Digital Logos Edition
In his famous vision of the enthroned and exalted Lord, Isaiah is told to harden the hearts of his people, “lest they repent” (Isaiah 6:9–10). According to Mark's Gospel, which cites this text, Jesus speaks in parables for the same reason. Interpreters of all generations have, not unnaturally, found the text difficult and disturbing. This study is concerned with the fascinating variety of early Jewish and Christian interpretations and modifications that have attempted to cope with the difficulty. At different stages in Judaism and Christianity the Isaianic vision of God is more clearly perceived than at other times. Isaiah 6:9–10 is itself indeed shocking and disturbing, but this is not inappropriate in the context of the prophetic message.
Craig A. Evans is Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament, Acadia Divinity College Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada.
“It is concluded therefore that Isaiah’s vision was not a vision for the purpose of his call into the prophetic vocation, but was a vision and commission of judgment. Isaiah has witnessed the heavenly council convened for purposes of decreeing a final judgment upon Jerusalem. It is is this sense, then, that Isaiah’s ‘call’ in ch. 6 should be understood. His call was a commission to deliver the message of impending judgment. This judgment began with the very message itself, for the message was to act as a catalyst in promoting obduracy, and so guarantee the certainty of judgment.” (Page 24)
“The expression, ‘this people’ (in contrast to ‘my people’, cf. Isa. 40:1) connotes a sense of contempt” (Page 18)
“The present study is a study in comparative midrash.” (Page 15)
“G. Vermes has put it, ‘to fuse Scripture with life’” (Page 14)
“I am interested in the text of Isa. 6:9–10 because in a certain sense it epitomizes the struggle to monotheize, that is, to explain all of existence in terms of God and his sovereign will. I believe that Isa. 6:9–10 is perhaps one of the most important prophetic witnesses to the monotheistic hermeneutic, the hermeneutic that lies at the very heart of the canon.” (Page 16)