Isaiah 41.21-42.4
Bring
forth your lawsuit! Says the Lord.
Bring your strong
proof!
Let
them bring and show to us
that
which will happen:
let them declare the first things,
what will be;
Let them declare to us and we will consider
that we might know the
outcome.
Declare the coming things to forever
and
we will concede that you are gods.
Do
something good or evil,
that
we might be dismayed
and
awe together.
Behold! You are nothing,
and
your works are from oblivion.
Those
who choose you are an abomination.
I
raise up one from the North,
and
he comes;
from the East Sun,
he
will call on my name
And
he will trample the princes as mortar,
as
a potter treads over clay.
Who
has declared from the beginning
that
we might know?
And declared from before
that
we might say, “You are right”?
No
one has declared.
No
one has considered.
No
one has heard your words.
I
have declared it to Zion,
and
I give comfort to Jerusalem.[1]
And
I look, and there is no one;
and
from them no councilor
who
could answer as I asked them.
Behold,
they are an illusion!
They
work nothing.
Their
images are wind and confusion.
Behold
my servant, whom I grasp,
my
servant in whom I am well pleased.
I have given my spirit to him:
he
brings judgment to the nations.
He
does not laugh,
he
does not lift his voice.
He does not draw attention
with
his voice outside.
A
reed he does not crush;
Nor
does he extinguish a wick.
And
he will bring forth judgment.
He shall not fall
nor
be discouraged
until he has set judgment on the earth
and
the coasts shall await his law.
This paper wishes to argue by the use of form critical methods, that Isaiah 41.21-42.4 has the necessary features to be considered a rib or trial speech, based on the form of the ancient Hittite covenant lawsuit proposed by G. Ernest Wright. This form includes a summons (41.21-22a), case lead by prosecutor (41.22b-24, 26-27), list of great deeds by the suzerain (41.25), an indictment/verdict (41.29) and a sentencing (42.1-4).[2] At the time of her captivity Israel stood in a distinct position of ethnic identification, which separated itself from its surrounding Gentile neighbors.[3] This paper holds that the author of Is 40-55 uses a rib form to within 41.21-42.4 to express the controversy and tension that was occurring between Israel and the nations during the Exile.
Many authors have isolated Isaiah 42.1-5 (or vv 1-9) due to the popularity and generally hegemonous view that this is one of the four servant songs that Duhm demarked in his seminal work which discerned multiple sources in the Isaian corpus. This view is still held today. McKenzie and Blenkinsopp both propose this idea.[4]
John Collins offers a more promising view in 1986. Collins holds that 41.21-42.9 is a whole unit which mirrors the preceding passage, 41.1-20. Both passages envision trial scenes, the first for Israel and the second for foreign nations and their gods. Both contain a similar structure.
Summons to trial 41.1 41.21
Legal questioning 41.2-4 41.22-29
Election of Israel 41.5-20 42.1-9
I agree with Collins that 42.1-4 belongs with 41.21-29, and that this scene parallels the previous trial in 41.1-20. I do, however, question the assumed identity of the defendant in the first trial as Israel (this will be discussed further below). Also his selection of structure does not focus enough on generic matters, for instance, he leaves behind the notion of verdict and sentencing.[5] In addition, the form in 42.5 appears to change to a declaration speech (Thus says the Lord), which is not common in trial settings.
Although many scholars hold that 41.1-8 is a trial of Israel and 41.21-29 is a trial against the nations[6], this paper agrees more with James Muilenberg who holds that 41.1-42.4 is a sustained trial against the nations and their gods.[7] The first part (41.1-20) is against the nations themselves, and the second part (41.21-42.4) is against their gods. Although this paper focuses on the form and structure of 41.21-42.4, we will need to recognize its context within a larger trial. As it is, our text contains all of the necessary forms to be considered.
In this proposed trial scene God sets himself as true God, the sole ruler of the earth. The idols of the nations are proven to be worthless; and while the nations are denounced for their choice of gods, Israel is raised in high esteem before them. Even Cyrus, the ruler of the nations, is said to give homage and vassalage to Yhwh, and his success is attributed to Yhwh’s patronage.
Though
the verdict occurs in 41.29, the reactions and idols are sentenced in
42.1-4. Their punishment is to observe
Yhwh (King of the gods) bestowing his spirit on Israel alone. Thus the prophet affirms God’s supreme
sovereignty, denounces the nations and their idols, and reaffirms God’s love
for Israel alone by using a trial setting and juridical language in a rib format to condemn idolatry and
non-Israelites in a formal yet creative fashion.
Although the form of a general trial speech existed, investigations into ancient near eastern forms of literature led some scholars to define the form further. One is tempted to use a more specific form of the rib for this passage, as compiled by Harvey.[8] This rib form, based on ancient near eastern legal texts, can have two different variations. It can end with the threat of destruction and exhortation to change, as in Isaiah 1 and Micah 6, or it can conclude with a sentence of assured destruction or degradation, as in Jeremiah 2. The best fit for Is 41.21-42.9 would appear to be the rib of destruction. This contains 1) a summons of defendants and witnesses, 2) trial questions and an accusation, 3) a list of Yhwh’s gracious acts in difference to Israel’s infidelity, 4) reference to the vanity of cultic efforts, and 5) a declaration of guilt and threat of destruction.[9]
This would appear to be a good fit, but although Harvey qualified his forms to allow for either destruction or a warning and exhortation to repentance, his structure does not reach back to the original Sitz im Leben, but rather incorporates factors that are clearly Israelite (such as the naming of Yhwh and the cult, and the comparison of Israel’s infidelity). Thus we may conclude that our passage does not fit comfortably into Harvey’s rib of destruction format.
After Hoffman classified the rib further as a ‘covenant lawsuit’, in 1962 G. Ernest Wright combined studies of ancient covenantal treaties with Deuteronomy 32.[10] He determined this form of argument found in Deut 32 has parallels in Hittite suzerain treaties with Yhwh taking the place of a Hittite lord “acts as judge, plaintiff and jury.”[11] We will use the form structure that Wright proposes:
Call to Witnesses 41.21-22a (cf. 41.1)
Introductory Statement of the case vv 22b-24
Acts of the Suzerain vv 25-28
Indictment v 29
Sentence 42.1-4
We prefer this model over the others given above because of its contingency (it includes options for prosecutor and indictment) and its adherence to Ancient Near Eastern literature (i.e.: the form mentions of suzerain rather than Yhwh). Due to the nature of our passage, however, we will need to qualify one particular aspect of this form. It is assumed, and we will argue below, that this form was originally established and used in ceremonies so that a rebellious vassal could be tried for disobedience to the suzerain’s covenant.
In our passage, however, the defendants are not vassals of the suzerain, but rather they seem to question Yhwh’s selection of his vassal, Israel. It is possible one is to assume the nations expected to receive Yhwh’s lordship themselves. Regardless, their challenge of Yhwh’s decision is a challenge of Yhwh’s authority, and so they are brought to trial before the witnesses by Yhwh so that he might defend his covenant with Israel. In this instance the trial is on behalf of the vassal, rather than against them. Despite this variance, the Hittite ‘covenant lawsuit’ form is apparent in the text, and it is to the author’s credit for achieving this brilliant shift.
Setting
and Sitz im Leben of the Rib form:
Every genre has a starting point. Limburg has denoted a number of instances in the Hebrew Bible that show a likely place for court proceedings within the Jephthah story (Judg 10.17-12.6) and Sefire inscriptions.[12] Hayes adds, “after Zedekiah rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar he was brought before the Babylonian king who ‘spoke to him the judgments’ (Jer 39.5; cf. 2 Kg 25.6).”[13] Such a scenario is reticent of a the infringement of a vassal treaty, as are the court scenes in Ezekiel where Zedekiah is condemned for his disloyalty to the treaty (Ez 17.11-21; 21.23-29; 29.14-16), each carrying a statement of the case, an indictment and a sentence.[14] Wright has argued that such rib ceremonies were even incorporated into liturgies in Northern Israel, as they are reflected in both Deuteronomy and the prophets. It is a brilliant idea, but there remains little evidence to prove.[15]
Against the Nations: 41.1-20
Although nearly every scholar has argued for this passage to be a rib against Israel and the nations simply acting as witnesses, this conclusion simply does not appear to hold. 1) Every rib against Israel contains a clear summons of Israel to trial (Is 1.4; 43.1; Ps 50.7; Deut 32.5; Je 2.4; Mi 6.1). There is no question of the identity of the defendant in these cases: it is Israel. The matter is not as clear in Is 41.1. Three characters are mentioned and addressed by Yhwh. Israel does not appear until v 8, and then he is comforted, not accused. 2) The use of grammar appears to show the nations being called to trial not as witnesses but as defendants. The coastlands are clearly the witnesses (cf. the heavens and earth in other ribs mentioned). God orders the coastlands with a direct 2nd person imperative. But he addresses the nations (41.1b-d) with three direct 3rd person imperatives: let them “get refreshed”, “approach”, and “speak.” Just the opposite, the coastlands are told to be silent! Thus these are clearly not two groups of witnesses. God then uses the cohortative, ‘let us draw near for judgment’, but he appears to still be speaking to the nations. In this paragraph there are three characters coming to trial, and Israel is nowhere to be found. It would also be quite problematic editorially to call the nations to judge Israel when they are about to be judged in the very next scene!
The questioning overviews mythical events that only a true God can do: it implies that only one can do this without need for help. God accuses the nations of worshiping idols rather than the true God, and accuses the idols of being impotent. The outcome is never truly in doubt. The verdict contains a satirical and scathing ‘compliment’ to those who comfort each other with their idols, when they have already been found to be unable to answer the questions given them. The sentencing is found within the song of consolation to Israel. “Behold, all who are incensed against you shall be put to shame” (v 11). Israel is given mythical qualities which allow it to thresh mountains, clearly a change of status for this lowly nation, and a difficult matter for other nations to recognize. The trial is called in order for Yhwh to defend his right to elect Israel and give extraordinary powers therewith without the nations’ affirmation. It is with this context that we are can understand Act II of this trial more clearly.
This paper argues that this text continues Yhwh’s defense of his own authority to elect and choose Israel against the nations; but in this pericope Yhwh addresses the nations’ gods themselves, nearly taunting them to show their power and authority to do similar acts. The gods’ impotence is shown in their silence, and the passage closes with a final indictment of their utter uselessness by the coastlands.
The passage 42.1-4 as a sentencing for the nations, for “their particular destiny is interpreted in the light of Israel’s peculiar function as the instrument of divine judgment.”[16] Muilenberg points out the prophet’s emphasis on טפשמ (justice) throughout this strophe as a reassurance of God’s divine judgment and justice that has been laid out against the nations.
Summons: 41.21
The defendants are ordered to court; the speaker identifying himself as Yhwh and the King of Jacob. The second person imperatives are clearly addressed to the defendant, ordering them to come near for judgment and plead their own lawsuit (ביר) and defense or proofs (המצע). Yhwh calls on the defendants to bring both defensive and offensive arguments; the case against Yhwh[17] is perhaps that he has assumed too much authority in defending Israel (41.8-20) and shaming the nations (41.1-7). If the defendants are the nations’ idols (gods), and they likely are, then they will attempt to prove that they are more powerful than Yhwh.
The next verse (22a) presents a shift from imperative (2nd person) to jussive (3rd person) and indicates a shift in addressee; the new recipient of Yhwh’s speech are the coastlands, called to be witnesses in 41.1. After a brief recess the trial has resumed. Yhwh calls directly to the coastlands, but indirectly he speaks again to the idols, telling them for the third time to come near (ברק, שגנ) and to say before the court “what is to happen.”
Clearly this is not the summons to a new trial, but instead it repeats the pattern by calling the nations to present a case rather than merely shake (cf. 41.7). The call for the gods to present their case (םכביר) is consistent with other summonses (Mi 6.1; Ho 2.4),[18] and is purposed by the author to remind the reader of the present juridical setting. The witnesses are the coastlands, first called to witness in silence in v 1. The defendants now are not people, as before. Here Yhwh calls the gods of the nations to trial, as shown by ‘that we might know that you are gods’ (v 23) and the implication that these subjects are the recipients of some adoration (v 24). The suzerain status, and thus his authority to act as prosecutor and judge is emphasized by the title ‘King of Jacob.’ This title is seen nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible; it denotes not only Yhwh’s kingship over Israel, but also over the other gods. Baltzer sees here a heavenly court scene similar to that in Psalm 82; there the trial takes place at the highest king’s palace, and the witnesses are called before him to plead their case.[19]
Legal Case Introduced by Prosecution: 41.22b-24
In this section Yhwh presents three challenges to the defendants to prove their worth. In the first challenge Yhwh returns to imperative speech, directly calling on the idols to “tell us of the former things.” In a switch to the cohortative Yhwh states that he expects proof that will elicit a reaction from him and the witnesses, such that they will be brought to consider these former things and “to know their outcome.”
What are the things of long ago? Yhwh addresses the import of the past, even in his vociferous satire, for it is in knowing the past that one can understand what has transpired to the present. The former things are undeniably intricate to the prophet’s theology. Yhwh is the only one who can proclaim the things of old because he is the only one who devised them (42.9; 45.11, 21; 46.9-11). The nations clearly cannot (41.22-24; and again in 43.9).
The second challenge is set off by a definitive ‘or’ in the text, which gives the next option for proof (22d). This second opportunity implies either that they were not able to answer, or that Yhwh knows they are not able; it is likely that the author intends for both meanings since the entire trial is a farce to the prophet. The outcome is never truly in doubt. This second option, in contrast to the previous, is to “declare…the things to come.” It points to the near future and the political changes about to take place on the earth’s stage. They are to speak of these things that are to come, and then to even foretell “the things that shall come afterward.” It is by knowledge of political events that the gods are to defend their authority and power.
The previous statement offered that actions have consequences; the former things created events and outcomes: the tension within the scene is then heightened as the easier question to answer would clearly be what happened before: but since the idols could not give response to that, it is even more unlikely that they can answer a question whose complexity is based on the prior. The farce is heightened as the stakes are raised: now Yhwh encourages then that to show such a display he will acknowledge they are gods.
Third, they are challenged to do something, anything “good or evil” which is likely intended to include all possible actions. Yhwh excoriates them to instill “awe and fear” in him and the witnesses. But alas, they can do nothing at all. The imagery the author is trying to convey is becoming clearer now: one can see Yhwh challenge idols carved from stone and wood sitting in inanimate silence. As with 41.1-5 the object of the proceedings is the legal settlement of who can claim to be God. Here divinity is proved through “a congruity in word and deed, promise and fulfillment.”[20]
Yhwh gives a special honor to Israel: after he
wills the plans and speaks them, the plans do not come to pass until Israel has
heard them (48.3, 6). This is incredibly
important for Israel’s honor, because even the nations’ gods do not know what
is transpiring (41.22-24; and again in 43.9).
Every event has an outcome, and the idols know neither the beginning nor
the endpoint of earthly events. Israel
is given a special honor in hearing of these incredible events before they are
fulfilled.
The accusation (v 24) is a key point within the trial questions, and may be overly presumed in G. Wright’s format. Regardless, this attribute is omnipresent in rib speeches: and is always found within the prosecutor’s opening salvo. In this instance Yhwh responds to the idols’ inaction by accusing them of being substantively nothing, and their works “nought.” It is assumed by the text that Yhwh’s diatribe goes uninterrupted primarily because the ‘gods’ are completely ignorant and impotent. They are unable to discern any of the events prior or future because Yhwh is in full control of the situation. They are unable to perform acts of good or evil as well!
Because of their silence and inactivity Yhwh lashes out at them with an insufferable charge: they are worthless; and those who choose (to worship) them are “an abomination” (הבעת). This is a loaded term that is used to describe a worshipper of idols (Jer 2.7) the offering of children (Jer 32.35), witchcraft (Deut 18.9, 12) and idolatrous practices (Deut 13.5; 17.4; Ez 16.50; 18.12 and Mal 2.11). Thus the accusation, though directed at the gods, indirectly offends the nations as well: in their ignorance the nations choose to worship the worthless idols rather than Yhwh, the true suzerainty.
Gracious acts of the Suzerain: 41.25-28
In its original setting this form was intended to show the suzerain’s authority and also his own fidelity to the covenantal relationship. Here the King of Jacob proves that he knows and has control over the past, present and future, and presents himself as the king of the gods by moving a major worldly figure without the other gods’ approval or affirmation. Cyrus is the one who came from the North and from the East, and his calling on Yhwh’s name is an acceptance of Yhwh’s patronage. Yet another proof of Yhwh’s head-godship is found as Cyrus the king of the world makes himself a vassal of Yhwh, and not of the other gods. Although the Cyrus Cylinder denotes Marduk as his helper,[21] the prophet’s theology already knows who is control of the situation; the prophet’s theology has superceded the ruler’s history. Cyrus becomes an instrument of Yhwh and succeeds only as Yhwh’s servant, at Yhwh’s command; thus the king of the world recognizes Yhwh as the true God King.
After this revelation of the coming events Yhwh returns to interrogating the defendants: he asks which of them had foreseen Cyrus coming, as shown by the cohortatives which again group Yhwh and the witnesses together as expectant audience to the defendants. If they had said before Yhwh and the witnesses might be able to concede that they are right. But as it was, none of them knew, and thus they could not foretell the events about to unfold.
This sets up the next clear first person declaration by Yhwh: “I have declared”, a fact which reiterates his knowledge of the former things and thus the things to come. Knowledge is proof of power, but declaring an event ahead of time is proof of both knowledge and power. “The Lord of history is he who can allow the future to be told in advance.”[22] Yhwh has done this, but he declared the news not to the nations but to Zion.
Yhwh gives a second accusation to the idols after they are unable to answer at all (v 28). There is no one to speak on their behalf, even their worshippers are silenced by the mock proceedings. No councilor steps forward to speak on behalf of the silent, inanimate idols. God’s authority is established in the text as the gods come to him for trial at his palace, and his movement of Cyrus to be “king of the world” is not open to discussion, nor is his election of Israel. His decision to let them return to their home to rebuild Jerusalem and their Temple has been promised from the beginning; since the idols did not know of this past promise, nor of the events that were about to unfold, it is clear that they have no control over any events on the earth.
Indictment: 41.29
This statement brings the entire trial to a close. The speaker declares, Behold! But it is not clear who is speaking, or who is being spoken to. The third person is cogent if Yhwh is speaking to the coastlands; but it is also possible that here the coastlands speak since in v 24 Yhwh uses second person pronominal suffixes when he speaks directly to the defendants. Here third person pronominal suffixes could denote the coastlands affirming the suzerain’s accusations and giving their verdict. Historically the suzerain had authority as judge, but the custom may have changed in Babylonian influence.[23] The defendant may be the nations for a second time, considering that the idols are the indirect objects in 29c, and not the direct recipient. The nations are brought back in the last verse for condemnation (29c) along with their idols (29a, b).
Sentencing: 42.1-4
Muilenberg and other scholars believe טפשמ implies that the servant will have a mission to distribute justice to the nations.[24] Other scholars rebuke this idea and place this particular section as a separate entity, grouping it with the three other servant songs. Following the other forms of a rib genre, however, the only one remaining is a carrying out of judgment in the sentence. טפשמ and הרות denote a judicial sense, that when combined with four other forms of a rib, logically entail a sentencing format. Despite his contentions of this point, McKenzie does concede that the servant clearly has a mission to the nations as he acts on behalf of Yhwh as a mediator.[25]
There are only two past tense verbs in this passage: הצר (pleased) and ןתנ (gave). Everything else is in the present, ongoing or future tense. The current status-shift of Israel denotes present/ongoing action for the imperfect verbs. Yhwh grasps his servant before the defendants at that moment to show where his favor truly rests. By Israel’s redemption God will be honored above the other gods[26]; he is truly God of gods and Israel is truly his servant.
Israel is the servant (דבע) of the king God. This was the title “held by a royal plenipotentiary among Israel’s neighbors, and so was a title of honor.”[27] This title implied absolute obedience, but it also allowed for a certain amount of executive power to be used in the king’s name and by his authority. When combined with the terms טפשמ and הרות there is a heightened idea of justice being executed by a vicarious agent. Israel is the “royal vizier”, no longer not-my-people but are now truly “my people” (40.1) with the King God’s authority and honor bestowed upon her.[28] The theory that 42.1-4 acts as a sentencing takes better shape when seen in this perspective.
The term to grasp וב-ךמתא (cf. Gen 48.17; Am 1.5, 8; Pro 3.18) is a preferred translation to ‘uphold.’[29] The grasping action denotes a more proper suzerain-vassal imagery and presents Yhwh as a more powerful being. Israel’s history begins with her election—it is a privilege and an obligation (Ex 19.5-6; Am 3.1-2; Deut 7.7ff; 14.2), but be chosen entails a purpose. This idea of election and service go together often in Is 40-55 (41.8-9; 43.10; 44.1-2). Israel has intimate ties with Yhwh, and he loves his people (41.8; 49.15-16; 54.9-10). Election is followed by endowment, and this gift of the spirit is permanent (Is 11.2). The possessor now has unusual powers. Within this mission the servant will not use violence or coercion. Israel’s weakness as a nation at the author’s time is dealt with by claiming it to be divinely intoned, just as their election is.
The sentence and affirmation of Yhwh’s verdict that the idols are nothing is found in the acting out of his earthly plans by setting his Spirit on Israel. Cyrus rising from the Northeast was only the beginning; with the Spirit on Israel Yhwh declares her his servant, alongside his other servant Cyrus. Above all the other nations, Yhwh, king of the gods, has chosen Israel. The nations’ inability to plead their case forces them to accept Israel as the greatest nation of all, the servant of the highest king (an extraordinary status in the ancient world). And their sentence is to recognize and accept these events as fact, never to let their arrogance question Yhwh’s authority again.
Israel existed as a national-religious community, even in captivity. They stood in a position to confront their Gentile neighbors. There was no warfare, but there was “controversy.” The prophet shows this antagonism with metaphors, lawsuits and judgment. Jacob the worm feared (41.14; 43.1) because of those incensed at her (40.11-12; 45.24). Israel was despised and hated by the nations (49.7), and “reaction to blasphemy was often counter-blasphemy.”[30]
In this passage a lawsuit is used as proof that idolatry is worthless. Prophecy is used as a proof of polemic against idolatry, setting the arguments before “visionary courts” of God against the nations and ‘gods’ (40.18-26; 41.1-7; 42.8-9; 43.9-13; 44.6-20; 45.18-21; 46.5-11; 48.14-15).[31] The prophet uses a rib form to show ethno-political problems of his day, but also to reaffirm God’s place and promise in Israel’s history and faith. The passage clearly follows a rib form as proposed by Wright. It contains a summons, presentation of case, acts of suzerain, indictment and sentencing.
This conventional form was “creatively changed” to exist in the author’s own theological message.[32] The vassal is no longer on trial but rather is honored before pretentious objectors. Yhwh’s power and Israel’s honor is proven before all the nations, their gods. In the end, it is a story of love and joy, of ethnic identity and religious pride, and the fortitude to maintain one’s faith. Even in the face of opposition, the outcome was never truly in doubt.
[1] The corruption of the text leads me to rely more on the LXX: archn Siwn dwsw kai Ierousalhm parakalesw.
[2] Compare Wright’s model to more simplistic forms of a ‘trial speech’ in J. Hayes, Old Testament Form Criticism (Trinity: San Antonio, 1977) 156 and G. Tucker, Form Criticism of the Old Testament (Fortress: Philadelphia, 1971) 66-67.
[3] Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Babylonian Captivity and Deutero-Isaiah (UAHC: New York, 1970) 108.
[4] Cf. McKenzie, Second Isaiah: AB, (Doubleday: New York, 1968) 37, and J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40-55: AB, (Doubleday: New York, 2002) 209.
[5] Adela Y. Collins makes a similar critique of R. Bauckham’s structural analysis of the oppression/vindication model narrative in “The Genre of the Pre-Markan Passion Narrative”, HTR (1991) 32-56.
[6] This is the majority view, though readings of the contrast can be found in Collins and Blenkinsopp.
[7] James Muilenburg, IB: Isaiah 40-66, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1956) 12.381-776.
[8] Hayes, 168.
[9] J. Hayes, Old Testament Form Criticism, 167.
[10] G. Ernest Wright, “The Lawsuit of God: A Form Critical Study of Deuteronomy 32,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage, ed. B. Anderson and W. Harrelson (Harper: New York, 1962) 53.
[11] Ibid.
[12] J. Limburg, “The Root Ryb and the Prophetic Lawsuit Speeches,” JBL (1969) 291-304.
[13] Hayes, 168.
[14] Ibid.
[15] G. Ernest Wright, 59.
[16] James Muilenburg, 364.
[17] Brevard Childs agrees that there is some pretension in the idols’ approach to Yhwh, likely stemming from conflict in authority and power over earthly events, Isaiah: OTL, (Westminster: Louisville, 2001) 320.
[18] J. Muilenberg holds that “bring your proofs” is a more likely translation of םכיתובצע because of parallelism (cf. Pr 18.18; LXX has boulai umwn and the Vulgate, siquid forte habetitis) 46.
[19] Klaus Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah:Hermeneia, (Fortress: Grand Rapids, 2001) 117.
[20] Klaus Baltzer, 116.
[21] James Muilenburg, 343.
[22] Gerhard von Rad, The Message of the Prophets, (Harper, Row: New York, 1965) 210.
[23] G. Ernest Wright, “The Lawsuit of God: A Form Critical Study of Deuteronomy 32,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage, ed. B. Anderson and W. Harrelson (Harper: New York, 1962) 53.
[24] Scholars who view 42.1-4 as having a judicial tone include Muilenberg, Begrich, Sidney, Smith and Lindblom and J.J. Collins. John McKenzie, Second Isaiah: AB, (Doubleday: Garden City, 1968) 37.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Babylonian Captivity and Deutero-Isaiah, (UAHC: New York, 1970) 110.
[27] George A.F. Knight, Deutero Isaiah, (Abingdon: New York, 1965) 70.
[28] Ibid, 71.
[29] J. Muilenburg, 356.
[30] Ibid, 108.
[31] Ibid, 109.
[32] Brevard Childs, Isaiah: OTL, (Westminster: Louisville, 2001) 322.