4:33 Now in that very moment 2 this pronouncement about 3 Nebuchadnezzar came true. 4 He was driven from human society, he ate grass like oxen, and his body became damp with the dew of the sky, until his hair became long like an eagle’s feathers, and his nails like a bird’s claws. 5
6:10 Make the hearts of these people calloused;
make their ears deaf and their eyes blind!
Otherwise they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
their hearts might understand and they might repent and be healed.” 6
1:11 They will perish, but you continue.
And they will all grow old like a garment,
1 tn Aram “until.”
2 tn Aram “hour.”
3 tn Or “on.”
4 tn Aram “was fulfilled.”
5 tn The words “feathers” and “claws” are not present in the Aramaic text, but have been added in the translation for clarity.
6 sn Do we take this commission at face value? Does the Lord really want to prevent his people from understanding, repenting, and being healed? Verse 9, which ostensibly records the content of Isaiah’s message, is clearly ironic. As far as we know, Isaiah did not literally proclaim these exact words. The Hebrew imperatival forms are employed rhetorically and anticipate the response Isaiah will receive. When all is said and done, Isaiah might as well preface and conclude every message with these ironic words, which, though imperatival in form, might be paraphrased as follows: “You continually hear, but don’t understand; you continually see, but don’t perceive.” Isaiah might as well command them to be spiritually insensitive, because, as the preceding and following chapters make clear, the people are bent on that anyway. (This ironic command is comparable to saying to a particularly recalcitrant individual, “Go ahead, be stubborn!”) Verse 10b is also clearly sarcastic. On the surface it seems to indicate Isaiah’s hardening ministry will prevent genuine repentance. But, as the surrounding chapters clearly reveal, the people were hardly ready or willing to repent. Therefore, Isaiah’s preaching was not needed to prevent repentance! Verse 10b reflects the people’s attitude and might be paraphrased accordingly: “Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their mind, repent, and be restored, and they certainly wouldn’t want that, would they?” Of course, this sarcastic statement may also reveal that the Lord himself is now bent on judgment, not reconciliation. Just as Pharaoh’s rejection of Yahweh’s ultimatum ignited judgment and foreclosed, at least temporarily, any opportunity for repentance, so the Lord may have come to the point where he has decreed to bring judgment before opening the door for repentance once more. The sarcastic statement in verse 10b would be an emphatic way of making this clear. (Perhaps we could expand our paraphrase: “Otherwise they might…repent, and be restored, and they certainly wouldn’t want that, would they? Besides, it’s too late for that!”) Within this sarcastic framework, verse 10a must also be seen as ironic. As in verse 9 the imperatival forms should be taken as rhetorical and as anticipating the people’s response. One might paraphrase: “Your preaching will desensitize the minds of these people, make their hearing dull, and blind their eyes.” From the outset the Lord might as well command Isaiah to harden the people, because his preaching will end up having that effect. Despite the use of irony, we should still view this as a genuine, albeit indirect, act of divine hardening. After all, God did not have to send Isaiah. By sending him, he drives the sinful people further from him, for Isaiah’s preaching, which focuses on the Lord’s covenantal demands and impending judgment upon covenantal rebellion, forces the people to confront their sin and then continues to desensitize them as they respond negatively to the message. As in the case of Pharaoh, Yahweh’s hardening is not arbitrarily imposed on a righteous or even morally neutral object. Rather his hardening is an element of his righteous judgment on recalcitrant sinners. Ironically, Israel’s rejection of prophetic preaching in turn expedites disciplinary punishment, and brings the battered people to a point where they might be ready for reconciliation. The prophesied judgment (cf. 6:11-13) was fulfilled by 701
7 tn Grk “he had often been bound with chains and shackles.” “Shackles” could also be translated “fetters”; they were chains for the feet.
8 tn Grk “and.” Here καί (kai) has been translated as “but” to indicate the contrast present in this context.
9 tn Here δέ (de) has not been translated.
10 tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
11 tn Grk “stepped out on land.”
12 tn Or “city.”
13 tn Grk “who had demons.”
14 tn Grk “he”; the referent (the demon-possessed man) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
15 tn Or “in.”
16 tn Grk “And seeing.” The participle ἰδών (idwn) has been taken temporally. Here δέ (de) has not been translated.
17 tn Grk “and fell,” but καί (kai) has not been translated since English normally uses a coordinating conjunction only between the last two elements in a series of three or more.
18 tn Grk “What to me and to you?” (an idiom). The phrase τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί (ti emoi kai soi) is Semitic in origin, though it made its way into colloquial Greek (BDAG 275 s.v. ἐγώ). The equivalent Hebrew expression in the OT had two basic meanings: (1) When one person was unjustly bothering another, the injured party could say “What to me and to you?” meaning, “What have I done to you that you should do this to me?” (Judg 11:12; 2 Chr 35:21; 1 Kgs 17:18). (2) When someone was asked to get involved in a matter he felt was no business of his own, he could say to the one asking him, “What to me and to you?” meaning, “That is your business, how am I involved?” (2 Kgs 3:13; Hos 14:8). These nuances were apparently expanded in Greek, but the basic notions of defensive hostility (option 1) and indifference or disengagement (option 2) are still present. BDAG suggests the following as glosses for this expression: What have I to do with you? What have we in common? Leave me alone! Never mind! Hostility between Jesus and the demons is certainly to be understood in this context, hence the translation: “Leave me alone….”
19 sn On the title Most High see Luke 1:35.
20 sn The demons’ plea “do not torment me” is a recognition of Jesus’ inherent authority over evil forces. The request is that Jesus not bother them. There was an appointed time in which demons would face their judgment, and they seem to have viewed Jesus’ arrival on the scene as an illegitimate change in God’s plan regarding the time when their sentence would be executed.
21 tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
22 tc ‡ Although the external evidence favors the aorist παρήγγειλεν (parhngeilen, “he commanded”; Ì75 B Θ Ξ Ψ Ë13 579 700 1241 1424 2542 pm), the internal evidence favors the imperfect παρήγγελλεν (parhngellen, here translated “he had started commanding”; א A C K L W Γ Δ 1 33 565 892 pm). The aorist is suspect because it can more easily be taken as a single command, and thus an immediate exorcism. The imperfect would most likely be ingressive (BDF §§328; 329; 331), suggesting that Jesus started to command the evil spirit to depart, and continued the command.
23 tn Grk “unclean.”
24 tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “so,” introducing a clause that gives the result of the man being seized by the demon.
25 tn Or “fetters”; these were chains for the feet.
26 tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “but” to indicate the contrast present in this context.
27 tn Grk “into the deserts.” The plural use here has been translated as “deserted places,” that is, uninhabited areas.
28 sn This is a parenthetical, explanatory comment by the author.