritual leaders who advocate this rote type of learning, Gileadi contends, are being condemned for dictating "what portion of God's word they learn and at what pace they learn it." This idea is a continuation of the symbolic point made in verses 7-8 where the vomit and filthiness on the table symbolize the contaminated serving of spirtual food.
  • Ludlow. See Isaiah: Prophet, Seer and Poet by Victor Ludlow (ISBN 0877478848, 1982) pp. 260-263. In explaining verse 13, Victor Ludlow says "But instead of leading them to a full knowledge of truth, this knowledge only condems the insensitive people who refuse to heed God's counsel. (See Isa 28:13 footnote b.) For them, his word is a snare in which they trap themselves, and because they refuse to receive more direction from the Lord, they lose the spiritual insights they have already received. (See 2 Ne 28:30; compare D&C 50:24; 93:20.)"
  • Nyman. See Great Are the Words of Isaiah by Monte Nyman (ISBN ??, 19??) pp. 102-3.
  • Skousen. See Isaiah Speaks to Modern Times by Cleon Skousen (ISBN ??, 1984) pp. 387-9. Skousen's view seems similar to Gileadi's outlined above, where the emphasis is on getting beyond the milk of the gospel and discovering the meat. However, Skousen's view of meat is a bit different than Gileadi's, who takes meat as revelation, something beyond the rote, line-upon-line method of learning. Skousen views meat as "gems of doctrinal truth [sprinkled] throughout the scripture like diamonds in a haystack", adding that "The spiritually laert and intelletually mature Gospel student will find the diamonds and apprciate their value. The less mature spirts will feed on the milk and pablum until such time as they are strong enough to digest the deeper doctrines. . . . [The meat would] not be discovered unless a spiritually sinpsired student put it together precept upon precept. . . . Isaiah knew most of the people would not do this. Therefore, they would 'fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.'"
  • Isa 28:10: LDS commentary: Opposition speaking.
  • Kevin Barney. Much of the content on this concept is taken from the Line upon Line post by Kevin Barney at the BCC blog and subsequent discussion regarding the phrases "line upon line" and "precept upon precept" and how they are used here contrasted with how they are used in other scriptures.
  • Seely. See chapter 13, "The Lord Is Our Judge and Our King (Isaiah 18-33)" by David Rolph Seely in Studies in Scripture, Volume 4: 1 Kings to Malachi edited by Kent Jackson (ISBN 087579789X, 1993) pp. 122-3.


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 27                              Next page: Chapter 29