The two uses of bowls are connected: The prayers of the saints are prayers for vengeance for blood that has been shed (cf. 6:9-11), and when the prayers ascend and the blood descends, the Lord brings an end to the harlot-city that drinks holy blood.

There is a neat little anthropology here:

We are vessels of God’s service, designed for two purposes: To give off aromas that ascend to God and to spill blood.  We are vessels of sacrifice, aromatic blood-bags created for prayer and martyrdom.

And there’s a neat political theology too: Tyrants are destroyed, harlots burned, when the vessels of the new Israel offer the incense of prayer and confess Jesus to the shedding of blood.  Smoke and blood are the two mechanisms of Christian revolution.  Neither can be stopped.  Prayer is harder for tyrants to control than Twitter.   Killing Christians just makes more blood, and quickens the tyrant’s collapse.  Not killing Christians doesn’t work so well either, because they multiply and create a bigger incense cloud, more of the aroma that ascends to the Father and more of the fragrance of Christ that is for life and death.

Now, however, the Lamb is in the midst of the throne, and also in the midst of the four living creatures.  That means He is located where the Enthronement is located.  He appears already in the middle of the creatures.  He is also in the middle of the twenty-four elders.  The Lamb has taken center stage, and has in a sense replaced the four living creatures as the throne of God.   We never again see the beasts “in the midst of the throne.”  A voice comes from the midst of the four beasts (6:6), but that is the voice of the Father or the Son, and in 7:17 we read again that the Lamb is in the midst of the throne.

The Lamb is a Cherubic creature.  He is introduced as a Lion, but also as a Lamb.   He is a strange Lamb or Lion, with far too many horns and eyes.  He is a composite being that sums up all creation, and He is now the throne of His Father, the new cherubic chariot of God.

The sacrificial procedure was not completed when the Lamb was killed.  The Lamb was killed, dismembered, and then turned to smoke that ascended to God.  The sacrificial sequence moved from presenting and slaying of a Lamb to its appearance in the presence of Yahweh.  Standing is a priestly posture, and so the Lamb is slain and turned to smoke so that He can enter the smoky cloud of God’s presence and stand before the Lord to minister as priest.

Lambs also ascended to Yahweh’s throne to share it.  No human being was qualified to share Yahweh’s throne, but what the worshiper could not do, a lamb-turned-to-smoke does.  The Lamb, again, does what all sacrificial lambs do – ascends to the throne as Priest-King.

That is an accurate description of the Zion that emerges after the exile: It has walls and a house, but it is a vulnerable community, a tent that depends for its permanence not on the power of a Davidic king but on the grace of an emperor, ultimately on the favor of Yahweh.  And it is an accurate description of the New Covenant age (as Hebrews reminds us, with its persistent references back to the Mosaic era).  At the beginning for sure, and often throughout her history, the church is more tent than temple.  And that is as it should be.

Primitivism is hopeless as a permanent program.  Fresh initiatives always form into traditions and habits and rituals, and that is perfectly fine.  But Isaiah suggests that there are moments when teh proper move is to reach back beyond the golden age, all the way back to the beginning, to start over not with cathedrals but from the catacombs, not with a temple but with a tent.

Yahweh is declared to be Israel’s Judge, Lawgiver, and King in Isaiah 33:22.  As Thomas Leclerc (Yahweh Is Exalted in Justice) points out, Yahweh is assuming responsibility for the failures of Judah’s leaders.  Judges take bribes and ignore the pleas of the weak (1:17, 23, 26; 5:23), but Yahweh is coming to Judge, and His Branch will judge in righteousness (11:4).  Law has been perverted as the people ignore it (5:24; 24:5).  Kings like Ahaz have proven themselves faithless.  Yahweh ensures that Judah will be restored to justice, righteousness, and peace by combining all the offices in One, in Himself and His Branch.

The triple office is a brief outline of the exodus:

Yahweh came as Judge to Egypt, to judge Pharaoh and rescue Israel; He came as Lawgiver on Sinai, delivering Torah through Moses; Israel covenanted with Him as King at Sinai as well, committing to be ruled by Yahweh’s instructions and to submit to Him.

Yahweh takes on a triple office here.  There are structural links to the triple-holiness attributed to Yahweh in Isaiah’s vision (ch. 6), and this also suggests a Trinitarian structure of Yahweh’s leadership of Israel.  The Father is Judge, the Son King, and the Spirit the one who writes law on the tablets of human hearts.  Or, this verse could be the basis for a fresh gloss on the triple office of Christ.  He is Priest, King, Prophet; He is also Judge, Lawgiver, King.  He is a Judge like Gideon or Samson, a rescuer; Lawgiver like Moses, teaching from a mountain; a warrior King like David leading His armies on a white horse and a King of peace like Solomon who builds a temple.

Verse 22 should be connected to the previous mention of Yahweh as King in verse 17.  Yahweh taking responsibility as Judah’s Judge, Lawgiver, and King is the revelation of the King in beauty.  Salvation is beautification.

The final clause of 33:22 states that Yahweh will save, and that suggests that the triple office of Yahweh is an elaboration of what it means for a people to be saved.  Salvation means rescue from enemies, the role of the judges of Judges; but salvation also involves receiving and obeying the instruction of a Lawgiver; and salvation means being ruled by, led by, organized by a King.

A. Woe to the destroyer, v. 1

B. Prayer for mercy in time of distress, vv. 2-3

C. Yahweh exalted, vv. 5-6

B’. Land laments, vv 7-9

A’/C’. Yahweh arises, is exalted, lifts Himself, and lets distant lands know what He does, vv. 10-13

J. Alec Motyer (The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary) suggests this for the second part of the chapter:

A. Zion’s people repentant, vv. 14-16

B. The King’s presence, vv. 17-19

C. Zion at peace, v. 20

B’. The Lord of power, vv. 21-23

A’. Zion’s people, healed, v. 24

The first section thus focuses attention on Yahweh’s exaltation and His establishment of justice and righteousness in Zion; the second part focuses attention on the consequences for the city, now restored as a city of appointed feasts, a safe haven, an undisturbed tent.

The other place that uses this combination of terms is Colossians 2:3, where Jesus is identified as the One “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”  Isaiah prophesies about the riches of jeshua, salvation (33:6), the riches of Jesus.  Those treasures are opened only after a “time of distress” (33:3) when Gentiles attack Zion.  That too is Jesus, for it is on the far side of the distress of the cross that Jesus is unlocked as the treasure-chest of the Father’s wisdom and knowledge.

“Wisdom” and “knowledge” do appear together in other connections, which give us further insight into what Isaiah and Paul promise.

The first use of the combination of terms is in Exodus 31:3 and 35:31, both references to the gift of the Spirit to Bezalel: “I have filled him with he Spirit of God in all wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all kinds of craftsmanship.”  Bezalel’s wisdom is artistic skill to craft the vessels and furnishings of Yahweh’s house.  The Branch too is given the Spirit of skill to fashion and orchestrate the human vessels of God’s house.  This is the treasure that Isaiah promises will be opened in Zion for all the people of God: When the Spirit’s riches are poured out, every resident of Zion will be a king, every resident will be an architect devoted to “edifying” the house and promoting the beauty and harmony of justice and righteousness (Isaiah 33:5-6).  Yahweh will do this work, but He will do it through His Spirit-equipped craftsmen.

Of course, “wisdom,” knowledge,” and sometimes “fear of Yahweh” are a common combination in Proverbs (1:7; 2:6, 20; 8:12; 9:10).  We can overlay this layer on the earlier connections we’ve drawn: The Branch becomes a true son of Solomon, a true sage-king, by the gift of the Spirit.  Isaiah predicts that this same wisdom and knowledge will fill Zion and its inhabitants.  And of course this all comes to a climax in Jesus, the Branch, the incarnate Wisdom, the Father’s living treasure-chest, opened in His death and resurrection to share His Spirit and all the Spirit’s wealth with us.

Do I owe the pilot – or United Airlines – my life?  Perhaps.  But, apart from a slightly heartier “thank you” to the stewardesses and pilot as I exited, I haven’t done anything to pay him back.  Presumably, the pilot received his paycheck.  I know I paid my fare.  And we all went away thinking we were square.  If I had done more to express my gratitude, I might eventually have had to answer to the TSA.

Suppose we had crashed, and the pilot had pulled me out of the burning wreckage?  Would paying the ticket have sufficed?  We all assume not, but what’s the difference?

Seneca muses on these questions in a section of On Benefits (The Complete Works of Lucius Annaeus Seneca), happily released in a new translation last year.  Whatever the truth of Maussian tribal exchanges, Seneca assumes throughout his treatise that there is a difference between buying and selling on the one hand and benefit-gratitude exchanges on the other.  The pilot, he would have said, got his just compensation by being paid for his work:

“What fee do you propose for someone who crosses the seas and, when the land has receded from sight, cuts a clear course through the midst of the waves and foresees future storms and suddenly, when all on board are unaware of danger, orders the sails to be furled, the tackle to be lowered, and everyone to stand ready to face the sudden force of an onrushing storm?  Yet this man receives, as his reward for such work, the passenger’s fare.”  No further obligations of gratitude are required of the passengers, even though without the pilot’s foresight, they would have been at the bottom of the sea.

Yet Seneca recognizes exceptions, certain sorts of bought-and-paid-for exchanges that do put the recipient in debt to the benefactor.  Tipping is a small scale example, but his major examples are medical care and teaching.  We pay for medical care, and yet, Seneca says, there is a debt of gratitude owed to a doctor that is not owed to the pilot or to the merchant in the marketplace.  We pay the teacher, and yet there’s something more than payment owed.  Why?

There are several factors.  First is the benefit conferred.  Physicians give health, which is “priceless.”  Teachers introduce students to the liberal arts and provide “the education of a gentleman and the cultivation of the mind,” which he regards as priceless as well.

Beyond that, there is the personal attention that good physicians and teachers give to their patients and students.  Seneca says that the doctor “gave me more than is required of a doctor; it was for me, not for his professional reputation, that he feared; he was not satisfied with pointing out remedies: he administered them; he sat by me among my anxious friends; he came quickly at times of crisis; no service was too burdensome, none too distasteful for him; he did not hear my groanings unconcerned; in a crowd of patients invoking his aid, I was always his prime concern.”

Teachers likewise invest themselves in their students in a way that the merchant does not invest himself in patrons, or the pilot normally invest himself in his passengers.  Seneca’s teacher “in teaching me, endured work and tedium; in addition to the things that are commonly said by teachers, there were other things he instilled in my and transmitted to me; by exhorting me he roused my good character; now he encouraged me with praise, now he dispelled my idleness with scoldings; then he extracted by hand, as it were, my hidden and inert intellect; nor did he dole out his knowledge grudgingly to prolong his usefulness, but he wanted, if he could, to pour the sum total into me; I am ungrateful if I do not love him as one to whom I am bound by the very closest obligations of gratitude.”

Seneca thus recognizes a spectrum of forms of exchange: Purely business arrangements, where goods are exchanged for money immediately and which are legally enforceable; loans, where money or goods are given to be repaid later, also legally enforceable; “professional” services, which are paid for but which involve personal attention and offer goods worth more than the exchanges set by the market; and, finally, pure benefactions, unmotivated generosity, to be repaid in gratitude, which are not legally enforceable.

A pilot who pulls me from the burning plane shows specific personal attention that he does not show me when he lands the plane safely in a strong wind.  The safe landing benefited me, but it wasn’t the pilot’s aim to benefit me directly.  He wanted everyone to get to Toronto safe and sound.

Further on, he questions why Nagel would consider what he calls “unadorned sexual intercourse” as the paradigm of sexuality:

“what is it that makes intercourse the paradigm of sexual activity-its biological role in conception, its heterosexuality,  its convenience for mutual orgasm? Would Nagel’s drama still serve as a sexual paradigm if Juliet turns out to be a virgin, or if Romeo and Juliet find that they are complementarily  sado-masochistic,  if Romeo is in drag, if they are both knee-fetishists?  Why does Nagel choose two strangers? Why not, as in the days of sexual moralism, a happily married couple enjoying their seventh anniversary? Or is not the essence of sex, as Sartre so brutally argues, Romeo and Juliet’s mutual attempts to possess each other, with each’s own enjoyment only a secondary and  essentially distracting effect? Are we  expected to presume the most prominent paradigm, at least since Freud, the lusty ejaculation of Romeo into the submissive, if not passive, Juliet? Suppose Juliet is in fact a prostitute, skillfully mocking the signs of innocent arousal: is this a breach of the paradigm, or might not such subsequent ‘unadorned’ intercourse be just the model that Nagel claims to defend?”

Nearly forty years on, after decades of obsessive attention to the body, have we made any progress?

The prophetic visions of kings supplying sacrifices and other materials for Israel’s temple worship thus had an historical precedent.  The prophets were envisioning a restoration of the earlier practice of Gentile support and sponsorship for the temple.

To start, he cites Moses Hadas’ claim that Greeks took up whatever genealogy that could be advantageous to them: “It was the Greeks themselves who set up the precedent; their ancient genealogies . . . made a place for the founders of various eastern nations, including Egypt and Persia, and in the historical period they were not above inventing genealogies when it suited their political ambitions.”

Besides, there are other ancient documents that make a connection between Greeks and Hebrews.

Josephus (Antiquities 14) includes the text of a decree from Pergamum dated in the late second century BC, written to the Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus I.  It says, “to preserve and increase his friendship with us and always be responsible for some act of good in the knowledge that he will receive a fitting recompense, and also remembering that in the time of Abraham, who was the father of all Hebrews, our ancestors were friends, as we find in the public records.”  VanderKam notes, “some one hundred fifty years later than the Areus-Onias correspondence, a Greek city claimed a common past with the Jews.”

Where might this idea have come from?  VanderKam suggests that it may have come from Hecateus of Abdera.  According to Plutarch, he visited Sparta and he is credited with writing a book On Abraham and the Egyptians.  That book is lost, and perhaps was never written, but Hecateus did write On the Egyptians, in which he gives a brief account of the exodus.  When a pestilence began to ravage Egypt, the Egyptians decided to expel all foreigners, thought to be the source of the plague: “At once, therefore, the aliens were driven from the country, and the most outstanding and active among them banded together and, as some say, were cast ashore in Greece and certain other regions; their leaders were notable men, chief among them being Danaus and Cadmus.  But the greater number were driven into what is now called Judea, which is not far distant from Egypt and was at that time utterly uninhabited.”  VanderKam comments that “Danaus” is “the ancestor of the Canoi who lived in the Peloponnesus and who produced both dynasties of Spartan kings. Hecateus thus paired the ancestors of the Spartans and Jews as two groups who were expelled from Egypt at the same time (the time of Moses) and under the same circumstances.”

Ultimately, VanderKam suggests that the source of this genealogical connection is Genesis 25:2-3, the list of Abraham’s children by Keturah.  The second son of Jokshan, who was father to Sheba and Dedan: “The name Dedan resembles that of Danaus to some extent; moreover the name of his son – Leummim – was translated in Tg. Onq. Gen 10:5 as nagon, a term for the islands inhabited by Gentiles descended from Japheth, that is, the Greeks.  It is possible that Hecateus had heard of an equation of the names Danaus and Dedan and that he was the source behind Areus’s claim that the two peoples shared Abraham as an ancestor.”

VanderKam concludes that “A plausible case can be created, then, for the conclusion that Areus I sent a letter to Onias I.”  And if that’s true, we might ask whether Areus might have known something we don’t about the origins of the Spartans.

Perhaps we can push the link of 2:8 and 8:6-7 a step further.   The fire that inspires the flame of love, the love that is stronger than death, is the Flame of Yah Himself.   And that fiery love does need to be roused at times, as David well knew (cf. Psalm 7:6; 35:23; 44:23; 57:8; 59:4; 78:38; etc.).  That love might express itself in jealous wrath, in which case it is a danger, and even when it doesn’t it is a relentless power that is stronger than death and fiercer than Sheol.  Once that love is aroused, no water can quench it, and so one must be prepared for the consequences before stoking up that Fire.

This is wisdom literature: As Solomon says in Ecclesiastes, do not be hasty to utter a word before the Lord, since He is in heaven and you are on earth.

A form of the same word is used in the titles to several songs: “On the shoshannim” (45:1; 69:1; 80:1).   Lexicons suggest that the reference is to a musical instrument that in some way resembles a lily, but the link between the Song and the Psalms is suggestive of thematic connections.  Psalm 45 is clearly a Song-like Psalm, an epithalamion, and Psalm 80, with its narrative of a vine and vineyard planted, abandoned, and (in hope) restored also picks up themes from the Song.

Psalm 69 has few verbal, conceptual, or thematic links with teh Song.  It is a Psalm of lament, one frequently quoted or alluded to in the Passion narratives of the gospels.  Perhaps, though, there is a connection with the Song, since the Psalm describes the passion of the Lover for His beloved and their house, which is Yahweh’s house.  Perhaps we should read Psalm 69 as a poem of lovesickness.

And fragrance gives spirit.  The fragrance of burnt offerings calmed the Lord’s Spirit, moving Him from anger to favor; the fragrance of burning animals cooled His burning nose.  In the Song, the lover and beloved are aroused when they catch the scent of the other.  When we give off the fragrance of Christ, that too communicates the Spirit.  Catching a whiff of Christ from us, a whiff that is the effect of the Spirit’s fire in us, unbelievers are stirred to seek the One whose fragrance draws them.

But “green” also highlights the liturgical aspects of the passage.  The temple was a “forest” or “grove,” an interior space that was conceived as a natural place (cf. Psalm 52:8; 92:14).  Though man-made, the temple was a “green world” where (Northrop Frye has taught us) people, especially lovers, can flee to find renewal.  Of course, there were alternate “green spaces” in Israel, the idolatrous shrines under ever “green tree” (Deuteronomy 12:2; 1 Kings 14:23; 16:4; 2 Kings 17:10).  Israel sought new life by indulging in harlotry in these green places (Jeremiah 2:20; 3:6, 13).  All the while, the green space of the temple was there, Yahweh’s own cedar-and-cypress grove where He promised to renew His bride on a green couch.

Seven!  That makes one curious if there is a more-than-numerological parallel with Genesis 1.  As usual, some of the parallels are stronger than others.

A. 1:2-7: The bride longs for a kiss, describes herself as black from the sun (v. 6).  The reference to the sun might connect this with Day 1, or the play with darkness and blackness.  The parallels here are meager.

B. 1:8-11: The lover speaks to his darling, telling her where to find him and complimenting her adorned cheeks and neck.  Not much firmament here, it seems.

It gets better, though.

C. 1:12-14: The bride describes the king at table, the fragrance of her perfume, and describes the king as a cluster of henna blossoms in a vineyard.  The connection with Day 3′s “table” of land, spread with grain and fruit, is fairly strong.

D. 1:15: At the center of the passage (which is a chiasm), the lover is astonished as the beauty of his beloved, twice repeating “Wow!  You are beautiful!”  He compares her eyes to doves.  Eyes are the light of the body, and connect with the lights of the firmament.

C’. 1:16-2:1: The bride compliments her lover on his beauty, and describes the pleasantness of their meeting place.  The cedars and cypresses that spring from the land on Day 3 have been formed into a nest for the lovers.

B’. 2:2: The lover describes his bride as a flower among the thorns.  She is the new Eve, an Eve who remains a lily or lotus though she is in a world of brambles.

A’. 2:3-7: In this Sabbatical speech, the bride takes a rest in the shade of her apple-tree lover, who brings her to his “house of wine” and raises his banner over her.  She finds her apple tree, and “sits down” in His shade – “sit down” is yashavti, which contains shabat.

Throughout the series of six woes (Isaiah 28-33), Isaiah’s attention has been on the doom that is coming to Judah and Israel – the drunkards of Egypt, Ariel, the rebellious sons who seek help from Egypt.   The last woe is is against the “destroyer” and “treacherous” (Isaiah 33:1), that is, the Assyrians who will be punished for their pride and cruelty (Isaiah 10:15-27).

THE TEXT

“Woe to you who plunder, though you have not been plundered; and you who deal treacherously, though they have not dealt treacherously with you! When you cease plundering, you will be plundered; when you make an end of dealing treacherously, they will deal treacherously with you. . . .” (Isaiah 33:1-24).

SPOILER SPOILED

Isaiah 33:1 rhythmically uses the verbs “destroy” and “be treacherous” four times each.  Yahweh threatens an eye-for-eye justice against those who destroy and betray; they will be destroyed and betrayed.  Men will fall on the plunder of the plunderer Assyria like locusts (v. 4).  The fourfold verbs of verse 1 are matched by the fourfold treasure of justice and wisdom that the Lord will offer in Zion (v. 6).  Yahweh will answer the prayer of the prophet; He will raise His arm every morning (v. 2), and will arise to scatter those who have turned Judah into a deserted desert land (vv. 8-12).

WHO CAN STAND?

The plans and achievements of Assyria are chaff and stubble before the fire of Yahweh’s breath (vv. 10-11), but that same fire terrorizes the “sinners in Zion” (v. 14).  Who can stand before the consuming fire of Yahweh the judge? (v. 14; cf. Psalm 15; 24).  Isaiah answers: Those who walk with justice, who speak truth, who refuses bribes, who closes his eyes and ears to evil plots (v. 15; cf. Micah 6:8).  These trust in Yahweh, but they demonstrate that trust in their conduct.  Only the faithful and obedient will withstand the fire.  They will not only survive, but will be exalted with Yahweh on the heights (v. 16; cf. v. 10).

THE KING IN BEAUTY

When Yahweh turns back the Assyrian threat, He will reveal Himself in His beauty and glory (v. 17; cf. Psalm 27:4; 50:2; 96:6).  Ephraim’s beauty is a fading flower (Isaiah 28:1, 4), but Yahweh’s will be forever.  All those who walk in righteousness will have the same vision that Isaiah the prophet had (Isaiah 6). Assyria will be nowhere to be found, and no Assyrian speakers will be heard in Jerusalem anymore (vv. 18-19).  Jerusalem will again be a meeting place for Yahweh and His people.  Jerusalem will be a “tent of meeting,” a new tabernacle (vv. 19-20), but a tabernacle that will never be pulled up and transported.  The city will be supplied with life-giving water; it will be a new Eden, and Yahweh will be the river (v. 21).

YAHWEH, YAHWEH, YAHWEH, YAHWEH

Verses 21-22 repeat the name Yahweh four times.  He will be the refuge and protection for Judah on every side, and will provide all that Judah needs.  He is Judge, Lawgiver, King, and Savior, so Judah has nothing to fear from the Assyrians and no need for an alliance with Egypt.  Though Jerusalem is presently an unprepared ship with slack tackle and loose mast (v. 23), it does not matter.  Yahweh will heal the sick ship of state, forgive their sins, and preserve the city of God.

He notes that “the way [the excluded partner] responds to the relationship of the other two . . . stabilizes or destabilizes the extramarital relationship.  The relationship of B and C will take on a different tone if A mischievously encourages the affair than if A adopts a pouting, hurt, and suspicious attitude.  Indeed, there may be no better proof that triangles are essentially an emotional process than the ways in which the intensity of B’s and C’s extramarital relationship is governed by the way A responds to it.”

Mutual hatreds can have a similar effect.  B and C cultivate a common dislike for A, and this gives the relationship between B and C stability; “A, the third party (often unseen), [becomes] an inherent part of the connection of the other two.”

This is only a slight change, but it opens up various lines of typology that enrich our understanding of the scene.  According to Deuteronomy 31:24-26, the priests were to place the “book of the law,” Deuteronomy itself, “beside the ark of the covenant of Yahweh your God, that it may remain there as a witness against you.”  That is a type of the book in Revelation 5, which is to the right side of the ark-throne of the Father.  But at the beginning of Revelation 5, the book is sitting unused.  No one is reading it, no one is worthy.  Even unused, it is a witness against the covenant people.  But if the book is to do what it was designed to do, it shouldn’t just sit there; it needs to be taken up and read so that what the book requires can be carried out.

The Lamb’s reception of the book thus resembles Josiah’s discovery of the book of the law: Someone discovers and opens a sealed book in the temple, and reads out the curses that are coming because Israel has not kept all that the law demands.