Isaiah 44:1-5 – As Willows by the Water Courses

1 Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant;

and Israel, whom I have chosen:

2          Thus saith the Lord that made thee,

and formed thee from the womb,

which will help thee;

Fear not,

O Jacob, my servant;

and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.

3                                  For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty,

and floods upon the dry ground:

I will pour my spirit upon thy seed,

and my blessing upon thine offspring:

4                                              And they shall spring up as among the grass,

as willows by the water courses.

5 One shall say, I am the Lord’s;

and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob;

and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the Lord,

and surname himself by the name of Israel. (Isaiah 44:1-5)

I like these verses and how easy it is to see the parallelism of repeated thoughts and themes. (I indented at various levels to make it a little more easy to see what things I think go together.)

In verse 1, the Lord is trying to get covenant Israel to listen and is reminding Israel they are chosen and they are His servants. He chose them from the beginning to be His servants. We recognize this because one is not born into the house of Israel by accident, but by design.

Covenant Israel has a tendency to think the job of blessing the entire world is overwhelmingly big, but the Lord tells Israel in v2, “[I] will help thee; Fear not.”

Covenant Israel also recognizes that blessing the whole world is hard work and there are moments when we feel like it would be nice to relax and have others do the teaching for a change. And while we are being examples to the rest of the world, where will we get our examples?  In verse 3, the Lord promises to pour out water (spiritual water) upon those that are thirsty—thirsting after righteousness. “I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring.” It is the Spirit that teaches our children, and often they end up teaching us.

Then there is some beautiful imagery: “they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the water courses.”  To understand this, we only need to remember how grass doesn’t grow unless there is plenty of water.  Similarly, willows grow best when very near some sort of river or lake. This is teaching us that with all the spiritual water the Lord pours out through the Holy Ghost, we and our children will grow easily, just like those plants that grow best when there is plenty of water around.

With that kind of spiritual environment, covenant Israel will know for sure they are the Lord’s people. They will be so certain, they will want to take on a new name, perhaps calling themselves Jacob, or Israel, or perhaps consecrating themselves completely to God.

What do I learn from these verses? They tell us to FEAR NOT.  If we draw near to the Lord, He will draw near to us and satisfy our spiritual hunger and yearnings.

How long are ye slack?

I was surveying the Book of Joshua recently, and these verses stuck out to me:

1 And the whole congregation of the children of Israel assembled together at Shiloh, and set up the tabernacle of the congregation there. And the land was subdued before them.

2 And there remained among the children of Israel seven tribes, which had not yet received their inheritance.

3 And Joshua said unto the children of Israel, How long are ye slack to go to possess the land, which the Lord God of your fathers hath given you? (Joshua 18:1-3)

At this time, the Israelites had conquered a portion of the land, but not all, and 7 out of the tribes hadn’t yet received their inheritances. It seems there was a bit of delay in finishing the job. It is not clear from the text what the reason was—maybe provisioning became difficult for an extended campaign. Maybe the tribes who had received inheritances had lost their motivation to help others receive theirs. Maybe they were tired. Or maybe so much success made them take victory for granted, and they thought they could win anytime. (All that is speculation, of course.)

I think it is interesting that Joshua doesn’t ask about WHY they are slack. Instead, he asks, “How long are ye slack?” Asking that question helps pin down whether the intent to accomplish the task is really there or not. Because if procrastination is a cover for an intent to avoid it permanently, the answer is something like, “Uh…I don’t know.” But if the answer is a definite time frame, there are often valid reasons for delay.

Joshua’s question is a healthy goad to use on ourselves when we’re slacking off. We all delay something sometime when we know we should be up and doing, and sometimes we just need a good kick in the pants from on high.

Is there anything you’ve been delaying? I know a few things I need to work on. Can you tell how long you’re going to delay? Why not get on it now?

I also think Joshua really internalized the counsel from God to be strong and of good courage. There’s an expectation in his question that the Israelites are strong enough to succeed with the Lord’s help if they will just get going and act. He seems like he’s the kind of guy used to doing five impossible things before breakfast.

Kings and Queens as Nursing Fathers and Mothers

In 2 Nephi 6, Jacob discusses some verses of Isaiah in the context of prophesying about the future of the house of Israel, and he paraphrases Isaiah in an interesting way as he discusses. First the Isaiah quote:

6 And now, these are the words: Thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people; and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders.

7 And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers; they shall bow down to thee with their faces towards the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord; for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me. (2 Nephi 6:6-7)

In these verses, the Gentiles seem to have a kind character, even humble, as they carry members of the house of Israel in their arms, nourish them, and bow to them. But Jacob’s reworking shows a different side:

Wherefore, they that fight against Zion and the covenant people of the Lord shall lick up the dust of their feet; and the people of the Lord shall not be ashamed. For the people of the Lord are they who wait for him; for they still wait for the coming of the Messiah. (2 Nephi 6:13)

Jacob interprets the dust-lickers as those who fight against Zion. It is possible he gets this from the similar language to how God cursed the serpent in Eden that it would eat dust all its life. Eating dust is a metaphor for sampling and consuming the gross filthy stuff that isn’t nourishing.

I think that the Isaiah verses describe a mixed set of behaviors—some of the Gentiles helping the house of Israel, and some others of the Gentiles fighting against Zion and ending up licking the dust off their feet.

A very interesting thing I noticed in Isaiah’s verses that I hadn’t seen before is that there is a mutual feeding going on, but the quality is not the same going each way. The Gentiles are nursing the house of Israel (mothers milk = nourishing), but licking the dust of the feet of Israel (gross, filthy, dirty = not nourishing).  The dust-lickers have perverted taste.

In what ways does that image describe reality? If we teach Christianity and the restored gospel, but then get excited about other philosophies and nature worship or some other –isms, that’s an unequal exchange.  Or, if we try to teach the gospel and write books on it, but all anyone ever wants from is the fiction we’ve written, then there’s some dust-licking going on there too. 

I think there lesson for us in these verses is we need to think carefully about the quality of what we nourish our minds and spirits with. Are we getting a good daily diet of milk and meat of the gospel, or are we eating dust?

The Remnant of Israel as a Lion or a Bull

15 And I say unto you, that if the Gentiles do not repent after the blessing which they shall receive, after they have scattered my people—

16 Then shall ye, who are a remnant of the house of Jacob, go forth among them; and ye shall be in the midst of them who shall be many; and ye shall be among them as a lion among the beasts of the forest, and as a young lion among the flocks of sheep, who, if he goeth through both treadeth down and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver.

17 Thy hand shall be lifted up upon thine adversaries, and all thine enemies shall be cut off.

18 And I will gather my people together as a man gathereth his sheaves into the floor.

19 For I will make my people with whom the Father hath covenanted, yea, I will make thy horn iron, and I will make thy hoofs brass. And thou shalt beat in pieces many people; and I will consecrate their gain unto the Lord, and their substance unto the Lord of the whole earth. And behold, I am he who doeth it.

20 And it shall come to pass, saith the Father, that the sword of my justice shall hang over them at that day; and except they repent it shall fall upon them, saith the Father, yea, even upon all the nations of the Gentiles.

21 And it shall come to pass that I will establish my people, O house of Israel. (3 Nephi 20:15-21)

I’ve puzzled over these verses a long time and I feel like I’m beginning to understand it better, so I want to share what I’ve learned. But I recognize that I still have a lot to learn, so my understanding may change over time.

There are two different images used here to represent remnants of the house of Israel. One is of a lion that tears beasts of the forest and flocks of sheep in pieces.  The other is of a raging bull with iron horns and brass hooves that beats many people in pieces.

I previously thought that they were meant to represent the same group of people, but I have recently started to realize that they actually represent two different groups, which is a bit of a relief to me.

The first key for understanding is in the nature of the creatures represented.  We have a lion and we have a bull.  The lion is a wild predatory animal.  But the bull is a domesticated animal. The bull is still dangerous, but he has an owner who has given him iron horns and has fitted him with brass hooves.

This suggests to me that we have two different remnants of Israel. There is a wild remnant and the tame remnant.

Evidently the wild remnant does not even know it is a remnant of Israel. Among all the beasts of the forest (who are also wild) this “lion” remnant is the scariest of the scary.  It fascinates me that the Lord doesn’t disavow this remnant.  Even though it is wild and violent, it is still part of Jacob.

The domesticated remnant is referred to as “my people with whom the Father hath covenanted,” which suggests members of the church.  But we have all this violent imagery of trampling (and probably goring too) with iron horns and brass hooves.  What are we to make of that?

I suspect that the iron horn and brass hooves are to represent the spiritual power that the Lord gives His covenant people.  Horns are many times representative of power. They are everywhere used in the Old Testament to symbolize and suggest power. 

What about the trampling and beating in pieces?  I think this is supposed to be connected with wheat harvest imagery, since the verse before it (v18) says the Lord would gather his people like sheaves into the floor.  Once the sheaves are gathered, the grain has to be separated from the chaff, and the trampling is part of that.  To me, this suggests the processes of missionary work, calls to repentance, spiritual refinement, and the making of choices that will either prove the salvation or damnation of those who make them.  The preaching of the Word has a tendency to divide people on one side or the other. Either people accept it, or they reject it and fight it. This might be said to “beat many people in pieces.”

Let’s go back to the lion imagery of the other remnant.  The lion goes among the beasts of the forest and tears them in pieces. These forest beasts might be interpreted as people who are not spiritually domesticated, yet less wild than the lions. The forest beasts have no protection, and they also don’t seek it.  So they simply suffer, which is sad.  The lion also is among flocks of sheep, which are domesticated.. but we have to ask ourselves, “Where is these flocks’ shepherd?”  Based on their destruction, we have to conclude that they either have no shepherd, or their shepherd does not protect them (which means they have the wrong shepherd).

So in these verses, the Lord is trying to tell us that he will use His covenant people to preach the gospel, but He will also use fierce, spiritually ignorant remnants of his people to 1) try to bring the Gentiles to repentance, and to 2) destroy the wicked.

So we members are not meant to be lions. We never were. (Thank goodness!)  We supposed to be the servant bull--doing the harvest and threshing tasks of missionary work (which some people disapprove of and consider mean and violent, but that’s their problem, not ours.)

I personally think the lions sound a lot like terrorists and their attacks, but time may suggest additional interpretations that fit better.

If we’re told there will be lions that tear people in pieces, do we just stand by and watch?  No, the lions must be destroyed when they appear because after all, they are the worst. They can’t be allowed to run amok when they emerge.  But I think the Lord means their periodic appearance to be a reminder that life can be ended unexpectedly and immediate repentance is necessary. 

These scriptures demonstrate the Lord’s foreknowledge of these things. Some might argue, “If the Lord knew these things ahead of time, why doesn’t He stop them?”  He can do that, but that’s not the only way He can save.  He can also allow the evil to happen (letting evil people have their choice) and then He can make good come out it anyway.  He can take evil and turn it into a victory for good, and save people from the evil that has happened to them.  He can do that because He suffered for all those who are killed or torn in pieces by the lions. 

Addressing the question of a God who apparently commanded genocide in the Old Testament

One of the arguments I’ve heard from people who object to Christianity is that they question the Old Testament stories that depict a God who commanded the Israelites to kill the inhabitants of the promised land in order to take possession.  They point to those stories and say, “I can’t believe in a God who commanded genocide.”  They essentially frame him as a cosmic Hitler.

I admit that when looked at in this light, the stories are disturbing.

However, there are two things I think need to be taken into account.

First, if one charges God with crimes against humanity and essentially put Him on trial, then along with our modern definitions of crime, one has to use modern standards of justice.  In order to be just in this trial, one has to consider the evidence for and against the thing God did. If God had good reason for using His people to wipe out the inhabitants of Palestine at the time of Moses/Joshua, then God was justified. But if the inhabitants were not evil, then God was not justified.

The tricky thing is, there is not much documentary evidence in the Bible about what kind of people the inhabitants were.  And there is some evidence in God's favor, but it is scarce.  Because of this scarcity, it is tempting to acquit the inhabitants and condemn God, but actually our court standards require us to presume innocence until proven guilty. So one must withhold judgment against both the inhabitants that were killed and against God who commanded their killing.

And that leads to an interesting point where one presumes innocence of both the inhabitants and the God who had them destroyed.  But this might lead one to ask oneself, “Who is likely to be more innocent—man or God?”

Second, it might be useful to imagine ourselves in God’s position at that time and consider the particular situation God was in and the goals He might have been working toward and the cultural situation of the peoples He had to work with.

So, imagine you are God.

Ready?

You have a group of people who believe in you, and they have been slaves for perhaps a generation, maybe two. You’ve delivered them from bondage so that they can serve you and become a better people. They have practically nothing. They know how to work hard, but their greatest labors have been coerced, so you’ll need to teach them about being internally motivated.  They also have a sad but understandable tendency toward disobedience and complaining that you’ve been trying to train out of them with 40 years in the wilderness.

Where are you going to settle these people of yours? Is there an empty land that is reasonably easy to cultivate? How will they survive in the time it takes to cultivate a season of crops if they have nothing? (You’ve been feeding them with manna all this time.) Where will they get the tools and seed to use, if they have practically nothing? How far will they need to travel to get to this land?

Is there a culture nearby who has enough charity and care for humanity that they will be willing to give relief to your people? Will they be able to tolerate the religious duties you have set your people?

Suppose, for argument’s sake, that there was such a people. Would there be any need to give your people the command to destroy?  No, of course not.  Your people would likely find refuge there and over a period of years find places to settle.

Now, suppose that the other cultures are hostile to everything you’re trying to teach your people.  Suppose there are serious problems with moral corruption, perversion, violence, and injustice.  (Suppose you tried all kinds of ways to reach these people before and they don’t listen.)  You understand the pressures to culturally assimilate, and the last thing you want is for your people to start learning those nasty practices. 

Destroying the inhabitants starts to look like a viable option.  (Naturally, there are a lot of additional factors that God would probably take into consideration, along with a large dose of mercy and forbearance, but I think we get the idea.)

But does it have to be your people who destroy the inhabitants?  Wouldn’t it be better to let the inhabitants destroy one another?  There’s a small problem with this.  Nature abhors a vacuum, and as soon as one culture destroys another, the land will be taken over by the victorious side, so it would still be occupied. 

Why not destroy the inhabitants with massive natural disaster, like Sodom and Gomorrah?  There’s a problem with that too. If the inhabitants get wiped off the map with natural disaster, it is likely their possessions and tools would be too, and you need to preserve that stuff to help your people get a leg up.

Why not hit the inhabitants with a deadly disease then?  Problem is, it’ll leave all their stuff covered in germs, and while your people are instructed in cleanliness and washing as part of the law you’ve given them, all it takes is one person carrying it and you’ve got a pandemic on your hands.

Commanding your people to destroy the inhabitants starts to look more viable..

But why not try to use lots of big miracles to convince the inhabitants to receive the Israelites?  Well, actually God did that.  The news of the Exodus miracles and all the subsequent miracles spread to the Palestine peoples, but instead of deciding to help the Israelites, the inhabitants were frightened and most preferred to fight.  One king (Balaak) even tried to have Israel cursed.

Ultimately, these considerations still may not be convincing to some, but as a person who believes in the God of the Old Testament, they help me remember several things:

--A decision of the kind God made is an incredibly heavy responsibility and would require full and complete knowledge. In a word, omniscience. 

--I don’t know all the factors leading to this particular command, but the ones I can imagine give me a hint of how God worked with the conditions of the time.

--The Bible doesn’t tell the full story. But I have faith that ultimately there will come a day when all the whys and wherefores of God’s doings will be explained.

Probably the most worrisome aspect of this discussion may be the implication that such a command might be given again.  But I think that unlikely.  That particular command was instruction customized to a particular set of conditions, much like God’s command to Noah to build an ark was customized to circumstances in his day.   

Since God is omniscient, no doubt He knew that future generations would not have a full record of the conditions that would make conquest by His people necessary. He knew He would be painted in black colors as an angry tribal God, but since He intended to bear the blame and fault for all mankind to give us all a chance to repent, He was not deterred by that. 

When Jesus taught the people during His mortal ministry, He declared Himself as Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament. Since He bore the sins of the Palestine inhabitants, He certainly had authority to say when their time was up. It is possible that He intended our sparse Biblical record to be a test to see if people could muster the faith to believe He was good even though it might look like He did something that would appear unjustified.