Criswell Theological
Review 6.2 (1993) 237-253
[Copyright © 1993 by
digitally prepared for use at
Gordon and
THE "EVERLASTING COVENANT"
AND THE "CITY OF
INTENTIONAL AMBIGUITY
AND IRONY IN ISAIAH 24
ROBERT B. CHISHOLM, JR.
Isaiah
24-27 often referred to as Isaiah's "Apocalypse,"1 brings
to cul-
mination the judgment oracles
against the nations recorded in chaps.
13-23.
In this Apocalypse the prophet describes God's
devastating
universal judgment which reverses creation and
reduces the world to
chaos. Ironically, he associates this judgment with
the subduing of
chaos and the establishment of God's kingdom on
Isaiah 24 describes this coming judgment in
particularly vivid de-
tail. According to v 5, the earth's inhabitants have
"disobeyed the laws,
violated the statutes, and broken the everlasting
covenant.”2 This "re-
bellion" (v 20) prompts
God to implement against them the covenantal
"curse" (v 6), which in typical fashion brings with it
widespread infer-
tility and sorrow (vv 4,
7-11).3 The judgment, which is accompanied by
a torrential downpour reminiscent of the Noahic flood and by an
earthquake which rocks the earth to its very core
(vv 18b-19), brings
1 Scholars have debated the precise genre
of these chapters, an issue which is be-
yond the scope of this study. For discussions of
this subject, see, among others, W. R
Millar,
Isaiah 24-27 and the Origin of Apocalyptic
(HSM 11; Missoula: Scholars, 1976)
1-9,114-15;
J. N. Oswalt, "Recent Studies in Old Testament
Eschatology and Apocalyp-
tic," JETS
24 (1981) 294-98; and R Youngblood, "A Holistic Typology of Prophecy and
Apocalyptic,"
2 Unless otherwise indicated, all biblical
quotations are from the New Interna-
tional Version.
3 Agricultural
infertility
appears in biblical covenantal curse lists (cf. Lev 26:20;
Deut
28:17-18, 22-23, 38-42) and in ancient Near Eastern treaty curses. Examples of
the
latter include paragraph 64 of the vassal treaties of Esarhaddon and stele IA of the Ara-
maic Sefire
treaty. See. J. Pritchard, ed., Ancient
Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old
Testament (3d ed.;
238
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
total (vv 1-3), inescapable (vv 17-18a), and final (v
20b) destruction. In
conjunction with this judgment the prophet
anticipates the downfall
of an unidentified city (vv 10-12), which is
contrasted with restored
creation by reducing the earth to a marred (vv 1,
19) and virtually un-
inhabited (v 6) state approximating the unformed
and unfilled condi-
tion which prevailed prior
to God's creative work (cf. Gen 1:2).4
Two difficult questions face the interpreter of
Isaiah 24: (1) What is
the referent of "the everlasting
covenant" mentioned in v 5? (2) What is
the identity of the "city of chaos" (v
10, NASB) referred to as the object
of God's judgment? This second question is
complicated by the context.
Each
of the following chapters (cf. 25:2; 26:5-6;27:10)
also mentions a city
which is brought to ruin by divine judgment. Is the
same city in view
throughout these chapters, or is more than one
referent to be understood?
Scholars
have offered a variety of answers to these questions. Re-
alizing that this lack of
unanimity might be a signal that the text is
hopelessly opaque to the modern interpreter, I will
nevertheless at-
tempt to offer a solution for each of these problems.
In the process I
will suggest that recognizing the text's very
ambiguity is the key to its
proper interpretation and that Isaiah has utilized the
literary devices
of intentional ambiguity and irony for rhetorical
purposes.
Proposed Answers to the Questions
The "Everlasting
Covenant"
In response to the first question, many
interpreters, pointing to
the text's cosmic flavor, identify the "everlasting
covenant" as the uni-
versal covenant supposedly
made between God and humankind at
creation,5 or as the Noahic covenant of Genesis 9.6 Emphasizing ele-
4 In this regard, it is noteworthy that
the city is called UhTo-tyar;qi [qiryat tohu]
(24:10), a phrase which may echo the description
of the primeval state of the earth (cf.
Gen
1:2 where the earth is said to be Uhbova
Uhto [tohu wabohu],
"unformed and unfilled").
Since
Isaiah uses UhT
rather
frequently of things (such as idols) which are empty and
worthless (cf. BDB 1062), the word might
characterize the city as rebellious. However, it
is more likely in this context (which focuses on
the results of God's intervention, cf.
vv 7-13) that it refers to the devastated
condition which overtakes the city following
God's judgment (cf. the use of the word in Isa 34:11).
5 See, for example, E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah (3 vols.;
mans, 1965-72) 2.158; W J. Dumbrell,
Covenant and Creation (
son, 1984) 74; and J. N. Oswalt,
The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39
(NICOT; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans,
1986) 446.
While acknowledging that the Noahic covenant may be
the specific referent here, Oswalt
notes that the "broader reference is to the implicit
covenant between Creator and creature, in which
the Creator promises abundant life in
return for the creature's living according to the norms
laid down at Creation.”
6 See, for example, G. B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Book
of Isaiah (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912) 411; O. Kaiser, Isaiah 13-39 (
Robert
B. Chisholm, Jr.: THE "EVERLASTING COVENANT” 239
ments in the text which seem
to point in direction of
see the Sinaitic covenant
between God and
Each of these proposals, while attractive in
some ways, faces seri-
ous difficulties. Though
one might naturally think of a universal cove-
nant between God and
humankind as originating at the time of
creation, there is no biblical record of such a
covenant.8 On the sur-
face, the Noahic covenant
is an attractive option because it is uni-
versal in scope and is
actually called a MlAOf
tyriB; (berit ‘olam),
everlasting covenant (Gen
Genesis
9 reveals that the covenant mentioned there is a seemingly
unconditional divine promise which
does not appear to be linked
formally to the mandate issued at the beginning
of the chapter
J.
Cabalda, 1977) 1.353;J. D. W
Watts, Isaiah 1-33 (Waco, TX: Word,
1985) 318;
God's Universal Covenant (2d ed;
Hayes and S. A
7 See, for example, W E. March, "A
Study of Two Prophetic Compositions in
Isaiah
24:1-27:1" (ThD. dissertation, Union Theological
Seminary, NY, 1966) 29-32;
D.
Gowan, Eschatology
in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 77; and
D.
C. Johnson, From Chaos to Restoration: An
Integrative
(JSOTSupp 61; Sheffield: JSOT, 1988) 27-29.
8 Note that Oswalt
refers to this covenant as "implicit" (Isaiah, 446). Dumbrell
(Covenant and Creation, 11- 46, see
especially 20-39) proposes that the first biblical ref-
erence to a covenant (Gen
and humankind which originated at creation. Some
have seen an allusion to this cove-
nant in Hos
6:7 (cf. NIY; "Like Adam, they have broken the covenant"), but MdAxA [‘adam]
can just as easily be taken as a generic reference
to humankind or, better yet, be under-
stood (with a slight emendation of the preposition
prefixed to the form in the Hebrew
text) as a place name (note Mw [sam],
"there,” in the parallel line). See E. W. Nicholson,
God and His People:
Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (
1986) 180-81. Note also the
reservations expressed by Dumbrell, 45-46.
9 The phrase MlAOf
tyriB; has several referents in the OT, including: (1)
God's prom-
ise to Noah that the earth
would never again be destroyed by a flood (Gen
promise to Abraham of numerous descendants and
of the
possession (Gen 17:7, 19; cf. l Chr
ual obligation placed upon
Abraham and his descendants to remind them of their rela-
tionship with God (Gen
upon
ligated to place before the
Lord on the Sabbath (Lev 24:8); (6) the priests' share of Is-
rael's offerings (Num
25:13);
(8) God's promise to David (2 Sam 23:5); and (9) God's eschatological covenant
with
the phrase can refer to a promise or an obligation.
This lexical range is consistent with
the conclusion of E. Kutsch,
who proposes that tyriB;, rather than meaning
"agreement"
("Bund"),
refers to an obligation ("Verpflichtung")
or obligations, whether taken upon
oneself (as in a pledge or oath), imposed on
another, bilaterally accepted, or imposed by
a third party. See Verheissurlg
und Gesetz (BZAW 131; Berlin: de Gruyter,
1973) 1-27,
and the helpful summary provided by Nicholson, God and His People, 89-93.
240
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
(Gen
9:1-7).10 Furthermore, Isa 54:9 refers to
this promise as a uni-
lateral divine oath which God will not violate.
Thus the Noahic cove-
nant appears to be different
in nature from the "everlasting covenant"
of Isaiah 24, which is clearly an arrangement that
can be broken by
humankind and has a curse attached. Finally, the language of v 5 (cf.
troOt [torot], "laws," and qHo [hoq],
"statute") might suggest the Sinaitic
covenant is in view here.11 However,
this covenant is never specifi-
cally referred to as a MlAOf tyriB;.12
Furthermore, a reference to this
covenant, which was an arrangement strictly
between God and
fits awkwardly in chap. 24, with its cosmic tone and
language.13 Even
10 Gen 9:1-17 can be divided into two
units. In vv 1-7, which are marked off by an
inclusio (cf. the verbal
similarities between vv 1 and 7), God delivers a mandate to Noah
and his sons (and indirectly to their descendants)
to reproduce themselves and populate
the earth. He prohibits murder because it runs
counter to the mandate to be fruitful and
multiply and, worse yet, is a violation of the
divine image present in all men. In vv 8-17
the Lord makes a perpetual covenant with Noah and
his descendants. This "covenant"
takes the form of a promise that God will never again
destroy the earth by a flood. God
establishes the rainbow as a sign, or guarantee, of
the promise.
11 See Johnson, From Chaos to Restoration, 27. The plural troOT almost always re-
fers to the stipulations of
the Mosaic Law (cf. Exod
Ezek
43:11; 44:5, 24; Dan 9:10). One apparent exception is Gen 26:5, where the Lord
states: "Abraham obeyed me and kept my
requirements, my commands, my decrees and
my laws.” In the context of the Abrahamic narrative, the Lord's laws would be the various
commands and obligations which he gave to the
patriarch (cf. Gen 12:1; 17:1, 9-14; 22:2).
Rhetorically
speaking, it seems as if the author is trying to portray Abraham as a model
for
times referring to the Mosaic Law (see, for example,
Ezra
range of usage, being used of various human and divine
decrees (see, for example, Gen
47:22,26; Exod 15:25; 1 Sam 30:25; Ps
2:7).
12 In response to this objection Johnson
(ibid.). points to four texts (Judg
2:1; Ps 111:5,
9; Exod 31:16) where,
in his opinion, MlAOf is associated with the
Mosaic covenant.
How-
ever, it is not certain if Judg
2:1 and Psalm 111 are referring to the Mosaic covenant or
to the Abrahamic promise
of the land. In Judg 2:1, just prior to the statement
"I will never
break my covenant with you," the Lord recalls
that he led his people into the land
promised to the patriarchs. While the reference
to the Lord's "precepts" in Ps 111:7
would seem to point in the direction of the Mosaic
covenant, v 6, with its mention of the
gift of the land, suggests that vv 5 and 9 may be
alluding to the Abrahamic promise.
Exod 31:16 specifically refers to the Sabbath as a
perpetually binding "covenant" (or "ob-
ligation") which, as
Johnson notes, seems to be a sign of God's relationship with
via the Mosaic covenant Cf. also F. J. Helfmeyer, "tOx," TDOT 1:181-83.
13 Though Cr,x, [‘eres] can sometimes refer to the
more cosmic and universal sense of "earth"
or "world; as the parallelism of vv 4 (where
Cr,x, is parallel to lbeTe [tebel]),
13 (// Mym.ifa [‘ammim], "peoples,
nations"), and 18 (//MOrmA,
"heaven") indicates. The word pair Cr,x,/lbeTe clearly designates the
earth/world in several
texts (cf. 1 Sam 2:8; 1 Chr
Prov 8:26,
31; Isa 14:16-17; 34:1; Jer
10:12; 51:15; Lam
obviously universal in the other passages where
this word pair appears, such an interpre-
tation still makes adequate,
if not excellent, sense in all these texts (cf. Job
Pss 77:18; 97:4; Isa
14:21; 18:3; 26:9, 18; Nah 1:5). Apart from its use with Cr,x,, lbeTe also
Robert
B. Chisholm, Jr.: THE "EVERLASTING COVENANT" 241
though
judgment (cf. Micah 1), the nations are not
related to God through the
Sinaitic covenant and cannot be judged on its
basis.
The "City of
Many scholars prefer to see the "city of
chaos" in v 10 as symbolic,
typical, or representative of world power, human
society, or ancient
city-state culture.14 Others attempt to
identify it with an historical
city,15 such as
A Typical or Symbolic City. Several factors favor identifying the
"city of chaos" as a type or symbol of all proud cities
which oppose
God's
authority and become objects of his judgment. This unnamed city
is described in general, even stereotypical,
fashion (24:11-12). It con-
tains houses, streets, and a
gate and is characterized by revelry.17 The
city's downfall is closely associated with the
universal judgment that re-
verses the creative order (cf. 24:4-13). In fact, the
world's inhabitants
seem to be the city's residents. In vv 10-12 the bicolon "all joy turns to
gloom" // "all gaiety is banished from the
earth" (v 11bc) appears be-
tween references to the
city's demise (cf. vv 10-11a, 12). After the de-
scription of the city's fall, v
13 observes: "So it will be on the earth and
among the nations:" Finally, following the
oracles of chaps. 13-23,
which anticipate the downfall of various specific
cities, a reference to a
typical or representative city would be
appropriate here.
A Specific Foreign City. Despite this rather vague and general
description of the city, certain features of chap.
24 and the following
refers to the world (Pss
9:8;
L.
Stadelmann, lbeTe, though used
synonymously with Cr,x,, more particularly
designates
"the habitable part of the world.” See The Hebrew Conception of the World (AnBib
39;
14 See, for example, Young, Isaiah, 2:163-64; Kaiser, Isaiah 13-39, 181, 197; R. E.
Clements,
Isaiah 1-39 (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 202;
319;
Oswalt, Isaiah,
448; and M. G. Kline, "Death, Leviathan, and the Martyrs: Isaiah
24:1-27:1"
(FS G. L Archer; Chicago: Moody, 1986) 240.
15 For surveys of the various views see
Millar, Isaiah 24-27, 15-21; and Vermeylin,
Isaie, 351. As Millar observes,
three of the proposals involving an historical city (a
abite city,
study which follows.
16 In addition to the sources listed by
Millar, see also W. H. Elder, “A Theological-
Historical
Study of Isaiah 24-27” (Ph.D. dissertation, Baylor University, 1974) 107-21;
and Johnson (From
Chaos to Restoration, 29-35, 59-61, 89-91, 98-99), who identifies the
ruined city of 24:10-12 as
the desolate city of 27:10 as Israel/Samaria and
Judah/Jerusalem. Recently Hayes and Ir-
vine (Isaiah,
296) have proposed that the “city" is actually the Assyrian citadel in Jeru-
17 In similar fashion the city is described
somewhat generally and stereotypically
in chaps. 25-27. It is fortified (25:2; 27:10) and
lofty (26:5) and is characterized by oppres-
sion (26:6).
242
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
context suggest that a foreign power or city,
such as
is in view.
Primarily on the basis of 25:10-12, some have
suggested that
abite pride and power are the
reality behind the imagery. Employing
terminology used elsewhere in chaps. 25-26 of the
devastated city, v 12
speaks of
25:12]
with hrAUcb; [besura; 25:2] and hbAGW;ni [nisgaba; 26:5]) being
brought down to the dust of the ground (cf. rpAfA-dfa Cr,xAlA cyaG;hi lyPiw;hi Hwahe
[hesah hispil higgia’ la’ares
‘ad-‘ad-‘apar; 25:12] with hn.Al,yPiw;ya
... HwaHe
rpAfA-dfa
hn.Af,yGiya Cr,x,-dfa h.lAyPiw;ya [hesah. . . yaspilenna yaspila ‘ad-‘eres
yaggi’enna ‘ad-‘apar; 26:5]). There are also numerous
verbal and the-
matic parallels between
24:7-12 and the earlier Moabite oracle (cf.
16:8-10),
both of which describe the cessation of agricultural fertility
and joy.
Others see the "city of chaos" as an
allusion to
wider Isaianic context,
which emphasizes the fall of
junction with worldwide divine judgment, suggests
in the background.18 In fact, this
section of the prophecy begins with
an oracle against
universal judgment (13:9-13).
This proposal finds further support if one
identifies the "city of
chaos" with the hostile city described in chaps.
25-26 (called in 25:2
"the foreigners' stronghold" (MyrizA
NOmr;xa [‘armon zarim]. Johnson
points out that the hostile city of 25:1-5 is
"bitterly hated by the
prophet," embodies "all the anti-godly
powers which must be de-
stroyed before the new age
could dawn; and has worldwide influ-
ence. He concludes:
"From Jewish perspective there was only one city
which would fit this description:
Finally, chap. 24 may contain echoes of the
which would point one in the direction of
warns that God will "scatter" (Cypihe [hepis]) the earth's inhabitants, just
as he did the residents of
verbs describing the earth's downfall contain
"b" and "l" sounds in se-
quence (cf. h.qAlObU [uboleqah] "devastate" [v 1], hlAb;xA [‘abela] "dries up"
[v
4], and hlAb;nA [nabela] "withers"
[twice in v 4]), echoing the judgment
of
[Gen
11:9], and llaBA [balal] "confused" [Gen
11:9]). The reference in
Isa 24:21 to a coalition between heavenly powers
and earthly kings
18 See B. Otzen,
"Traditions and Structures of Isaiah XXIV-XXVII," VT 24 (1974)
206.
19 From
Chaos to Restoration, 59. On Johnson's view of the city in these chapters,
see n. 16 above.
20 See Vermeylin,
Isaie, 355.
Robert
B. Chisholm, Jr.: THE "EVERLASTING COVENANT" 243
may also reflect the
tried to build a tower reaching into the heavens (Gen
11:4). For the
third time in Genesis 1-11, God was forced to thwart
an unauthorized
attempt to link earth and heaven.21
If the "everlasting covenant" refers
to the Noahic mandate
(as will be argued below), this would also favor
seeing the
epitomized humankind's attempt to disobey the
mandate. God instruc-
ted humankind to multiply
and fill the earth as his vice-regents. Instead
they built a city and attempted to construct a tower
reaching into the
heavens so that they "might make a
name" for themselves "and not be
scattered over the face of the earth" (Gen
11:4).22
the city is typical and/or foreign, other elements
in the text seem to
point toward an Israelite city, such as
argues that the city of 24:10-12, rather than being
the hostile city of
chaps. 25-26, is
arguments.23 According to Johnson,
the lament form of 24:7-12 makes
better sense if the destruction of
is in view. In chaps.
25-26 the downfall of the hostile city elicits praise,
not lamentation, from the prophet and the covenant
community (cf.
25:1-5;
26:1-6). Likewise, the prophet's statement in 24:16b, which in-
dicates that the immediately
preceding song of praise (cf. vv 14-16a)
is inappropriate, is best understood if the
surrounding context de-
scribes the fall of
matic elements which appear
to favor his position. There are several
verbal parallels between 24:8-9, which describes the
cessation of the
earth's revelry, and 5:11-14, which denounces
the carousing of
wealthy class. Several terms used in chap. 24
are typically or exclu-
sively used in Isaiah 1-39 or
prophetic literature of Israel/Judah, in-
cluding lbx, llmx, lbn, Hnx, hmw, and Mvrm. Johnson also suggests
that
the phrases Cr,xAhA
WOWm; [mesos ha’ares],
"gaiety of the earth" (24:11,
NASB),
and Cr,xAhA
br,q,B; [beqereb ha’ares], "in the midst of the earth"
(24:13,
NASB), are examples of double entendre. In the parallel struc-
ture of v 11 (cf. hHAm;Wi [simha], "joy," in the parallel line), WOWm; hlAGA
Cr,xAhA [gala mesos ha’ares], "The
gaiety of the earth is banished"
(NASB),
appears to refer to the cessation of the earth's joy, but Johnson
21 In Gen 3:5-6 the woman eats the
forbidden fruit in an effort to become "like
God,”
while Gen 6:1-3 tells how the "sons of God” takes wives from the
"daughters of
men.”
22 This is the second time in Genesis 1-11
where the building of a city runs
counter to a divine decree. Gen
Lord's
decree that he would be a restless wanderer (cf. v 12).
23 From
Chaos to Restoration, 29-35.
244
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
points out that the phrase Cr,xAhA
lKA (l) WOWm; [mesos(l) kol-ha’ares], "the
joy of the whole earth," is used elsewhere as
an epithet for
(cf.
Lam 2:15; Ps 48:3). The phrase Cr,xAhA br,q,B; in parallelism with
Mym.fahA
j`OtB; [betok ha’ammim], "among the
nations," may simply lo-
cate the sphere of judgment
as being "on the earth" (cf. NIV). However,
as Johnson points out, the phrase may refer to
point of the peoples of the world" and the focal
point of the judgment
(cf.
Ezek 5:5).
Many scholars also propose that an Israelite
city is in view in Isa
27:10.
This verse, which refers to a "fortified city" that has been re-
duced to ruins, is part of a
short song (vv 7-11). As Redditt points out,
the opening verses of the song "deal with
the conditions for God's full pardon of his
people," and the following
verses (12-13) "speak of the Diaspora." Redditt concludes: "It is most
natural to assume then that vv 10-11 deal with
is possible that the text refers to the fortified
cities of Israel/Judah in
general,25 many see here an
allusion to
ing judgment oracles (cf.
17:3 and 22:5, 8-11, respectively), and the lan-
guage of 27:9 parallels that
of 17:8 (cf. also 24:13 with 17:6).27
Intentional Ambiguity and Irony in Isaiah 24
As one can see from this survey of viewpoints on
both questions,
the text contains universal elements, as well as
language which seems
more restrictive and particularly applicable to
variably move in one direction or the other in
seeking a resolution to
the problems. For example, Wildberger,
observing that the Mosaic
and Noahic covenants seem
to be intertwined in the prophet's think-
ing, suggests that the
prophet reapplied distinctly Israelite traditions
to the nations.28 Johnson, on the other
hand, finds the Israelite ele-
ments to be determinative. He
concludes that "any universalistic re-
interpretation which is imposed on
this material only destroys its
intended particularity.” He adds, "The
signposts for Judah and Jerusa-
24 See P: L. Redditt,
“Once Again, the City in Isaiah 24-27,” HAR
10 (1986) 332. For
a dissenting opinion, see Oswalt,
Isaiah, 497 (though he admits that “the
possibility that
25 A possibility mentioned by Redditt, ibid.; and Clements, Isaiah 1-39, 222.
26 For a survey of these two views and
their proponents, see Oswalt, Isaiah 496-
97; and Johnson, From Chaos to Restoration, 88.
27 For a thorough discussion of the lexical
support for the respective views, see
Johnson
(ibid., 88-91).
28 See H. Wildberger,
Jesaja 13-27 (BKAT 10:2; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener
Verlag, 1978) 920-22, and Johnson's helpful summary
and critique in From Chaos to
Restoration, 43-44.
Robert
B. Chisholm, Jr.: THE "EVERLASTING COVENANT" 245
lem may not be forced to
point to the entire cosmos.”29 While rec-
ognizing the presence of
universal elements, he seems to reduce the
cosmic language to the level of mere hyperbolic
flavoring and mythi-
cal imagery.30
Is it possible to move beyond this impasse and
satisfactorily har-
monize the universal and
particular elements present in the text? In
approaching this problem, one must keep in mind
Johnson's warning:
"To
be sure, this juxtaposition of the universal and the particular cre-
ates a tension that is not
easily resolved. But the text resists resolution
of the tension by the simple elimination of one of
the two polarities,31
While
recognizing that reinterpretation is a common phenomenon in
the OT32 and that prophetic poetry is at
times characterized by a hy-
perbolic and cosmic quality,33
I prefer to give both the text's particular
and universal elements their proper due. Could it
be that the text is in-
tentionally ambiguous in places so
that one is supposed to see in its
language, including the references to the
violation of the everlasting
covenant and to the demise of the city of chaos,
the guilt and downfall
of both the nations and God's covenant people?
Though some will ac-
cuse me of wanting both to
have and eat "my cake," I will attempt to
show that recognizing the text's intentional
ambiguity allows one to do
justice to the data of the text and to
accommodate more than one theory
as to the identity of the everlasting covenant and
the city of chaos.
The
“Everlasting Covenant"
The Noahic Mandate. As noted above, the
language of chap. 24
definitely suggests that the people of the world
(not just
violated a covenant.34 This universal
indictment is consistent with and
actually rounds out the preceding context (chaps.
13-23), which, after an
introduction threatening universal
destruction (13:1-13), announces
judgment on several specific nations.
The covenant in view is patterned after the
Mosaic Law and the
ancient Near Eastern suzerain-vassal treaty.
According to v 5, the
people "have disobeyed the laws (troOt Urb;fA) [‘aberu torot]),
violated
the statutes (qHo
Upl;HA) [halepu hoq]) and broken the everlasting cove-
nant (MlAOf tyriB;
Urpehe) [heperu berit ‘olam]).”35 Because of their guilt
(cf.
Umw;x;y.,va
[wayye’semu], v
6), a "curse" (hlAxA, [‘ala], v 6) has come
29 Ibid., 44.
30 Ibid., 26,
44-47.
31 Ibid., 44.
32 See M Fishbane,
Biblical Interpretation in Ancient
1985).
33 See R Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, 1985) 137-62.
34 See n. 13 above.
35 The precise phrase "break an
everlasting covenant" never appears elsewhere
and some regard such a concept as nonsensical. Cf. Wildberger, Jesaja 13-27; 921-22; and
246
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
down upon them. The entire earth breaks apart under
the weight of
its people's "rebellion" (cf. h.fAw;Pi, [pis’ah] v 20).
The rather general and stereotypical accusatory
language fails to
specify the world's crimes, but a parallel
passage provides a clue as to
the precise nature of the nations' rebellion. Isa 26:21, which concludes
the preceding salvation oracle (vv 19-20) given in
response to
lament (vv 7-18), indicates that this worldwide
judgment is due in part
to the murderous, bloody deeds of the nations.36
By correlating this
passage with chap. 24, one sees that the earth's
inhabitants are guilty
of violating a perpetually binding, divinely
imposed obligation by un-
justly and violently shedding the blood of other human
beings (the
context of Isa 26:21
suggests violations against God's covenant people
may be specifically in mind or at least primary in
the author's think-
ing).37 This
interpretation also brings into sharper focus the reference
to the earth being "defiled" (hpAn;HA [hanepa]) by its people (cf. 24:5).
While
this verb sometimes refers to the defilement caused by idolatry
(viewed as spiritual adultery, Jer
3:2, 9), at other times it describes a
land's being polluted by bloodshed (Num 35:33-34; Ps
106:38 [in this
case, in conjunction with idolatrous worship]).
The only possible biblical referent for this
universal, perpetu-
ally binding prohibition against bloodshed is the Noahic mandate
Johnson, From
Chaos to Restoration, 28. However, if one understands “covenant" in
the
sense of “obligation" (cf. n. 9 above) the
problem can be resolved, for an obligation can
be perpetually binding and yet violated at the
same time. Gen
nantal sign of circumcision as
an ueverlasting covenant" (i.e., perpetually
binding obli-
gation), while v 14 warns that
those who fail to observe the rite have “broken" God's
covenant (ie., violated
this divinely imposed obligation).
36 Note especially hAym,DA-tx,
Cr,xAhA htAl.;giv; (wegilleta ha’ares ‘et-dameyha),
“the
earth will disclose the blood shed upon her"
(26:21), which seems to explain what the
sin (NOfE [‘awon]) mentioned in the previous
line entails.
37 Johnson objects to correlating 26:21
with 24:5 (From Chaos to Restoration,
82-
83).
He argues that 26:21 is part of a new section which begins at 24:21, points out
that
the phrase Cr,xAhA-bweyo (yoseb-ha’ares), “people of the
earth" (26:21), need not have the
same referent as the group of people referred to in
chap. 24 (his illustration of this point
is the use of lbete
ybew;yo [yoseb tebel] in 26:9, 18), and contends that the bloodshed
men-
tioned in 26:21 (which refers
to the slaughter of Israelites by the nations) does not re-
late to the violation of the covenant referred to in
24:5. However, even when one makes
allowances for the text's structure and acknowledges
that words and phrases can indeed
have different referents (whether this is the case
with lbete
ybew;yo in 26:9,
18 is highly un-
certain), Johnson's arguments are unconvincing.
As noted previously (cf. n. 13 above), the
parallelism between Cr,x, and lbeTe in 24:4 gives the former a universalistic nuance, as in
26:21.
Furthermore the verbal and thematic parallels between 26:21 and 24:1-6 are
striking: (1) cf. Cr,xAhA
bweyo (26:21) with hAyb,w;yo (ha’ares... yosebeyha; 24:1),
hAyb,w;yo... Cr,xAhA
(24:5), ybew;yo ... Cr,x,
(24:6), and
Cr,x,
ybew;yo (24:6), (2) cf. Nvf (26:21) with
24:5. Finally, even if 26:21 does refer to the
slaughter of Israelites, this hardly means that it
cannot relate to the crimes referred to in 24:5. One
of the ways in which the nations
violated the prohibition against bloodshed was in
their mistreatment of
Robert
B. Chisholm, Jr.: THE "EVERLASTING COVENANT" 247
recorded in Gen 9:1-7. This mandate contains two
main elements.
First,
God commands Noah and his sons to be fruitful and fill the
earth in the role of vice-regents over his creation
(vv 1-3, 7; cf.
Gen
1:26-30). Second, because each human being is in God's image
and rules on his behalf, God prohibits the shedding
of human blood
and warns that violations of this principle must be
punished by
death (vv 5-6). Murder runs counter to the mandate to
fill the earth
and constitutes an attack against the sovereign
authority of the
divine owner of the earth. According to Isaiah 24 (and
26:21), the
entire world was guilty of violating this mandate and
must be
punished.
However, if the Noahic
mandate is in view in Isaiah 24, why is
it called the "everlasting covenant"? As
noted earlier, Gen 9:16 ap-
plies this phrase to the divine promise appended to,
but not formally
linked with, the mandate of Gen 9:1- 7. It is here
that Isaiah's pen-
chant for irony must be recognized. It would seem
that the prophet
transfers the phrase from the promise to the
mandate in order to
emphasize that the promise, no matter how
unconditional, does not
exempt humankind from fulfilling the mandate or
provide immu-
nity from divine judgment if
those obligations are neglected or per-
verted. In other words, the
obligation inherent in the mandate is just
as perpetually binding on humankind as the promise
is on God. Fur-
thermore, the prophet may also
be suggesting that humankind, by
violating the mandate, has, for all intents and
purposes, made the
promise ineffectual. Even though the promise
guarantees that God
will never again devastate the world to the degree
that he did in
Noah's
day, God is not beyond severely judging his rebellious world
in a way that resembles the Flood. In short, by
giving the phrase
"the everlasting covenant" a new twist, Isaiah is saying
that the man-
date is every bit as important as the promise and
that violation of
the mandate emasculates the promise of its
practical value for
humankind.38
Within this interpretive framework, the
statement in Isa 24:18b
(UHTAp;ni
MOrm.Ami tOBruxE [‘arubbot mimmarom
niptahu], "The floodgates of
the heavens are opened") takes on special
significance. As many com-
mentators have observed, the
language reflects the Noahic flood tra-
dition, especially Gen
hassamayim niptahu], "and the
floodgates of the heavens were
38 A brief note on
the use of troOT and qHo (cf. 24:5) is in order. The latter's range of
use is so varied that it can easily be applied to
the Noahic mandate. troOT, while cer-
tainly reminding one of the
Mosaic Law (cf. n. 11 above), refers here to the individual
commands and directives included in the Noahic mandate, just as Gen 26:5 alludes to
the specific divine commands revealed to Abraham.
248
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
opened"). The prophet anticipates a judgment
which will, to a degree
at least, rival the Flood in its devastating
effects.39
The Mosaic Law as an Extension of the Noahic
Mandate. Ac-
cording to chaps. 13-23, God's judgment would
fall on Israel (cf. 17:3-11)
and Judah/Jerusalem (cf. 22:1-14), as well as the
surrounding nations.
Consequently
one expects Israel/Judah to be included within the scope
of the accusations and culminating universal
judgment of chap. 24. As
noted earlier, one can see the references to laws,
statutes, and the
everlasting covenant as pointing to the Mosaic Law.
Though never
specifically called an
"everlasting covenant,” the Mosaic covenant was
viewed as a perpetually binding set of obligations,
and the terms qHo
and especially troOT refer to it elsewhere.40
Therefore, in
Mosaic Law rather than the universal Noahic mandate.
Of course, one must not overemphasize the
distinctions between
the Mosaic Law and the Noahic
mandate. While the Law contained a
variety of regulations pertaining to covenantal
life, it also included pro-
hibitions against murder and
bloodshed (Exod
For
Israel, then, this specific legislation was an extension of the earlier
universal mandate.
Isa 24:5, rather than
denouncing general disobedience to the
saic Law, probably refers
more specifically to
tions of these Mosaic
prohibitions against murder (cf. Exod
Num
35:6-34). At least two factors favor this more restricted referent.
First,
as noted earlier, a comparison of 24:5 (note especially the use of
JnH [hnp],
"defile") with 26:21 suggests that bloodshed was the primary
way in which the nations violated the Noahic mandate. In this regard,
it is noteworthy that the Mosaic Law (Num 35:33-34),
like Isa 24:5/
26:21, views bloodshed as defiling the land. Second, the early
chapters
of Isaiah denounce the murderous deeds of God's
covenant people.41
In
1:15 the Lord refuses to accept the prayers of his hypocritical
people because their hands "are full of
blood" (MymiDA [damim], a refer-
ence to their unjust and
oppressive deeds, cf. vv 16-17). In 1:21 the
prophet laments that
with "murderers" (MyHic.;ram; [merassehim]). In 4:4 the Lord
announces
that he will "cleanse the bloodstains from
yerusalayim]) by
a spirit of judgment and a spirit of fire.”
39 In similar fashion Zephaniah describes
the judgment of the Lord's day in terms
reminiscent of the Noahic
flood (cf. Zeph 1:2-3 with Gen 6:7; 7:4, 23).
40 See nn. 11-12
above.
41 M. A Sweeney has established that there
are several verbal/thematic parallels
between the early chapters of the book and the
Apocalypse. See "Textual Citations in
Isaiah
24-27: Toward an Understanding of the Redactional
Functions of Chapters 24-27
in the Book of Isaiah," JBL 107 (1988) 42-43, 45-50.
Robert
B. Chisholm, Jr.: THE "EVERLASTING COVENANT" 249
Summary. The language of Isa 24:5,
including the reference to
the "everlasting covenant," is
intentionally ambiguous and flexible
enough to accommodate a dual referent. In the
universal context of
chaps. 13-24, the language refers to the nations'
violation of the Noa-
hic mandate, which is ironically called the
"everlasting covenant" (the
label applied in Gen 9:16 to the Noahic
promise appended to the man-
date) in order to emphasize its perpetually binding
status and the se-
vere consequences of
disobeying it. At the same time, the universal
judgment portrayed in these chapters includes
Isaiah's
Israelite/Judahite audience the language of 24:5
points more
specifically to the covenant
community's violations of Mosaic prohibi-
tions against bloodshed,
legislation which can be viewed as an exten-
sion of the Noahic mandate.42
The "City of
Our earlier survey of evidence and views (cf.
pp. 241-44 above)
would seem to preclude a consistent identification of
the city in Isaiah
24-27.
While the description of the seemingly representative world
city in 24:10-12 is stereotypical and general,
certain features of the
chapter remind one of
hostile city of 25:2 and 26:5-6 is clearly
foreign (being specifically
associated with
while the fortified city of 27:10 appears to
represent Israelite/Juda-
hite cities in general or a
specific city such as
The most satisfactory way to harmonize this
seemingly confused
picture is to recognize once again Isaiah's use
of intentional ambiguity.
Isaiah
has purposefully described the "city of chaos" in chap. 24 in gen-
eral, stereotypical terms so
that it might function in a representative or
symbolic sense and, at the same time, encompass
its various specific
manifestations (cf. chaps. 13-23). For
reasons stated above (cf. p. 241),
the city of 24:10-12 must be recognized as typical
or representative of
all world cities that oppose God. Since Babel was
the first such rebel-
lious city in biblical
history, the echoes of the
24
(cf. pp. 242-43 above) come as no surprise. In the wider context of
the book of Isaiah, the allusions to
42 Isaiah's use of ambiguous covenantal
terminology in 24:5 is similar to Amos's
use of the term fwp) [ps’], “rebellious deed,” in his oracles against the nations (chaps.
1-
2).
Amos uses the term to describe each nation's covenantal violations, even though
different covenants are in view. The six foreign
nations broke an unspecified universal
covenant, while
nations' crimes suggests that the Noahic mandate is the broken covenant. The nations'
sins, which include murder, slave trade, and
desecration of a royal tomb, all violate the
mandate, literally or in principle, by showing
disrespect for human life and for God's
image in other human beings.)
250
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
the Babylonian empire, the demise of which is
prophesied in this sec-
tion of the book (cf. chaps.
13-14, 21) and in chaps. 40ff. Certain fea-
tures 9f the text also
suggest
pp. 243-44 above). Ironically Zion, the
dwelling place of God, had
become one of the rebellious cities of the world and
would be sub-
jected, like ancient
to divine judgment.
The portrayal of the
city in chaps.
25-27, rather than confusing
the issue, is an outgrowth of the way it is
depicted in chap. 24. In 25:2
and 26:5-6 specific foreign manifestations of the
typically rebellious
city (viz.
come to the forefront, while specific Israelite/Judahite manifestations
of the city come into focus in 27:10 (cf. pp.
243-44 above).
To summarize, Isaiah utilizes intentional
ambiguity in his de-
scription of the "city of
chaos.” The universal, generalized language
draws attention to the common character of the
destiny of the rebel-
lious cities/powers of the
world, while at the same time making it
possible to see behind the imagery any number of
specific cities that
epitomize such rebellion. The description of the
city is accompanied
in chap. 24 by allusions to specific cities and is
more directly associ-
ated in chaps. 25-27 with
tangible historical manifestations of this
city. Recognizing Isaiah's use of ambiguity allows
one to harmonize
the various passages referring to a city while
preserving differences
in emphasis and focus.
Because Johnson builds such an impressive,
well-reasoned case
for
24:10-12
(cf. pp. 243-44 above), a critique of his arguments is in or-
der. In my opinion Johnson
has demonstrated that
luded to in chap. 24 and
stands behind the prophet's imagery. (This
should come as no surprise, given the prophet's
denunciation of the
city in the earlier chapters of the book and his
love of irony.) How-
ever, the evidence does not demand that it be the
sole referent.
The lament form of 24:7-13 does not necessarily
mean the de-
struction of
cally laments the fall of
over
(cf.
v 10), states: "So I weep, as Jazer weeps, for
the vines of Sibmah.
O
Heshbon, O Elealeh, I
drench you with tears! . . . My heart laments
for
change in the prophet's attitude exhibited in 25:1-5,
rather than re-
43 Similarly in 21:3-4 the vision of
physical effect on the prophet.
Robert
B. Chisholm, Jr.: THE "EVERLASTING COVENANT" 251
flecting a change in the
referent of the city (from
lon), is better explained
in light of 24:23, which tells how the
terrifying universal judgment lamented in 24:1-22
gives way to God's
rule from
ment is realized and the
smoke of judgment has cleared, the prophet
can cease lamenting and declare God's praise.
The sequence in 24:14-16 can be explained along
similar lines.
In
response to the news of divine judgment (24:1-13), an unspecified
group sings out in praise of God (24:14-16a).
However, the prophet
does not yet share their enthusiasm and positive
outlook, for he knows
that conditions on the earth necessitate a reversal
of creation and re-
turn to chaos (24:16b-20).44
The antecedent of the pronoun hm.Ahe (hemma [24:14]) is unclear.
Perhaps
the speakers are mere dramatis personae,
whose function is
to serve as a foil to the prophet and thereby
highlight the severity of
the judgment.45 A time will come for the
world to celebrate the com-
ing of God's kingdom (cf.
25:6-9), but before that time arrives and the
devastating judgment is concluded, such celebration
is inappropriate
and premature. More specifically, the referent
could be the remnant
of the nations which survives the first wave of
judgment (24:13b com-
pares this remnant to the grapes left on the vine
after the harvest). In
this case the prophet makes the point that such
celebration is prema-
ture because almost total
destruction is still to come and no one is yet
"out of the woods." If Israelites are included within
this group, then
the prophet's response, in combination with the
allusions to Jerusa-
lem in the chapter, is a
reminder to the covenant community that they
should not rejoice over the fall of the nations for
they too will experi-
ence divine judgment.
The linguistic evidence cited by Johnson does
not limit the refer-
ent to
While
the six terms listed by Johnson are characteristically used of Is-
rael/Judah, three of them do
appear in the preceding oracles against
the nations (cf. llAm;xu [‘umlal] in 16:8; lbx [‘bl]
in 19:8 and hm..Awa
[samma]
in 13:9). The cluster of verbal parallels between
24:8-9
is striking, but the cessation of revelry theme also appears in
the preceding
cf.
24:7], hHAm;Wi [simha; cf.24:11], Nyiya [yayin;
cf.24:9, 11], and tbawA [sabat;
cf.
24:8]) and
[‘allizim],
"revelers," in 24:8) oracles. Furthermore, if one extends the
lexical survey to include the surrounding verses,
numerous verbal/
44 See Oswalt, Isaiah, 450, 452.
45 For a similar view, see ibid., 450.
252
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
thematic parallels between 24:7-12 and the
preceding foreign oracles
are apparent (in addition to the parallels with
16:8-10 and 23:7 cited
above, cf. tOcuH [husot],
"streets," in 24:11 and 15:3; hm.Awa, "ruins," in
24:12
and 13:9; and rfawA [sa’ar], "gate: in 24:12 and
Finally, Johnson's recognition of double
entendre in certain
phrases is consistent with the thesis of this
article (that Isaiah's use of
intentional ambiguity makes it possible for one to
accommodate vari-
ous interpretive options
and do justice to both the text's universal tone
and particularity).
Conclusion
Two major questions face the interpreter of
Isaiah 24: (1) What is
the referent of the "everlasting
covenant" (24:5)? (2) What is the iden-
tity of the "city of
chaos" (24:10)? Scholars have proposed a variety of
answers to both questions with no consensus
emerging in either case.
Some
emphasize the text's universal setting and language, while oth-
ers point to features of
the text which seem to reflect a more particu-
lar Israelite context. The
former tend to see the covenant as being
universal in scope (the supposed creation covenant
or the Noahic
covenant) and the city as typical or foreign. The
latter tend to see the
Mosaic
covenant and the city of
matic expressions.
Recognizing the text's very ambiguity (reflected
in the variety of
interpretive alternatives that have
emerged) is the key to its proper in-
terpretation and the only way to do
justice to its diversity. Isaiah inten-
tionally employed ambiguous
terminology in order to accommodate
both the text's universal and particular emphases.
That chap. 24
should include both the nations and
ence is to be expected,
given its canonical location and function. The
preceding chapters (13-23) contain oracles against
foreign nations and
Israel/Judah.
From the perspective of the nations, the
"everlasting covenant" is
the Noahic mandate
recorded in Gen 9:1-7. Through their bloody
deeds the nations had violated this mandate which
promotes popu-
lation growth and prohibits
murder. Ironically Isaiah transfers the
phrase from the unconditional promise of Gen 9:16 to
the mandate,
thereby stressing the enduring importance of the
mandate and the se-
vere consequences of its
being violated. For
guilty of bloodshed, the "everlasting
covenant" would refer primarily
to the Mosaic Law and, more specifically, its
legislation prohibiting
murder, which was an extension of the Noahic mandate.
In the universal context of chap. 24, the
"city of chaos" represents
all the nations and cities of the world which, like
Robert
B. Chisholm, Jr.: THE "EVERLASTING COVENANT'" 253
powers/cities mentioned in chaps.
13-23, rebel against God's author-
ity. Behind the generalized
and stereotypical language and imagery,
one can see specific manifestations of, this
symbolic city, including
to in chaps. 24-27.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
The
www.criswell.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu