A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 56–66

Written by John Goldingay Reviewed By John Oswalt

This volume continues John Goldingay’s work in this series, following on his two volumes on Isa 40–55. The structure of the commentary follows the standard pattern of the series, beginning with an introduction (pp. 1–58) and then the commentary proper. In the commentary each segment begins with translation and notes, followed by an introduction to the segment, the comment section, and a conclusion. One of the helpful features of the comment sections, especially when the segment is a long one, is that the verse or verses being commented upon is/are printed again at the beginning of the comment. Explicitly theological reflections are usually found in the conclusions. In this reviewer’s judgment the absence of any indices is a major flaw, especially in a work as full and detailed as this one is. One glaring typographical error is the header at the top of the pages on 61:1–9 (pp. 286–318), which is printed as 60:1–9.

The introduction, which incorporates materials from several of his articles, is a great pleasure to read. It is so both because of its engaging style, but also because Goldingay does not take the overly technical approach of many commentary introductions. He eschews any recapitulation of the multitudinous attempts that have been made to reconstruct the history of the text and instead looks at the various ways in which the text may be read: (1) a redaction-historical reading, (2) a sociological reading, (3) a textual reading, (4) a poetic reading, and (5) a post-colonial reading. Although Goldingay’s approach is not polemical, he is very incisive concerning the inadequacies of the first two ways of reading the material. He shows that in both cases the results of great effort expended have been largely indeterminate. In his view, in spite of all this labor, we still do not know the author(s), the precise setting, or the way in which the material was compiled. He does believe that it was composed during the first century after the return from exile and that probably several prophets were involved, but he concludes that this information is not very helpful in interpreting the text. The third way of reading is to interpret the text as it is presently structured. He sees it as a five-part chiasm culminating in 61:1–9 and says that in his judgment the most fruitful approach to understanding the material is in the light of this structure (p. 20). The fourth method of poetic reading is helpful in its insistence on interpretation that is genre-sensitive, although it seems a bit detailed for the level of reader who would be likely to consult this series. However, it is not quite clear why a post-colonial reading has been singled out for special attention in the final section. Given the plethora of strategies for reading the Bible that have been put forward in recent years, it seems that a review of several of these and the way their application would affect our reading of this text might have been more helpful. It is interesting that Goldingay specifically avoids a theological reading, saying that such a reading too often involves imposing viewpoints from outside (p. 27). But surely this is a theological text, and to avoid reading it in that light and for that purpose is to overlook the very purpose of the writing. As for imposing viewpoints from outside, surely a post-colonial reading is that above all things.

In contrast to the introduction, the commentary itself is very densely written. It seems to this reviewer that only the very rare person would work through large sections of the material. Rather, it seems most likely that it would be consulted as a reference volume. Each section is very complete: the textual notes are detailed both in the discussion of the issue and in the number of sources referred to concerning the issue, and the introductions consider matters of literary structure, word usage, and etymology in great detail. The comments are also very detailed. For instance, the comments on the eight verses of 56:1–8 cover 24 pages. The conclusions show considerable variety in length and depth of coverage. The conclusion to the discussion of 56:1–8 is about four and a half pages in length; whereas the conclusion on 61:1–9, the apex of the chiasm, and arguably as important as 56:1–8, if not more so, is only two and a half pages long. Overall, the conclusions will be satisfying to those who seek for the theological significance of what has been said, but as just noted, there is great variety in the depth of these reflections.

The observation of the chiastic structure of the material and the interpretation of it in the light of that structure is surely one of the great strengths of this work. Goldingay is quite correct in his comments about the tension that the structure introduces. The author/editor is unwilling to allow his hearers/readers to bask in the certainty that God’s light will dawn upon them, bringing their former oppressors to serve them and worship with them (chs. 60–62). Instead, he takes them back to the reality that unless the Divine Warrior somehow undertakes for them (63:1–6 [59:15b–21]), their characteristic sin and unbelief will doom them to destruction (63:7–66:17 [56:9–59:15a]). God does not merely intend to bless them; he intends to purify them for the sake of the nations (66:18–24 [56:1–8]).

To this extent, Goldingay’s interpretation is very helpful. The place where he is ultimately unsatisfying to this reviewer is that he does not pursue his reading strategy far enough. One of the reasons for this is his unwillingness to grant genuine predictive prophecy. Thus he is unable to appreciate the true force of the chiastic structure. He recognizes that the B-Bʹ element (56:9–57:15b; 63:7–66:17) is about the need for spiritual restoration of the people. (The introduction of the “new heavens and earth” in 65:17–25 raises a question about where the conclusion of the book actually begins, but that is beside the present point.) He also recognizes that the C-Cʹ element (59:15b–21; 63:1–6) stands between the former element and the succeeding (or preceding) one (60:1–22; 61:10–62:12). But he is unable to show convincingly how the work of the Divine Warrior accounts for the change from the utter darkness of 59:9 and the alienation of 64:5 to the light of 60:1 and the wedding of 62:5. How does Zion become the City of God? It is only through a fundamental change of character effected by the Warrior. Who is this Warrior? The answer is found in 61:1–9, the apex, and thus the most important point of the structure. He is the Anointed One, and his work will change the people from the seared garden of chapter 1 into “oaks of righteousness” (61:3). It is this change of character brought about through the work of the Messiah that will draw the nations to Jerusalem to learn the Torah of God (2:2–5; 66:18–24). But Goldingay, unwilling to grant that 61:1–9 is truly climactic in the sense of culture-changing truth, handles the passage in an almost off-handed way, suggesting that Jesus Christ appropriated it for himself although it did not actually point to him. If not to Jesus Christ, then to whom? Goldingay does not want to impose theology on the text, but he is unwilling to go where his own understanding of the text’s structure would logically take him. This person is the goal of all that has been said. Who is he?

In spite of my dissatisfaction on the point just mentioned, the strengths of this commentary far outweigh its weaknesses. The author manages to steer past the excesses of critical commentaries of the past that concerned themselves with minutiae of historical and textual reconstruction, and he renders sensible and sensitive readings of the text as it stands. His judgments on questionable issues are judicious and well-reasoned. Scholars and students will find this commentary a very valuable resource.


John Oswalt

John Oswalt
Asbury Theological Seminary
Wilmore, Kentucky, USA

Other Articles in this Issue

The book of Ecclesiastes diagnoses humanity’s tendency to link the value of human life with permanent accomplishment in our work...

In the current fascination of younger evangelicals with the ethos of both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, John Henry Newman (1801–1890) has become something of a ‘poster child’...

A great deal of research has been done on the life and theology of Jonathan Edwards...

This article surveys the state of Edwards studies today, focusing particularly on its philosophical theologians who have zeroed in on Edwards’s doctrine of God...

This article critically examines Jonathan Edwards’s doctrine of the Trinity with a particular focus upon his understanding of the person of the Holy Spirit...