Isaiah 6 All

Home > The Old Testament > Isaiah > Chapter 6 > Verses 6:1-4
Previous page: Chapter 6                              Next page: Verses 6:5-7

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

Summary

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

Discussion

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 6:1: King Uzziah's death. The mention of the death of an earthly king followed by the description of the Lord sitting upon a throne forms a rich context to begin this chapter. Uzziah was a prosperous king (2 Chr 26:15 who started out as a righteous follower of God (2 Kgs 15:3; 2 Chr 26:4, 5) but later offended God by offering incense without priesthood authority (2 Chr 26:16-21). The mention of King Uzziah's death (presumably as the result of his God-sent leprosy) immediately following the ominous tone of judgment toward Judah and Israel in chapters 2-5 seems to establish the end of that section with theologically rich symbolism: those who do not walk in the ways of the Lord can expect an ignominious death like King Uzziah's. The death, however, also points toward the coronation/anointing of a new king and, symbolically, the new call/anointing that the prophet is about to receive (see references below on anointing). The mention of the king here also recalls the initial warnings that Samuel gave Israel when they first asked for a king in order to be like the other nations (cf. 1 Sam 8:5ff; 12:19).

• Isa 6:1: The temple as palace. The Hebrew hychal, here translated temple, is an ambiguous term used to describe what are modernly called temples as well as what are modernly called palaces. The Hebrews do not seem to have made such a distinction. In other words, one should regard the temple as the palace of the Lord: the Lord is seen in this vision to be sitting upon a royal throne.

• Isa 6:1: Temple, heaven and earth. As the meeting place of heaven and earth—and time and eternity—the temple setting established here at the commencement of the prophet's call underscores the importance and timeless nature of the calling. Moreover, the "high and lifted up" heavenly throne starkly contrasts with king Uzziah's ignominious death on earth. This contrast marks the distance between earthly and heavenly proceedings, yet also serves to establish a relation (a sort of atonement) between heaven and earth. With the prophet's vision of the Lord occurring in the temple—likely in the Holy of Holies—we might conjecture that these events are transpiring on the Day of Atonement, a conjecture which will be seen to yield interesting insights. Further, one might interpret Isaiah's prophetic call as a certain distraction from his office as high priest: his duties for an "earthly" cult (as high priest) are interrupted by the ritual proceeding in the "heavenly" cult (as prophet). Thus, in studying the writings of Isaiah, we should keep in mind that the author was familiar with both the duties of a high priest and a prophet.

• Isa 6:1: The throne as covering. Working with the undifferentiated concept of palace/temple described above, the "throne" here is likely the "mercy seat" (kprt, better translated the "throne of atonement") atop the Ark of the Covenant. Interestingly, Isaiah's word here translated "throne" (ks) means literally "a covered seat." This theme of covering, continued with description of the royal robe in the phrase "his train [the hem of His garment] filled the temple," will be continued in verse 2.

• Isa 6:2: Seraphims. Seraphim (technically this is already plural) are described here as heavenly beings with six wings. The same Hebrew word (saraph) is used in Num 21:6, Num 21:8, and Deut 8:15 in reference to the "fiery serpents" that bit the Children of Israel as they wandered in the desert.

• Isa 6:2. If the first verse is marked by a suddenness, this second verse is marked by an immediate retreat from the blinding reality of the vision of God (John will follow a similar logic of suddenness and subsequent retreat in Rev 4:2ff.). The two verses together suggest a sort of radical disorientation effected by the shocking appearance of God, following which Isaiah scrambles to gather together his--perhaps still shocking--surroundings. The "seraphims" (better would be "seraphim" or "seraphs") are described as "above" the throne, gathered about the Lord in a sort of throng (the same beings are described in D&C 109:79 as "around thy [God's] throne"). Translating the Hebrew seraph is difficult, as it means properly a "burning thing," used in Num 21:6 to describe the "fiery" serpents that afflicted the children of Israel in the desert. John the Revelator seems to have seen similar beings in his vision (beings with features reflecting Ezekiel's first vision as well--cf. Ezek 1:1ff.), describing them further has being "full of eyes before and behind" (Rev 4:6). D&C 77:3 suggests that these creatures were "actual" beasts, "actually" seen in vision--not merely prophetic attempts to figure an overwhelming experience. D&C 38:1, the first verse of a revelation the temple themes of which are readily apparent, connects seraphim to the "hosts of heaven," the angels gathered in council with God "before the world was made."

All of this suggests that Isaiah's passage into the Holy of Holies was a passage into the angelic council of God. In other words, this text seems to understand the "council in heaven" to be an event always at work beyond the veil (creation and council concerning creation being, apparently, an on-going work). This would accord well with other similar visions found in scripture: besides John's vision, already mentioned, Lehi's vision with which the Book of Mormon opens (in 1 Ne 1:8) is perhaps the most explicit, describing "God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God." Isaiah's (and others') understanding of the Holy of Holies (or even of heaven) as the locus of an on-going angelic council that is dedicated entirely to the proceedings on the earth establishes more fully the context in which the remainder of this chapter must be read. Isaiah, suddenly thrust into the midst of a chorus of heavenly beings, is to be invited--albeit in an odd manner--to join them as an angel. It should also be mentioned that this context doubles the context already suggested above: the Day of Atonement was apparently understood--at least among those with the prophetic gifts--as the day upon which the high priest had the opportunity to be among the angelic chorus, privy to the council and the counsels of God.

The seraphim are further described as having six wings, three pairs each separately dedicated to a different task. If these "wings are a representation of power, to move, to act, etc." (D&C 77:4), then Isaiah's description of the scene is doubly significant: only with two of six wings does each demonstrate its "power." Rather, in fact, each dedicates its other four wings--uses its "power" to act--to cover itself (doubly) in complete humility. Covering their faces, the seraphim apparently gather to their praise with a sort of veil. More difficult to interpret is the fact that they cover their "feet." While a more literal interpretation is possible, it is nonetheless obviously the case in the Hebrew bible that the word for "feet" is often used as a euphemism. In other words, this act of covering might well be parallel to Adam and Eve's apron's of fig leaves, made to cover their nakedness (see Gen 3:7). If this euphemism-view is accepted, then there might be another layer of humility being signified: the orifices from which things go out of the body would be symbolically covered (if the face covering were a veil, it wouldn't cover the ears by which sounds enter the body, but out of which nothing is generally thought to leave the body...). Covering their faces as if with a veil, covering their nakedness as if with fig leaves, the remaining two wings apparently represent their "power," even their power "to act." Collectively, it might be suggested, the six wings function as the seraphs' double presentation before God: in authority, yet in humility; with, perhaps, a priesthood, but always in subjection to their Lord.

That the seraphim are engaged in covering ties to the word Isaiah uses for "throne" in verse 1, as noted above. If the Lord's throne is understood as "covered," and the angels are understood as "coverers," then there seems to be some tie between the seraphim and the throne. Do the angels with their wings form a sort of canopy over the throne? There may be a connection implied between these seraphim and what are elsewhere called the cherubim, whose wings form a sort of cover for the Lord on the Ark of the Covenant. What is implied by this linguistic connection remains to be worked out.

• Isa 6:3. The "action" finally gets underway with Isaiah's third verse. The angels/seraphim are described as crying to each other, rather than to the Lord enthroned in their midst. The word translated "cried" makes some sense of this: qr means to summon, to invite, or to call. It is the verb used throughout the Old Testament for the summons to ritual occasions (from which situation it developed another meaning in later Hebrew, "to read," since public readings were a part of the festal gatherings). The angels, then, are summoning each other, apparently to the ritual occasion, inviting each other to contemplate the enthroned Lord in the midst in ritual praise, calling each other's attention to the glory of their King. The communal cry at once confirms and overturns the logical shift of verse 2: the angels, turned from the Lord Himself to each other, confirm Isaiah's growing distance from the shocking first instance of theophany; however, the angels turn from the Lord precisely to issue a summons to others to consider Him, to turn to Him.

This communal praise, turned as it is from the Lord so as to call one to turn to Him, marks at this early point in this chapter the nature and character of language, which is to play a major part in the unfolding narrative of Isaiah's prophetic call. The exalted appearance described in verse 1 is surrounded by an aura of silence, noise and talk only entering the picture when Isaiah retreats to the surrounding gathering of angels. Though this central--even focal--silence will be overturned (in at least one sense) later on in the chapter, at this early point, the silence is overbearing and unmistakable. The silence of the enthroned One, over against the loud, even demanding voices of the angels, sets up the role that language plays in the text: the cry (call, summons, invitation) is at once a cancellation of the silence imposed by the appearance of the enthroned Lord and a summons to the most silent (silent because overawed) worship. In other words, the duplicity of the angels already mentioned (the authority and humility mentioned in v. 2) is doubled in the motif of language. (Regarding God's silence, consider also the "still small voice" in 1 Kgs 19:12, 1 Ne 17:45 and D&C 85:6; see also the related injunction "be still and know that I am God" in Ps 46:10 and D&C 101:16.)

The role of language in these first three verses ought immediately to be felt at another level of Isaiah's text: Isaiah himself only communicates (on this very page!) the theophany he experienced by doing something very similar to what the angels are here reported as doing. It is only by retreating, as it were, from the theophany itself that Isaiah can point others toward the same experience. In order to turn others toward that exalted vision, Isaiah must himself turn, for a moment, from it. Hence, even as the appearance of the Lord in verse 1 is shrouded in silence, it is proclaimed in as loud a voice as can be, the very voice of Isaiah. It is to a significant extent this very paradox of language that is in question throughout the rest of this chapter (where Isaiah will exchange an earthly language for a heavenly one, will hear the voice of God, will be given a specific message to preach when he turns from the Lord, etc.).

The exact words of exclamation on the angels' part is significant in a number of ways. The trisagion, or "thrice-holy" prayer, has a significant place in liturgical history, perhaps the most important moment of which for present considerations is to be found in the Book of Revelation. When John describes the "beasts" apparently similar or identical to the seraphim Isaiah describes, he reports their words as "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come" (Rev 4:8). The triple mention of holiness at the beginning of the hymn John records is matched by the triple mention of God's being at the close of the same, apparently linking the two (in an "inverted parallelism" or chiasm): the three mentions of God's holiness correspond to God's omnipresence, etc. Without getting here into the difficulties presented by John's revelation experience, it might simply be stated that the tradition understands Isaiah's three mentions of holiness to be tied to other aspects of God's nature. (Oddly the Isaiah scroll from Qumran has holy only twice. What that would mean for interpretation is not clear.)

Probing more deeply, however, the first phrase of the angelic prayer might be understood as paradoxical. The Hebrew for holy, qadowsh, means something set at a distance, something removed from other things, perhaps even something "transcendent" (though using this last word only loosely). The angels praise YHWH as the One who is removed to some distance from all else. On the other hand, they call Him the "LORD of hosts," or, in more contemporary language, "YHWH of armies" or "YHWH of the angelic contingents." Even as the angels set Him at [???] some remove from things--from themselves--they describe Him as intimately acquainted with them. In short, the first part of their praise regards YHWH as both distant and yet accessible at once, a paradox, but one not unfamiliar (distance always implies relation). This paradox is best embodied elsewhere in Old Testament tradition in the Day of Atonement, which has already been seen to have some of its themes present in this chapter. The ritual of the Day of Atonement at once accomplished the distance of God from Israel (only the high priest was to see God, and that only in a cloud of incense) and the nearness (through the ritual, the covenant of Abraham--and so of Moses--was renewed in a direct relation that made YHWH Israel's God and Israel YHWH's people). It has been suggested (especially by Margaret Barker) that on the Day of Atonement those involved directly with the ritual proceedings understood themselves to be angels, God's very hosts.

The second half of the angelic hymn also draws out themes from the Day of Atonement. The angels claim that "the whole earth is full of his glory." Just as the land (Hebrew: aretz) was promised to Abraham through his covenant, it was promised anew to Israel through the rites of the Day of Atonement, as the covenant was renewed. The earth (Hebrew: aretz), as mentioned here by the angels, returns on that holy day to the people claimed by YHWH. That it is filled with the glory of the LORD of hosts suggests that He Himself is claiming the land, preparing Himself to emerge from His temple to dwell with His people (as the ancient Israelites expected to see at the Day of Atonement when the Messiah came). In Lev 9:23, when Aaron performs for the first time the rites of the Day of Atonement, "the glory of the LORD appeared unto all the people," exactly as the text here seems to describe. This appearance seems even to function as a sort of consecration of things: the Hebrew idiom for consecration (of priests, say) is to "fill the hand" (ml' yd), even as the whole earth is here "full [or filled] of his glory."

In short, the first words of Isaiah concerning the words of the angels (in turn concerning the Word as He sits on a throne) provide the reader with a two-part hymn that seems to confirm the Day of Atonement themes already present in the first two verses. The angels, in turning from the Lord to turn others toward Him, summon each other to a sort of Day of Atonement ritual at work in heaven, even as Isaiah attends to the Day of Atonement rites on earth. Perhaps most important in this verse, however, is the fact that the heavens themselves (or perhaps rather the Holy of Holies) are a silence surrounded by verbal invitations to contemplate that silence in silence. This interplay between silence and praise/invitation will be extended in verse 4 and then explored at great length in verses 5-8.

• Isa 6:4. While the first part of this verse is rather obscure, the last phrase seems rather clear, and it might be best to begin there. The filling up of the "house" (bayt, another word used both for the temple and a palace) with smoke is perhaps the most explicit reference to the Day of Atonement in the whole of this chapter. Lev 16:12-13 seems to be the reference: "And he [Aaron] shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the LORD, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the vail: And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the LORD, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not." So that the high priest can, as part of the ceremony, enter into the Holy of Holies and converse with the appearing Lord, the Holy of Holies must first be filled with a cloud of smoke, so that the appearance of the Lord is obscured and so that the high priest "die not." (This smoke, covering the appearance of the Lord, might explain the odd language at, for example, 1 Ne 1:8, to which the present vision has already been compared: "he thought he saw....") That Isaiah here describes the temple as "filled with smoke" suggests that one can nail down the precise moment of the ritual during which this theophany occurs, and hence why it is so absolutely astounding.

Apparently, Isaiah, as high priest, is performing the word described in Leviticus 16:12-13 when the Lord appears. The appearance would therefore be premature: the placing of the incense so as to fill the Holy of Holies with smoke is early in the ritual, so that when the high priest later enters into the presence of God, there will be no chance of him seeing the Lord directly and so dying. Isaiah, performing the standard work of the Day of Atonement, seems to have been at work on this earlier part of the ritual--a point at which the Lord would not yet appear--when the Lord suddenly shows himself before the smoke has filled the Holy of Holies. In other words, Isaiah parts the veil just enough to let the smoke through, and the Lord is already visible, thus shocking Isaiah and filling him with the fear of death (the concern at the end of Leviticus 16:13 is echoed by verse 5). Only then does the smoke cover over the presence Isaiah has already seen, and it is for that reason too late for him, he is "undone," as he says in verse 5. The clear reference, then, at the end of this verse does a great deal for clarifying this chapter: the Lord, not Isaiah, breaks the rules of the ritual, appearing to the soon-to-be-called prophet out of order, ultimately threatening him with utter destruction.

This much clear, the first part of this verse might be approached. To begin with, the translation is problematic (although, see 2 Ne 16:4, where Joseph Smith translates this verse identically in the Book of Mormon "Isaiah chapters"; it should also be noted, however, that where the translations of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon match up with the KJV might be variously explained: there are certainly other explanations for this than simply that the KJV is a flawless translation). The word "posts" is a good example. The word translated "posts" here is `mwt, not mzwzwt (which means "posts"). Translators are generally baffled with what to do with this word in the Hebrew text. If taken literally, then it either should be translated "mothers," "cubits," or even "tribes." Oddly, the word translated "door" is plural, and is more often translated "posts" in the OT than `mwt! Actually, the word in Hebrew here, sph, means, quite simply, "threshold." The phrase, `mwt sphym might be translated: "the mothers of the threshold," "the cubits of the threshold," or "the tribes of the threshold." Because none of these makes any immediate sense, the KJV translators went their own direction.

But what is to be made of such a wording? The verb in question might provide a clue. nw' means to move back and forth, as in Hannah's lips when she is seen praying (1 Sam 1:13) or the trees by the wind (Isa 7:2). Interestingly, the verb is used several times in the OT in connection with wandering peoples, tribes who "move about" (see Lam 4:15, Amos 8:12, Gen 4:12). This common pairing of this verb with "tribes" might suggest that "tribes" is the best translation of `mwt. In other words, one might translate the phrase: "and the tribes of the gate moved at the voice of the summons...." One might suggest that the "tribes of the gate" are the angels gathering in the Holy of Holies (the gate being the veil), or that the "tribes of the gate" are the peoples from all over the land gathering to the Day of Atonement celebration outside the temple as the angels praise the holiness of God. At any rate, one of these meanings seems to make more sense than "the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried." If these alternate translations are justified at all, they might serve as a confirmation of the prematurity of YHWH's appearance: the people/angels are still gathering, yet YHWH appears--too early, out of time, and with what can only be assumed to be dreadful consequences.

Unanswered questions

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

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

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 6:1. Why is the prophetic call placed here, in chapter 6, instead of at the beginning at the book of Isaiah (cf. Jereiah's call in Jer 1:1-10)?

• Isa 6:4: At the voice. Whose voice are the "posts of the door" moving in response to? This seems to be referring to the voice of the seraph in verse 3. If this is the case, why does the door move in response to the voice of the seraph rather than as a more direct consequence of the Lord's presence? If this is not the case, how should it be interpreted?

Resources

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. →

• Isa 6:1-5. For a poetic exploration of the silence/speaking themes of these first five verses, see User: Joe Spencer/Sonnet: 86.

• Isa 6:1: Anointing kings. For more on the anointing of kings, see "A Crown Some Oil and a Throne: Coronation in Ancient Israel" and the FARMS article "Temple Imagery in the Epistles of Peter" (footnote 7 in particular) by Daniel B. McKinlay.

Notes

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 6                              Next page: Verses 6:5-7

Home > The Old Testament > Isaiah > Chapter 6 > Verses 6:5-7
Previous page: Verses 6:1-4                              Next page: Verses 6:8-13

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

Summary

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

Discussion

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 6:5: I am undone. The Hebrew word dmh (undone) is also used in Isa 15:1 to mean "brought to silence" by the armies of Moab. Up to this point in the theophany, Isaiah has indeed been silent. This silence on the part of Isaiah may be a result of the glory of the vision of the Lord having an overwhelming effect on Isaiah. (See discussion of the "overflowing waters" in Isa 28:2 for more on this theme in Isaiah.)

• Isa 6:5: Tension build-up. The above comments set up the situation and the context as suggested by Isaiah's first four verses here. Isaiah finds himself suddenly in the presence of God while attempting to perform the early portion of the Day of Atonement ritual. More still, he finds himself caught between the silence of the commanding presence of God and the chatty, if theological, discussion amongst those at a remove from God. This second, even added situation reinterprets the first: Isaiah is not only struck by the sheer visibility of the Lord who sits on the throne, but he is called by that appearing into a sort of tension with the seraphim. In other words, because he witnesses the silence of God, he is called to respond to that silence with his voice, alongside the crying angels. At the same time, Isaiah remains, unquestionably, a man. The appearance of God, then, calls Isaiah into a terrible tension: he is at once joined to the angels and kept at a distance from them. Not only would he expect total annihilation (having seen God without the cloud of incense and at the wrong point of the ritual), but he would likely feel expected to respond to that absolute shock of appearance, would likely feel expected to speak forth as the angels do.

This summary of the foregoing sets up the present verse. Isaiah responds to the expectation he feels imposed upon him (to speak in response to the silent call) by giving voice to the expectation he has of—would impose upon—God (death, instantaneous and immediate death). To bear this out, some analysis of the Hebrew text will prove worthwhile.

• Isa 6:5: Then said I. The text describes Isaiah's response as a "saying," `mr. The verb in Hebrew implies communication (not, for example, poetic speech, which might be for purposes other than mere communication): while the angels summoned others, whether or not they were interested in communicating anything with them, Isaiah summons no one, but more simply publishes his absolute concern.

• Isa 6:5: Woe is me. The prophet's first word, `wy ("woe"), is inarticulate, a word common enough in Hebrew, but one without roots or derivation. It is simply an inarticulate (though quite meaningful) word, expressing here the fact that even as Isaiah approaches the speech he is apparently expected to provide, he only stumbles toward it tremblingly.

• Isa 6:5: For. Moving from inarticulate to articulate speech, Isaiah goes on to offer a sort of interpretation of his inarticulate speech, marked by the English "for" and the Hebrew ky. The same word appears almost immediately again, translated the second time "because" in the KJV: Isaiah offers (publishes) his inability to speak by speaking inarticulately, communicating a world of meaning that he then goes on to interpret twice, first by pointing out his being "undone," and then by describing at greater length what it is that renders him inarticulate.

• Isa 6:5: I am undone. The word translated "undone" in the KJV is ambiguous in the Hebrew; it could, in other words, be derived from two different roots, and so might well be translated in two ways. Likely, Isaiah carefully selected a word with a double meaning. On the one hand, ndmyty might be translated "I am destroyed violently"; on the other hand, it might be translated "I am silenced." The ambiguity is rich: the word can be interpreted in terms, on the one hand, of the expectation Isaiah has of God (immediate destruction for having seen God inappropriately), or in terms, on the other hand, of God's apparent expectation of Isaiah (the silence of God has frozen Isaiah's tongue, and he is rendered silent). Both meanings are ultimately ironic: Isaiah is neither struck down, nor does he remain silent. His communication, in fact, cancels both interpretations: Isaiah, precisely in saying ndmyty, ceases to be silent and wards off his impending destruction. His words cancel the most threatening silence of all. This "for I am undone," then, is a wonderfully rich interpretation Isaiah offers of his own inarticulate `wy ("woe"): unable to speak, yet dead if one does not, Isaiah blurts out the first inarticulate sound that comes off his tongue.

• Isa 6:5: Tension between eyes and lips. In his second interpretation of his own inarticulate speech, Isaiah draws into relation his lips and his eyes. Rather, he makes explicit a tension inscribed in his own flesh, a tension between his eyes and his lips, a tension between his untimely vision and his all-too-timely "word." This tension is marked further by a textual structure:

  I am a man of unclean lips
     and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips
  for mine eyes have seen the King
     the LORD of hosts.

The structure suggests a parallel between Isaiah's lips (line 1) and his eyes (line 3). But the structure accomplishes a great deal more as well. For example, the repetition of "lips" in line 2 would suggest a repetition of "eyes" in line 4. That it does not occur is suggestive and might be interpreted in a number of ways. Moreover, the structure embodies Isaiah's experience of meeting up with God: line 2 sets Isaiah in the midst of the likewise unclean, while line 4 parallelistically sets the Lord in the midst of the likewise holy (the hosts).

• Isa 6:5: Lips. The Hebrew text at work beneath this English text draws attention to Isaiah's discussion of his lips. The word translated "lips," shph`, is often translated "language" in the OT. It is, in fact, one of two words translated as language, the other being lshwn, "tongue." While this distinction is itself fascinating, Isaiah's use of the word here suggests that his language is what is in question--even if that language is, in perfect Hebrew style, to be located within his flesh. He describes his lips (and those of his people) as unclean, using the word for ritual uncleanness. (Isaiah might be making a play on words here, as there is some evidence that the Hebrew word was related to an earlier semitic word that meant "to flow over." Does Isaiah hint at the fact that what he saw overflows his lips, that it is too much to swallow, that his very lips cannot close around what wants to come forth from him? It is interesting, also, that `wy is pronounced entirely with the tongue, and not with the lips.) The uncleanness of course marks the experience yet again as tied to the Day of Atonement, as it was the purpose of the Day of Atonement to return the holy to the holy by taking from it its uncleanness (a ritual uncleanness that is overcome ritually, in the Day of Atonement ritual). In other words, Isaiah's explicit interpretation of his inarticulate ejaculation suggests that his word is in part a result of the timing: atonement has not yet been completed at such an early stage of the ritual.

• Isa 6:5: Unclean. More significantly, Isaiah marks even his inarticulate call--a sort of covenant with death--as unclean, as fallen, as separate from the holiness of the appearing One. He articulately cancels his inarticulate communication. But, just as it was spoken in the first place by unclean lips, the cancellation is performed by unclean lips. Isaiah's linguistic thrust--expected and expecting--marks his distance from the Lord enthroned. And this distance marked is a distance markedly more distant from the throne than the distance at which the angels hover. Isaiah's communication, interesting, will prove only to draw the attention of the angels in verse 6. Isaiah, speaking, finds himself at a second remove from the visible throne: the angels speak articulately of God, while Isaiah only speaks articulately of his own inarticulateness.

• Isa 6:5: Articulate narration of inarticulateness. Again, it must never be missed that all of this is communicated to the reader through articulate language, that Isaiah is doubling all of this narrative by telling it amongst others as the angels praise the holiness of the Lord among themselves. Isaiah's own description of his inarticulateness marks the collective inarticulateness he mentions by saying that he dwells among those of unclean lips. All without the language to speak the silence of God, men collectively require the rites of atonement, and all fall short of the angelic tongue. This dilemma sets up the action of the next two verses.

• Isa 6:6: The angel's approach: Following Isaiah's double articulation of his inarticulateness (see commentary at Isa 6:5), the seraphim respond--not God. This seems to follow a pattern, with both angels and Isaiah speaking to each other, rather than directly to the Lord enthroned. The angels who receive Isaiah's words hover at some distance from the Silent One. The seraph responds to Isaiah by moving "unto" him, emphasizing again the implied distance between Isaiah and the angels. By moving towards Isaiah, the angelic chorus is drawing Isaiah into their midst. In other words, the angels in the next two verses seem to perform a sort of rite of atonement meant to include the soon-to-be-prophet into their council. Both the narrative and the direct address of these two verses must be understood in these terms. the verses underscore that the atonement at work on this Day of Atonement is one of initiation, even of apotheosis. Isaiah does not describe a lone seraph flying towards him, but rather "one of the seraphim." This seems to indicate that the "one" represents the entire angelic company. Again, the text makes it evident that the approach of the angel signifies a rite of atonement, of initiation: Isaiah is to become, as it were, an angel, and join the council/chorus.

• Isa 6:6: The live coal. The approaching seraph is described as having "a live coal" in his hand. The Hebrew word translated as "a live coal" is rtzph, which is generally assumed to have this meaning only here and in one other text, a similar passage (see 1 Kgs 19:6) centering on Elijah's experience of the shocking silence of God. The word as it appears in most texts, however, just means something like "pavement." It is generally suggested, then, that the word be translated here "hot rock" (even "molten rock"?). In other words, an angel, with the purpose of initiating him into the angelic circle, approaches Isaiah with a glowing stone. For Latter-day Saints, this may call to mind D&C 130:11, where the Prophet Joseph explains that "a white stone is given to each of those who come into the celestial kingdom, whereon is a new name written, which no man knoweth save he that receiveth it. The new name is the key word." If the "live coal" the angel brings to Isaiah might be understood to be connected with this text, then the angel brings him a "new name" by which he is to be initiated into the "celestial kingdom," the angelic chorus.

• Isa 6:6: Altar. Isaiah notes that the angel had taken the stone "from off the altar." While its tempting to see this as altar as the altar of sacrifice, there is at least one major difficulty facing such an interpretation: all of the action of Isaiah's narrative takes place within the two rooms of the temple, at the very point, in fact, of contact between those two rooms (at the veil). The only altar that stood within the temple was the altar of incense that stood precisely where Isaiah himself is standing as all of this takes place. As these events transpire, Isaiah is at the precise moment of the Day of Atonement ritual in which he uses the altar of incense to fill the Holy of Holies with a cloud of smoke. It would appear that the stone which purifies Isaiah's lips, and possibly provides him with a new name, comes from the altar that stands immediately before the veil/presence of the Lord. If Rev 8:4 can be read in connection with the present passage, then the incense altar itself may be a token of prayer offered before the veil. If the altar itself is to be understood as a token of a truer order of prayer, then Isaiah's reception (onto his mouth) of a glowing coal (with a new name) taken from that altar might represent Isaiah's introduction to that order of prayer. Isaiah is being initiated into a truer order of prayer apparently enjoyed by the angels.

• Isa 6:6: In summary. Through poetic imagery, Isaiah describes a ritual that unites him with a company of angels. First, one of the seraphim bridges the gap between Isaiah and the angels and apparently performs an atonement for Isaiah which initiates him into the angelic order. The angel who comes to perform the task retrieves from the altar of incense a glowing coal or stone, which might well represent the stone with the new name mentioned in D&C 130:11. By placing the stone on Isaiah's mouth, perhaps allowing him to speak the new name, the angel initiates him into a truer order of prayer, the unison praising of the LORD which Isaiah had interrupted in verse 3. All of this, of course, opens onto the following verse, where the narrative continues.

Another note on the Seriph's are they were created by God to worship God. These were never created as humans or to be humans, but as worshipers before God. They were fly above Him calling out "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty; the whole earth is full of His glory." The Lord here is Jehovah: self-existant One. Jehovah Alighty is holy.

• Isa 6:7: The angel speaks. That the angel speaks to Isaiah while placing the stone on his mouth is highly significant. Thus far in the narrative, speech has indicated a distance from the Lord, as well as a boundary between the angels and Isaiah. By addressing Isaiah, the angel crosses that boundary--again confirming the initiatory character of offering the stone. The verb used to describe the angel's speech is of note: it is the one used to describe Isaiah's blurting out--not the one used to describe the summons of the seraphim. In other words, not only does the angel speak to Isaiah, he speaks to him as Isaiah had spoken of himself. The subject of the angel's words is, of course, also Isaiah: the angel breaks off praising the Lord to speak to Isaiah. In doing so, the angel descends to Isaiah's level. Just as Isaiah had spoken of himself, the angel speaks of him--to him, to be sure, but of him as well. And with that movement, Isaiah becomes part of the angelic throng.

• Isa 6:7: What the angel says. Echoing Isaiah's inarticulate speech, the angel addresses Isaiah with an inarticulate word of his own (hnh), here translated "Lo". The word means something like "behold" (its most common translation) or "here" (as in, "here, take this"), but it, like `wy, has no derivation or etymology. However, as with Isaiah's blurted word, "Lo" has a meaning, and the difference between the meaning of this word and the meaning of the word Isaiah spoke marks the distance between the two--a distance crossed by the angel with the stone. Isaiah's `wy is an ejaculation of one at a complete loss, meaningful precisely because it marks the dissolution of all meaning, of orientation. As Isaiah sees God he loses his bearings and expects to be destroyed so thoroughly, that all he can say is `wy. On the other hand, the angel's hnh is inarticulate in a completely different manner. The angel's hnh is inarticulate because it stands outside the system of articulation and points to that very system of articulation, saying in effect "take a look here at this thing and what I'm saying". Put side by side: `wy is inarticulate because it marks the breakdown of articulation; hnh is inarticulate because it precedes articulation, because it points to the possibility of articulation. Isaiah's word might better be called anti-articulate, and the angel's non-(in)articulate. The exchange between the two (Isaiah first, the angel in response) might well be read as the dissolution of articulation, followed by the reassembly of articulation: the angel restores to Isaiah what he has lost in theophany.

• Isa 6:7: The restoration of speech. In addition to the use of the inarticulate hnh, the angel reestablishes the possibility of speech through a specific "thing": "this hath touched thy lips...." The angel's hnh has reference to the rock, to the stone that bears the new name. In other words, a name beyond names re-introduces to Isaiah the possibility of articulation. If a vision of God destroys all possibility of speech, precisely because God outstrips all articulate language, then a name that comes, as it were, from another world, from another language (the "tongue of angels"), might well return to his tongue the possibility of speech. In fact, that the angel proceeds from his inarticulate hnh to perfectly articulate speech (and articulate speech that does not--this is vital--merely interpret the inarticulate word with which he begins) shows that the stone itself, as absolute reference for this restorative speech, makes possible the restoration of speech. If the angels can praise the Lord (by their trisagion, etc.), then it is in the language of this new name that they can do it. The name on the stone provides a foundation, a proper name that makes language possible in an angelic tongue. Isaiah's reception of the stone is his reception of the tongue of angels.

• Isa 6:7: Lips are purged. The words of the speaking seraph makes this reception explicit. Though Isaiah previously mentions his "mouth," the angel focuses on the prophet's "lips," his "language" (see the commentary for Isa 6:5). In other words, whereas Isaiah had emphasized the source of his voice ("mouth"), the angel focuses on the articulation of that sound in language ("lips"). With the touch ("stroke") of the rock, Isaiah's iniquity (literally a question of guilt) is "turned away." There may be a connection between this verse and Isa 53:6, where the same words are used in a rather different manner. Here, an angel opens the mouth of Isaiah by striking it--translated "touched," but meaning "struck"--and thereby turning from him his iniquity. In the fourth "servant song," the one who "openeth not his mouth" is "struck with the iniquity of us all." At any rate, here the angel emphasizes this "turning away" by adding the phrase "thy sin [is] purged." The word translated here as "sin" is the Hebrew kht`, literally "miss" as in "to miss a target." The word is understood to have reference to "inadvertent" sins, the simple (unavoidable?) ritual uncleanness that results from life. Before looking at the word translated "purged," it might be well to note that both terms here ("iniquity" and "sin") are key terms in Lev 16:1ff, the chapter that describes the proceedings of the Day of Atonement. The atonement is performed precisely to deal with these sins and iniquities. It is all the more significant, then, that the word translated here as "purged" is kphr or literally "atonement." It is the very word translated as "atonement" in the phrase "Day of Atonement."

• Isa 6:7: Atonement. The meaning of atonement in the OT is a difficult subject, one grappled with by the best (and worst) scholars in the tradition. Without pretending to plumb those depths, a working understanding of OT atonement might be offered: atonement is understood in the Old Testament as a question of repairing the broken covenant through ritual sacrifice (as Margaret Barker has argued). It is often pointed out that kphr means "to cover," but this is not quite accurate: kphr would mean less to cover the nakedness of Adam and Eve in providing them coats of skins in the Garden than to repair those coats of skins when they have worn through and so become defiled. Atonement is a return to a previous covenantal status. In other words, through the rites of atonement, the covenant (in this case perhaps the Abrahamic covenant) is restored, the land is returned to the people of the promise, and the commission to promulgate the message of the benevolent YHWH is again issued (as will happen to Isaiah in verse 8). If the Arabic cognate to kphr is of any help, atonement might also be understood in terms of a binding together by embrace (as Hugh Nibley has argued): in a ritual double robing, two figures were made one in an ancient Arabic rite also called "atonement." Either way, the meaning of atonement seems broadly to be the process of restoring a covenant relationship, a literal at-one-ment.

• Isa 6:7: Initiation provides atonement. That Isaiah receives at-one-ment through receiving the stone is highly significant. It seems to point to his initiation into the order of the angels, his ability to speak their tongue. He becomes at-one with the angelic chorus and speaks alongside them. It seems also to point to Isaiah's covenant relationship--just beginning--with the Lord Himself, as Isaiah is about to answer the call to become a prophet--one with the spirit of prophecy who has the gift to speak the angelic tongue. It must always be kept in mind that these words are spoken to Isaiah by the seraph bearing the stone. Isaiah's first step in approaching the Lord is marked by his initiation into the angelic order, by his joining the angels in their noisy celebration of their God. The angel's speech introduces Isaiah into the articulate tongue of angels by bestowing upon him the (new) proper name necessary to that tongue, and by telling him explicitly that by receiving it he is atoned. It might even, then, be argued that this chapter marks a sort of disruption of the OT understanding of the Day of Atonement: the purpose of the rites was not primarily for the people, but for the high priest, so that he might stand before God in the prophetic office. The heavenly rite interrupts the earthly rite to initiate Isaiah into the company and tongue of angels.

Unanswered questions

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

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

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. →

Resources

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. →

Notes

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: Verses 6:1-4                              Next page: Verses 6:8-13

Home > The Old Testament > Isaiah > Chapter 6 > Verses 6:8-13
Previous page: Verses 6:5-7                              Next page: Chapter 7

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

Summary

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

Discussion

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 6:8. A more basic exploration of this verse might best be performed before detailed consideration of the sudden shift here in the language theme. Despite, then, the sheer oddness of the fact that the Lord speaks suddenly, that Isaiah hears the Lord's word directly, it would be best to look for a moment at the words of the Lord, and then at the response Isaiah himself offers.

• Isa 6:8: The collective council. By His words, the Lord immediately draws the angelic throngs into a direct relationship with Him: the parallel "Whom shall I send" and "who will go for us" make an explicit connection between the "I" of God and the "us" of the collective council. That Isaiah speaks up in response confirms absolutely the insights above: Isaiah has become a part of the angelic council itself.

• Isa 6:8: Send. The Hebrew word for "send" is shlch which means to send off on a task. The Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation) translates the verb as apostolein, literally to send away, but a word that later became very significant: the word "apostle" comes from this verb. It might be, in fact, that the title of apostle was created based on this very verse: the apostles were understood as those who were sent because of their response like Isaiah's here, those sent to do the same task (the task laid out in detail in verses 9-13). In the parallel phrase, the Lord uses the verb hlkh, "to walk" or "to travel." This word is intimately tied to the Abrahamic stories: Genesis 12-17 is titled lkh lkh in Hebrew, "to walking with you," a title reflecting Abraham's perpetual wandering. In other words, the Lord asks who will leave the absolute groundedness of the council to wander in the fallen realms below, without orientation, without bearings. The Lord here considers a sending that opens up an empty realm in which to travel: to be an apostle, to be sent by God, is to leave off the security of the angelic chorus to wander in the groundless world below.

• Isa 6:8: Pole of reference. It is significant that in the very instant that Isaiah joins the heavenly council, there is some question of leaving it. His reception into the council has been seen to have been marked by an absolution, by the erection of an absolute pole of reference (even a new proper name), enabling him at last to speak again (and to speak of something absolute, not to articulate his own inarticulateness). As soon as the absolute pole of reference is established, Isaiah can return to the earth, can come down where there is no absolute pole, because he can speak a new language. Because the call to be sent is issued in the voice of the Lord that can only be heard when one speaks with a new tongue, it is a call to speak to others in a tongue that has an absolute pole of reference, but amongst those who speak with no such absolute pole of reference. But again, such considerations of the language theme must only be returned to below.

• Isa 6:8: Here am I. Consideration of Isaiah's response both closes a brief consideration of the conversation and opens the altered theme of language. He opens his response with another inarticulate word, in fact, the inarticulate word with which the angel addressed him in verse 7: hnh. But, because he speaks the inarticulate word of the seraph, Isaiah's inarticulation has changed fundamentally: just as when the angel spoke inarticulately and thus made reference to the very possibility of articulation, Isaiah here makes reference to an absolute, pointing also to the very possibility of articulation. He follows his inarticulate pointing to articulation by speaking more articulately than he has throughout the chapter. The reference of his inarticulation is not, however, the stone or the new name; rather, he makes reference to himself: "Here am I," it is translated, but he says hnny, "here-I" or "behold, I" (this is the same response Abraham gives when God calls him to sacrifice Isaac in Gen 22:2 and Moses gives God in Ex 3:3). The absolute pole of reference Isaiah establishes inarticulately is his own now-angelic self. That pole of reference established, Isaiah commands the Lord to "send me," (in the LXX, apostolein me, "apostle me!"). The language echoes Abr 3:27, the words of Jesus Christ in the pre-mortal council. This obvious parallel is suggestive: Isaiah appears not only like the Savior, but perhaps has returned, oddly, to the very pre-mortal council itself. It has been suggested above that the heavenly council is at work all the time (see commentary at Isa 6:2). It might now be suggested that because the council is at work beyond the veil (which might be interpreted to be the veil of temporality), the council is beyond time: "before" means in Hebrew "to the face of." Though this is somewhat speculative (see Margaret Barker on the subject: "Beyond the Veil of the Temple" in The Great High Priest), it may be that Isaiah walks right out of history when he joins the council, and he is sent back into it as he leaves the council.

But beyond speculation, the theme of language must again be considered. It has already been seen that Isaiah's word of response to the direct address of the Lord matches up with the angelic discourse of verse 7. In other words, the prophet speaks inarticulately only because he points toward the true possibility of articulation, making reference to an absolute point of reference for his language. Isaiah's language has clearly shifted beyond the fallen, template-less language of those who have "unclean lips" (cf. v. 5). Speaking the tongue of angels, he can address the Lord by making absolute reference to himself. Perhaps more problematic, more profound, and certainly more fruitful is the fact that the Lord Himself--only a few verses ago the paragon of perfect silence--speaks to Isaiah, and with a "voice." The meaning of this change must be explored.

• Isa 6:8: The Lord speaking. The Lord is presented in verses 1-3 as the Silent One in contrast with the noisy angels; but in verse 8 He is presented as speaking. The Lord, it seems, changes at some point between the event of verse 1 and the event of verse 8. While that is a possibility, a much more likely explanation already presents itself: there has certainly been a change, but that change has taken place with Isaiah, not the Lord. In other words, the voice of the Lord in verse 8 speaks now, not because the Lord has changed, but because Isaiah has been changed so as to hear what was once only silence to him. The silence of the Lord in verse 1 is a silence from the point of view of the one with unclean lips; the voice of the Lord in verse 8 is heard from the point of view of one with the tongue of angels. The figure of God presented in this chapter, in other words, is double, and irreducibly double: one is not, apparently, to decide between these two possibilities. God is silent to the fallen and vocal to the redeemed. The duplicity of the figure derives, unquestionably, from the two phenomenological possibilities bound up in man. This is as much as to say that the apparent change in God can be interpreted in two ways: on the one hand (from the point of view of the one who speaks with the tongue of angels), the silence of the Lord was a divine reticence to speak unintelligibly to fallen man; on the other hand (from the point of view of the one with unclean lips), the eventual speech of the Lord is really just an articulate silence, a silence interpretable by those who have the gift of tongues. In the end, the text presents neither a speaking God, nor a silent God. It presents rather both an articulate prophet and an inarticulate prophet.

At the same time, there is a sense in which the silence of God prevails. Again, the two pictures Isaiah presents (that of verses 1-3 and that of verse 8) are one and the same. In verses 1-3, the silence of God is set against the vocal angels who speak to each other. The scene undeniably embodies a call-response structure: the angels respond to the silence of God by speaking, as if they were, so to speak, the voices of that silence. This is apparently the way Nephi understands the scene in 2 Nephi 31-32 (which must be--can only be--a commentary on this very chapter 6 of Isaiah!). When Nephi pauses to explain more carefully the "tongue of angels" in 2 Ne 32:2, he makes clear that this is his interpretation. He asks a rhetorical question in an almost annoyed tone (annoyed precisely because the answer to the question should, he is convinced, be completely understood already by anyone reading his text): "And now, how could ye speak with the tongue of angels save it were by the Holy Ghost?" In response to his own question, he interprets the scene presented in verses 1-3 of Isaiah 6: "Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ" (2 Ne 32:3). The point seems clear: the tongue of angels is to speak the words of the Enthroned One (it is, in 2 Ne 31:13, Christ--the "Holy One of Israel"--who is enthroned and praised by the angels), to give voice to the silence of the throne. And if Nephi is seconding the vision of the silent figure on the throne, whose silence is spoken by the gathered throng of angels, then the call-response structure of verse 8 (in Isaiah 6) becomes clear: the words "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" are indeed spoken by "the voice of the Lord," but that voice is probably best interpreted to be the "literal" voices of the angels (might this in and of itself explain the "us" at the end of that question?). In short, the angels might well have spoken these words to Isaiah as the voice of the Lord, to which Isaiah himself responds, giving voice to Christ (in Christ's very words: "Here am I, send me"). Isaiah's Christic response matches perfectly the Christic call--and every word is spoken by the angels.

But however this passage is interpreted, the background of verses 9-13 is clear: the prophetic mission to which Isaiah is to be called is spread across the terrible gulf that divides two languages, one the tongue of angels, the other the tongue of men. In the one language, one speaks the very words of the Word, speaks, in fact, the Word (who functions as an absolute--and absolutely silent?--pole of reference, thus grounding the angelic tongue absolutely); in the other, one speaks so many words, but can only point insecurely towards the Word, speaks, in fact, only words (words without any pole of reference, hence always inarticulate). This linguistic background determines every term in the remainder of the narrative.

Another note on this: The council spoken of here is God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit...the perfect Trinity altogether as one. Isaiah does not become a part of this council, but simply overhears God speaking and responds "Here am I...send me." This was to go and preach to Israel.

• Isa 6:9: Hear ye indeed, but understand not. Compare this with the initial reaction of the those in 3 Ne 11:4ff who, though talking about Christ, did not understand the voice until the third time when they "did open their ears to hear it" (v. 5). There also, the eyes, ears and heart/center ("did pierce them that did hear to the center") figure prominently.

• Isa 6:9: Structure of hearing-seeing theme. The fact that hearing is mentioned before seeing here may be significant, especially because that is the order of things in the creation account of Genesis 1: God is heard speaking first, before creation is described as being created (visibly). This may also be significant to consider because faith is often described in terms of having faith in the word of God, regarding something not seen (cf. Heb 11:1; Alma 32:21; Ether 12:6). In this verse, hearing and understanding are first paired, then seeing and perceiving. In verse 10, the heart is mentioned first, but then ears are (again) mentioned before the eyes. However, verse 10 then repeats these three organs of perception in reverse order, forming a chiasm with eyes forming the center of the chiasm. This structural pattern might also be profitably thought in relation to the order of Isaiah's experience in the preceding verses where he first sees the Lord on his throne (verse 1), then the voice of the Lord is described in verse 4. Then, in verse 5, the idea of hearing is (implicitly) referred to through the mention of lips, after which eyes are mentioned again.

• Isa 6:9: Go. The Lord again speaks (if only through the vocal angels) to Isaiah. His words this time begin with a command: lkh, "go," the imperative form of the verb in "who will go for us?" In fact, lkh is the very command issued to Abraham by Pharaoh that thus becomes the title of Genesis 12-17 (see more discussion of this point in v. 8 above). Isaiah's call here may be viewed as a direct consequence of the covenant made with Abraham (see esp. Abr 2:9-11). The word lkh is also the same command God uses in several other key call narratives: commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Gen 22:2, translated "get thee"), commanding Moses to bring Israel out of Egypt (Ex 3:10, translated "come"), Jeremiah's call (see esp. the send-and-call theme in Jer 1:7), Ezekiel's call (see Ezek 3:1, 4, 11) and the Brother of Jared's call (Ether 1:41). The movement implied in this command seems to reinforce the movement of the angels mentioned in verses 2 (the two wings used to fly) and 6 (the angel that flew to Isaiah to give him the live coal) as well as movement of the "posts of the door" in verse 4—thus, in contrast to Isaiah's initial immobility in being confronted by the Lord, Isaiah is now commanded to go. This contrast also seems to reinforce a change that has occurred in Isaiah—instead of being one of the people with unclean lips (and implied immobility), Isaiah is now one of the council who is able to move and speak with the tongue of angels.

• Isa 6:9: Way of language. The very command to "go" is clarified as a "saying": "Go, and [go] saying to this people." Isaiah's charge is now rendered a way of language. The Lord now speaks to Isaiah the words he is supposed to speak to the "people." The Lord in fact uses the very word Isaiah used for people in verse 5—Isaiah is being sent to a people of fallen language who are without the absolute pole of reference that Isaiah has found, symbolized by the stone which separates the new prophet from the people. Thus, Isaiah was initially silenced and inarticulate at the sudden vision of the Lord and is now called to articulate a divine message to the people of unclean lips from whence he came. Underscoring this doubling theme, Isaiah is commanded to command the people to hear the divine message.

• Isa 6:9: Understand and perceive not? It seems that the Lord is telling Isaiah to command the people not to hear, not to understand and not to perceive (in the Masoretic text, "understand" and "perceive" are in the 2nd person imperative form). This unusual command has generated a lot of commentary on verses 9-10. One common approach is to simply assume an ironic tone in this command. A footnote in the NET translation expresses this approach: "This ironic command is comparable to saying to a particularly recalcitrant individual, 'Go ahead, be stubborn!'" Another approach is to assume that this is a prophecy rather than a command. In fact, the LXX uses a future tense of the verbs rather than an imperative. However, to simply read this verse as sarcastic or as a prophecy may be oversimplifying the meaning of this verse.

• Isa 6:9: Hardening theme. It is important to recognize the context of Isaiah's charge in light of the arraigning tone in chapters 1-5. Given Israel's disobedience, it may be inevitable that Israel will not understand or perceive. This same theme arises in several other scriptural contexts. For example, in Mark 4:12, Christ seems to suggest that the reason he is speaking in parables is so that those who have rejected him will be confused. Alma 12:10-11 also seems to suggest this. Whereas we might think God would lovingly continue to offer repeated chances for others to accept and understand the word of God. However, for whatever reason, it seems this is not the pattern that God follows. Instead, God seems to actively impede the understanding of those who harden their hearts ("until they know nothing concerning the mysteries"). In fact, it is the active part which Isaiah's preaching is to play that makes this verse unsettling and therefore interesting. For example, in Ezek 3:4-7 (and 12:2-3) and Amos 9:1ff the prophets are commanded to preach unto a people who will not listen, but there the preaching is not linked to the hardening of the people's hearts—their hearts are already hard. But here (and in Mark 4:12 and Alma 12:10-11) God—through the preaching of the word—is seen take a nontrivial role in the hardening of the people's hearts. It may be that if God did not punish those that began to harden their hearts by forcing the issue, forcing a decision, then the possibility of a true "undone" type of conversion experience like Isaiah had would not be possible (see more on this below).

The first major occurrence in the Old Testament of this hardening theme seems to be in Ex 4:21 (see discussion at Ex 7:3). Another noteworthy "hardening" passage is Deut 29:2-6 where Moses first recounts "the signs and those great miracles" (v. 3) which God manifested to them, then in verse 4 Moses explains to Israel that "the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see and ears to hear, unto this day." Here God is depicted as actively taking part in Israel's hardheartedness. However, other passages in Deuteronomy indicate that this action was a result of choices that Israel had made. In particular, Deut 9:6, 13, 27 and 31:27 describe Israel as a "stiffnecked" people who manifested stubbornness, wickedness, rebelliousness and sin. Also, in Deut 10:16 Israel's own ability to change their fate is manifest in God's command for them to "circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked."

Another Old Testament passage with a similar hardening theme is 1 Kgs 22:19-22. There, Micaiah has a similar vision, seeing the Lord "sitting on his throne" (1 Kgs 22:19; Isa 6:1; cf. also Amos 9:1, "I saw the Lord") surrounded by heavenly hosts (1 Kgs 22:19 ; Isa 6:2; see also Amos 9:5 "the Lord, God of hosts") asking for a volunteer to effectively blind the hearer(s) to the truth (in 1 Kgs 22:20 Ahab is to be deceived into going to battle whereas Isaiah in 6:10 is to "shut their eyes").

In D&C 121:12ff God tells Joseph Smith that he will "blind the minds" of Joseph's accusers. There, the blinding that God imposes seems to be a direct result of the unrighteousness of the accusers and the lack of understanding seems to be a consequence of the fact that "their hearts are corrupted." The people Isaiah is to preach to may be similar to Joseph Smith's accusers, thus Isaiah's charge is to be the means by which God effects a blinding of the minds of the people.

For more on this hardening theme, see To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6:9-10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation (no. 64 in the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series) by Craig Evans.

• Isa 6:9: Invitation to become undone? The tension between hearing vs. understanding and seeing vs. perceiving suggests an overwhelming aspect of the word Isaiah is to offer. Isaiah is to command the people to shm'w shmw, to "hear, hearing," but not (and here the command is doubled) to interpret (byn is the verb, and it means to distinguish between sounds, hence to interpret, to recognize difference, to insert oneself into the play of differences at work in language). The people are to be commanded, apparently, to given an ear to a "booming, buzzing confusion." Isaiah is to command them to dedicate themselves to what they cannot understand at all: the people are to take up (and to take up radically) an unfulfillable intentionality, to intend what they cannot at all discern (for sheer volume or for sheer silence?). That the people are commanded to take up the angelic position at a visible distance from the Lord (though without understanding) is confirmed by the second (double) command: Isaiah is to command the people to r`w r`w, to "see, seeing," but not to know (the verb yada in Hebrew means more literally to have a direct relation to something, perhaps confirmed most clearly in its usage as a term for sexual activity). Like the excess that causes the ears to fail, an excess is to be given to the eyes of the people Isaiah teaches, so that they cannot know what stands immediately in their presence. To be thus overwhelmed may be a way of understanding God who is beyond comprehension (cf. D&C 76:116).

The commands to hear but not understand and see but not perceive may thus have a subversive double meaning. That is, although at first blush it may seem that understanding and perceiving are what the people should strive for, in fact it may be that, in order to be truly converted and healed (cf. verse 10), the people need to give their attempts at understanding and perceiving and let God endow them with understanding and perception in the manner Isaiah was received such via the live coal after declaring himself undone. Although understanding and perceiving are typically cast in a positive light in the scriptures (e.g. D&C 136:32), Isa 11:3 describes a righteous judge that "shall not judge by the site of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears." This raises possible doubts about the desirability of seeing and hearing. It may be that, in order to have a complete conversion experience (like Isaiah's being undone), the people need to first have their eyes shut, their ears made heavy and their hearts made fat (v. 10) and then let God give them new eyes, new ears, and a new heart, or have God open their eyes, ears and heart (cf. 2 Kgs 6:17, 20; Mosiah 27:22; D&C 76:12; D&C 136:32; Moses 6:35; Abr 3:12).

In this sense, it seems that the people are commanded to take up a position like the angels, except without their (the angels') tongue. They are to hear (the silence) and to see (the One on the throne), but without any ability to speak the words of the silence they see (3 Ne 19:32; 28:14). Just as Isaiah was suddenly thrust into the angelic chorus by the shocking theophany of verse 1, Isaiah is to command the people to step into the blinding, deafening presence of God. They are to be given an excess, one that overflows their capacities, and so renders the whole experience completely senseless. Isaiah's commands, commanded by the command of the Silent One, are such that the people will be invited to recognize, if only they can, that their lips are unclean, that they do not have the exalted language necessary to the experience they are to have. In excess: Isaiah, speaking with the tongue of angels, is to overflowingly invite the people to be overflowed. In fact, the imagery of overflow is used in Isa 28:9-13 in a very similar passage: there it is too a question of the prophetic, angelic tongue sounding like pure babble to the people.

Ultimately, it seems Isaiah's charge is to force the issue with the people. D&C 1:2 states that none can escape the voice of the Lord, "there is no eye that shall not see, neither ear that shall not hear, neither heart that shall not be penetrated." The question is, it seems, what will the people do when the God's voice thus confronts them. The predominant negative tone in these first six chapters of Isaiah suggests that most Israelites will not respond to this invitation as Isaiah has done, but will instead remain blind to the truth.

• Isa 6:10: Cross-references on eyes, ears, heart. The concepts of eyes to see, ears to hear, and a heart to understand are used in many places in the scriptures (many times in a way that seem theologically problematic—see discussion below): Deut 29:4; Ps 69:23; Isa 29:10; 42:18, 20; 43:8; Jer 5:21; Ezek 12:2; Matt 13:13; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10; John 12:40; Acts 28:26-27; Rom 11:8 (cf. Rom 9:18); 1 Cor 2:9; 2 Cor 3:12-16; 2 Ne 16:10; 21:3; 27:29; Mosiah 2:9; 27:22; D&C 1:2; 76:12; 128:2; 136:32; Moses 6:27.

• Isa 6:10. In verse 10, the Lord turns from quotation of the words Isaiah is commanded to speak to the people to His own discussion of Isaiah's task, as a sort of further clarification. There is an obvious linguistic connection between verses 9 and 10, both using the verbs "hear" and "see." That, however, verse 10 goes on to add a third verb to this pair--or rather, to add a third body part: the heart--is significant. In other words, the Lord Himself marks an important difference between the words Isaiah will employ and the phenomenological reality of the existential encounter in which Isaiah will speak those words: though Isaiah will mention both seeing (eyes) and hearing (ears), the event will also involve--though Isaiah cannot speak of it--the heart (and its associated "understanding"). The point seems clear: the situation will overflow Isaiah's words, or, put another way, Isaiah's words will overflow themselves, causing more than they can explicitly discuss. Isaiah's task is obviously more than his words, but it is to be accomplished, apparently, by (and only by) his words. In other words, Isaiah will explicitly call the ears and the eyes of the people, but what he ultimately aims at accomplishing is to call the people's heart as well.

In fact, the triplet of eyes, ears, and heart is fruitful in and of itself. While the eyes project outward and the ears receive inward, the heart mediates the two directionalities as the impetus of the roving gaze and the receptacle of the captive ears. It is in this regard that one might note that lb, "heart," means more literally "center." As the center of things, the heart is the home of seeing and hearing, the seat of the economy (oikonomia means literally "the law of the home"), of in and out, of phenomenological exchange. This central role of the heart, its (at least) double nature, confirms the excess it embodies: the heart is characterized by abundance, but excess, even as it is here the excess that overflows the words Isaiah speaks in the event in which he speaks them. The heart--confirmed by Isaiah's careful words--is at once the home (and home is where the heart is) or center and characterized as the seat of excess (love at home?). That Isaiah's words (which exclude the heart) function ultimately to call the heart can now be interpreted more precisely: it is at once a call to love (a call to charity, adoration, or devotion) and a decentering. The latter might be clarified: it is a call that summons one beyond his or her economy, out of the home. In other words, as a call to charity, it is a call to leave home (one's love of self) for the love of another (leave, cleave). Isaiah's call functions as an invitation to another's home, to knock at a door--or really, the veil--that opens onto the home (the heart) of God. The call: come to a new home, and receive a new heart.

But all of this seems to ignore the clear negative tone of verse 10: Isaiah is not sent to call hearts to love, but to close them up against God! Such an interpretation is, however, somewhat rash. Some major questions of translation and interpretation must be gone through first. Some ambiguities must be rooted out and explored first. For example, Isaiah is first commanded to "make the heart of this people fat." This verse is, it appears, the only place in the Hebrew scriptures where the root shmn is taken as a verb (as an imperative, in fact). As such, any translation is by nature suspect. The most important noun cognate to this verb is shmn, "(olive) oil," used nearly 200 times in the OT. Other words derivative from the same root denote "fatness," but not as a physical character. Rather, shmn denotes that which is abundant, rich (like rich food), etc. In other words, the root, as a verb, might be better translated "to oil," "to grease," or even, though this may seem somewhat a stretch, "to anoint." Any of these translations seems perhaps just as enigmatic as the KJV rendering, however. It is certainly clear that, whatever the phrase means, it is not clear whether it is a good or a bad thing. The prophet is then commanded to "make their ears heavy." The Hebrew khbd means to be heavy (in the imperative, to weigh something down), used in both positive senses (khbd becomes khbwd, "glory") and negative senses (khbd can mean to burden, even to be weighed down with sin). Just as the hearts of the people is to be subjected an ultimately ambiguous work on Isaiah's part, the ears are to be treated in a way that remains unclear in the text. And again, it is not at all clear what it would mean to "weigh down the ears." Finally, Isaiah is commanded to "shut their eyes." Again the Hebrew manifests an ambiguity. Due to the verbal form of an imperative, it is unclear whether the root sh'h or the root sh' is being used. If the former, then the meaning would be: "look to their eyes," and could even be translated "let their eyes regard." If the latter, then the meaning would be: "blind their eyes" or "smear over their eyes." Though these possible translations make more sense than those offered in the cases of heart and ears, the same indecidable ambiguity is present again. Obviously, the KJV translation cannot be read without at least some discretion.

All of these details, at last, allow one to proceed to the work of interpretation, difficult as such a task now appears to be. What is at play in this most interesting clarification on the Lord's part? Perhaps the best approach is to ignore entirely the implicit summons buried within the ambiguities: the clarification of what Isaiah is supposed to be doing is not necessarily to be understood either as a positive or as a negative task. In other words, each of the commands given to Isaiah employ verbs with literal, physical, earthly meanings; even if each of them might be drawn up into a heavenly (or again, into a hellish) symbolic system, they remain--in the first place, and until they are so taken up--verbs that describe simple, physical actions. In other words, one should probably read the first half of this verse in an almost banal way before interpreting anything into it: Isaiah, grease up the heart of this people, weigh down their ears, and smear over their eyes. Leaving off the positive/negative dichotomy, a common aspect had amongst the three commands immediately becomes obvious: all three imply an adding-onto, a pouring-onto, a covering-with. Isaiah's command is neither to shut nor to open, but to give. In other words, Isaiah is to make an offering, to present a gift; whether that gift is received or not is ultimately not Isaiah's concern (cf. Ether 12:36-37).

What all of this means is that Isaiah's task is not so much clarified in the first half of verse 10 as it is qualified: the further words of the Lord do not attempt to explain to Isaiah that he is to seal up the people for destruction, but that he is to offer his words as a sort of gift, one that might or might not be received. The ambiguity of the terms is, then, precisely deliberate: a gift can be received as a token of the charity that thereby overwhelms the recipient; a gift can be received as a poison that closes giver and receiver within a painful economy of exchange, even altercation. Isaiah might, on the one hand, be offering oil for anointing an old heart to make it new, words of glory to ears that would otherwise hear nothing, and healing to eyes that have long since lost the ability to see. He might, on the other hand and at the same time, be giving only grease to the heart, burdening the ears, and smearing filth over the eyes. In the end, Isaiah is to call, but he is unable to respond to that call for the people.

But despite the ambiguities of the first half of the verse, the second half seems to be rather clear. It might, in fact, be read as an explanation of why Isaiah is to do the ambiguous actions of the first half of the verse. Implied by the emphatic "lest" is that the Lord wants Isaiah to do these things precisely so that the people are not "converted" and "healed." It must be admitted that a variety of emendations might be made to get around such a "negative" reading. Perhaps the most interesting one of these emendations--in fact a reading that would not ultimately require emendation to the actual letters written in the text--would be to choose to read "convert, and be healed" (more literally "return, and be healed") as imperatives (rather than held under the sway of the "lest") addressed to Isaiah: "lest.... And then, Isaiah, return and be healed." Though this particular emendation was not common in ancient commentaries and translations, other attempts to weaken the meaning of the verse were prevalent in rabbinical writings and in the Targums. But regardless of all of these possible emendations, the text's grammar seems to be coherent enough and well represented elsewhere to cast some doubt on any such effort. The New Testament quotations of this verse seem to imply that it was understood negative (see, for example Mark 4:10-12). It seems clear that it would be better to read the verse precisely as it stands in the KJV (with, perhaps, the clarification of "convert" in terms of "returning").

Two important implications come with the second half of the verse, then, that must be considered carefully. First, it seems to be implied that not seeing, not hearing, and not understanding are to be equated with not being converted and not being healed. Second, and perhaps the consequence of the first implication, the verse implies that the Lord does not want His people to be converted and healed. Each of these major implications must be investigated in turn.

In regards to the first implication, it must immediately be conceded that a rash oversimplification is at work. While, for example, it is clear that the Lord does not want the people to "see with their eyes," it is not clear which part of this phrase is objectionable. Only a reading that emphasizes the word "they" above all others is bound to conclude that the Lord does not want the people to see at all. Other words in the phrase might be, however, of greater emphasis: the Lord might not want them to see with their eyes, might not want them to see with their eyes, might not want them to see with their eyes, etc. It might be, in other words, a question of the Lord wanting the people to do something other than seeing with their eyes (closing them in prayer, perhaps), of Him wanting them to see through the eyes of some other person (Isaiah or the Lord Himself, perhaps), of Him wanting them to see with something other than their eyes (with their "spiritual eyes" perhaps). The same difficulty and multiplicity of possible interpretations can be read into the other two phrases: how is one to read the Lord's desire that the people not "hear with their ears" and "understand with their heart"?

Given these difficulties, the first implication drawn above is already somewhat problematic: it is not at clear that not seeing/hearing/understanding is to be equated with not being converted/healed. Rather, the interpreter is called upon first to seek an understanding of what exactly is at work in the business of eyes/ears/heart, before he or she turns to interpret the question of conversion and healing. And this complication of the first implication might well do great damage to the second: if it is not clear exactly what relationship prevails between Isaiah's overwhelming gift and the apparent non-conversion and non-healing of the people, then it is not yet clear whether or not the Lord desires specifically that the people never be converted, or never be healed. Interpretive work must replace broad impressions.

Hence, the task for the interpreter is to try to understand what it is that the Lord is trying to accomplish with sending Isaiah to overflow the eyes, ears, and hearts of the people, by bringing these several body parts of the people into the logic of charity or of the gift. Above, several rough and ready possibilities for interpretation of these three phrases were offered, and these might become a point of departure for responsible interpretation of the second half of this verse. It is possible, in fact, to read the several possibilities provided above as all characteristic of Isaiah's own theophany: he lost his seeing entirely from his eyes. In other words, all the emphases above play together in Isaiah's own overwhelming experience: his eyes, his ears, even his very heart were all overwhelmed and he sensed only an immediate destruction coming upon him. As explored in the commentary for verse 5, the only reason a violent destruction did not entirely consume the prophet was because of his uttered inarticulation, his "covenant with death." In other words, distracted from his eyes by the sight, from his ears by the silence, and even from his heart by the impending violence of his death, Isaiah lived finally through his mouth! Might not the same shift be at play in this verse?

In other words, if Isaiah's seeing/hearing/understanding the Lord in verse 1 was precisely what overthrew his eyes/ears/heart and turned him over to his mouth (but now lips without guile--uttering the most honest inarticulation), might not the purpose of Isaiah's radical gift be to accomplish the same for the people? He is, in short, to distract them from their bodies/souls into the guileless shout of self-interpreted inarticulate speech: into the recognition, then, of the absolute lack of a pole of reference in the speech (even in their bodies/souls: body/soul as expression). Fundamental distraction: Isaiah is to draw the people, not from the presence of the Lord, but into it so that they will be forced thereby into the point of decision that hovers between inarticulate speech and absolute destruction.

The apparent equation between this overwhelming distraction and not being converted/healed suggests, it seems, that very few respond as Isaiah, with the inarticulate, guileless speech of the lips, that very few respond to the call that overflows the senses. However, a grammatical curiosity might here go some way toward explaining this "apparent equation." The word "lest" (Hebrew: pn) is almost universally followed by the imperfect form of the verb (which implies that the action of that verb remains undone). This is the case here with the three verbs "see," "hear," and "understand." In other words, the "lest" marks those three actions are still unsure (what would be called "subjunctive" in English grammar). However, on occasion in the OT, imperfect verbs that follow pn are followed in turn by verbs in the perfect form (which implies an action that has been completed, is absolutely past). The construction is curious and calls for thought. Since the verb(s) following the pn are imperfect, it is clear that there is some action that someone hopes does not happen (here the Lord "hopes" that the people will not see, hear, and understand--all imperfect verbs). When an imperfect is followed by a perfect (all of this after pn), the implication seems to be that if the actions still unaccomplished (the imperfect verbs) become accomplished, then the actions confined to the following perfect verbs will become a "done deal." In other words, unless the seeing/hearing/understanding can be stopped up, the "returning" and "being healed" of the people is inevitable. Stated as a rule: the imperfect form of the verb conditions the following perfect verbs, undoes their implied completion, but only if the imperfection can remain as such; if the action of the imperfect verbs ever happen, then the perfect verbs will follow necessarily.

The relation, then, between seeing/hearing/understanding and returning/being-healed is more complex than at first appears. They two sets are not equated by any means. But if seeing/hearing/understanding happens, then returning/being-healed is inevitable. If seeing/hearing/understanding is stopped short, however, returning/being-healed becomes a question (though it might still happen). The grammatical construction here seems to imply, then, that the Lord is not so much trying to make it impossible for the people to return and be healed as He is trying to force them to make a radical decision, putting them into a moment of temptation or of extreme danger, where they might be converted/healed, but where they might also face a violent destruction. The overwhelming experience Isaiah is to give to the people is ultimately a raising of the stakes: rather than just returning to the Lord's favor through repentance and being healed at the next Day of Atonement gathering so as to start the whole ridiculous process over again, the Lord forces an either/or. Will the people join the angelic throng who collectively survives the presence of the Lord, or will they instead descend into absolute destruction? Perhaps the overarching negative tone of the verse (a tone only marginally called into question by the present considerations) suggests that very few will be as Isaiah himself in response.

A final comment might complete this lengthy consideration of verse 10. The either/or forced by the Lord is not to be understood as a moment of radical clarity. Isaiah's sudden vision did not seem to present him with two obvious options bound to a question he had time to deliberate on. Rather, the suddenness and shock of the experience forced him to react as he himself would "naturally" respond. His inarticulate cry was not a responsible decision, but a response that marked a million decisions that had gone before. If Isaiah is to give the people a similar experience, he ultimately is proving them, seeing if they will trust the prophet of the Lord even though he speaks only in babble (tsw ltsw, tsw ltsw, qw lqw, qw lqw in Isa 28:10). Will they believe even though (perhaps precisely because) it is absurd? The implication is that the prophetic gift is one that cannot be compromised for Isaiah. Though Paul will later call for an interpreter when a prophet speaks with this angelic tongue (see 1 Cor 14:28), Isaiah's call allows him no such mediation: the people must believe inarticulately before articulation becomes even the remotest possibility.

• Isa 6:11. Isaiah responds to the overwhelming clarification of verses 9-10 with a rather simple question: "how long?" literally, "until when?" But Isaiah's question betrays a sort of freedom Isaiah feels with the Lord he addresses: a freedom marked less by Isaiah's boldness than by the Lord's grace. The prophet's question, in fact, draws out of the narrative an aspect of it that might all too easily be missed: the prophet is here given, from the very outset, an opportunity to have laid out for him in detail the call he is being given. The Old Testament is filled with prophets who are called and sent with little--or usually no--explanation of the task whatsoever. These many examples, in fact, are the ground out of which grows the so-called "complaint literature" of the OT, literature in which a jaded prophet rebukes the Lord for His inattentiveness to His prophet, His covenant, His people, His responsibility. Only after the fact does understanding come--if it then comes at all: much of complaint literature ends in a sort of prophetic aporia. Isaiah's narrative answers the question before it arises, thereby either undercutting all complaint literature in advance or (and this option is very intriguing) becoming the most radical version of complaint literature. At any rate, Isaiah is given to understand the Lord's silence (his "inattentiveness") from the very beginning.

This last point might be elaborated briefly before returning to the content of verse 11. Isaiah has long been recognized--by authors of scripture as much as by scholars of scripture--as somehow different from other prophets. He is characterized with a sort of boldness, certainly an incredible complexity, an outstanding poetic ability, and a belligerently unapologetic style. Perhaps more self-conscious than any other prophet, he recognizes these traits in himself and on occasion comments on them. All of these details might be explained with reference to this chapter of Isaiah. Isaiah is given to understand before he prophesies that he will not often (if ever) be understood, that his writings are themselves only to be interpreted according to the tongue of angels (by the power of the Holy Ghost; cf. 2 Ne 32:3, 2 Ne 25:4). He recognizes in advance that the gift he offers all too often results only in closed eyes, shut ears, hard hearts: while the same might be said of the other prophets, only Isaiah seems reconciled to the fact. It seems, in the end, to be this little question-and-answer session that makes Isaiah the different prophet, the other among the prophets: he recognizes from the very start what his prophetic calling entails.

The question Isaiah asks the Lord, and the Lord's response in turn with it, confirms the above reading: Isaiah desires to know how long he is to work such an unfruitful task, and he is told that he must do it until men have been destroyed and scattered (the eyes, ears, and hearts of the people being, apparently, closed, shut, and hard). But more than the mere gloom of the end of such a task is in question here. Isaiah asks "until when?" and the Lord responds with a specific time, an event that lies on the horizon: Isaiah is given a very specific answer, and that answer (which spills over into verse 12) deserves close attention. The event, taking the remainder of verse 11 and the whole of verse 12 at a glance, seems to be the conquest of the people Isaiah is to teach by a foreign enemy. The cities will be wasted, left without inhabitant, the houses without men, and the land will be utterly desolate. Not only this, but the LORD Himself will, through such an enemy, have taken the survivors away to some other place, and the midst of the land will be emptied. In the end, it is clearly verse 12 that suggests the concept of a foreign invasion, since the survivors are dragged to another location; verse 11 itself might be read a few different ways. But with the insight of verse 12, verse 11 might be read more clearly.

The KJV renders the Hebrew very faithfully in the second half of verse 11. There is no question but that the event to come, the time in which Isaiah will be released from his duties to the people, is a desolation brought on by a foreign enemy. The cities are to be wasted and the land utterly desolate, the cities without inhabitant and the houses without man. Until verse 12 softens the blow somewhat, the implication seems to be a complete destruction, a holocaust of sorts. One interesting facet of the Hebrew words in this verse is a connection between "man" and "the land." The former is 'dm and the latter 'dmh, the etymological tie being rather obvious. 'dmh might be most literally translated "clay" or "earth" (in the sense of a handful of earth), and "man" means literally "that which comes from the clay" (the Hebrew word itself is the name "Adam"). In other words, there is a curious tie between the people to whom Isaiah speaks and the land in which they live. They are to be despoiled, and the land is to lie fallow. The separation of the people from the land implies a rending of the Abrahamic covenant, through which the two were originally tied. There is again a hint of the Day of Atonement in this chapter: the Abrahamic covenant is what is in question.

• Isa 6:12. Again the Hebrew is well translated in the KJV. The absolute destruction of the previous verse is qualified as being, at least in part, a deportation of conquered people. The best reading of these two verses would probably to interpret two results of a foreign invasion at play: many are killed, and many are led away into a foreign land, into a wilderness of sorts. Speaking broadly, such a double interpretation calls to mind one of the most important features of the Day of Atonement rites: of two goats who took part in the ritual, one was killed as a sacrifice, and the other was led away into the desert to die, this latter carrying the sins of Israel upon his head. If all of the details above follow carefully a Day of Atonement theme, then these two verses carry the hint that in this Day of Atonement, Israel itself is to carry his own sins into the wilderness, and is itself to suffer as the sacrifice for sin. The hint is powerful to say the least.

• Isa 6:13. Some remnant will survive to return to the land, what Isaiah calls a tenth or a "tithe" (the word is the same used for "tithes" elsewhere in the OT). By calling it a "tithe," the Lord seems to be summoning the idea of the part of the spoil that is returned to the Lord upon victory (cf. Gen 14:20, where Abraham returns tithes to Melchizedek of his spoils in war). By introducing this concept of tithing into the coming destruction of the people, the Lord offers a rather radical interpretation of the His own judgment: utilizing a foreign military force, the Lord subjugates and destroys His people, but He will always have the foreign nation return the tenth part to Him for His own use, so that He can build up the temple with it. The image is rather striking: the tenth part will be delivered, as tithing always was, to the temple for its upkeep. The facility and perhaps positive character of this interpretation, however, seems cancelled by the "shall be eaten [lit. consumed]" that follows it. It is not entirely clear what this might mean, or whether it is meant to cancel the positive turn of things with the promise of a returning tithe.

Before considering this difficult phrase, it might be well to consider the parallel metaphor the Lord introduces. The situation is as an oak, which, when felled (a much better translation than "when they cast their leaves"), leaves behind a stump (translated poorly as "substance"; the word means "standing or upright thing"). The parallel between this image and the returning tenth is clear: when the tree as a whole is felled, and a stump is left behind, the possibility of life remains (the stump is called a "holy seed" at the end of the verse; cf. Job 14:7), though everything alive seems to have been taken. Israel conquered is as the tree: destroyed for the most part, but enough of something left behind so that life might again spring forth. The stump left behind is called, as mentioned, the "holy seed," which can only be understood messianically (as a reference to an anointed king): that stump left behind will sprout again, and the new life coming from it will be the anointed, saving king. There seems to be here a connection with Isa 11:1, where a new bud springs forth from a dead stump, the new bud being the anointed king who brings peace to the people.

The parallel, it should be clear, offers no negative undoing of the positive return. How, then, might "shall be eaten" be interpreted? Some alternate translations might be offered: "purged," "set to graze." That these are alternate possibilities suggests that there is some difficulty of translation. While the verse might certainly be read as offering an unfortunate turn after a positive one (the NIV even removes the phrase to the very end of the verse so that it might be read as an overturning of the parallel good turns), it might just as well be read in a positive light. The lack of a parallel negation seems to suggest a positive reading of the verb.

Unanswered questions

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

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

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 6:10. How are we to understand verse 10? Just reading the verse it sounds like the Lord wants the people not to understand Isaiah's words so that they won't be converted and healed. But from other parts of the scriptures we know that the Lord is sorrowful when we do not follow his words and that he wants us to return to him. How do we reconcile verse 10 with those other scriptures?

Resources

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. →

• Isa 6:9: Idol polemic. G. K. Beal, in Vetus Testamentum, v. 41, (1991), "Isaia VI 9-13: A Retributive Taunt against Idolotry" (pp. 257-278), argues that this is a polemic against idolotry (cf. Ps 115:5-8; Ps 135:15-18).

Notes

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: Verses 6:5-7                              Next page: Chapter 7