Deeper Commentary

Isaiah 54:1 Sing, barren, you who didn’t bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, you who did not travail with child-

Zion had had sons whom she "bore", but they were dead (s.w. Is. 51:18 "there is none to guide her of the sons she has brought forth"). Now she is presented as a woman who was always barren and never brought forth. It could simply be that various images are used for Zion (divorced for adultery, a self harming alcoholic lying naked in the dust and sexually abused, abandoned by a capricious and bad tempered husband, an abandoned wife of youth, barren, an older woman bereaved of her adult sons, widowed) to express the various aspects of her feelings and to reflect to us her fractured self-identity. Although we can just about put all those images together in one single characterization of "Zion". In this case we have the picture of an attractive young woman who married a man who loved her, had children by Him, but committed adultery; was  divorced by her husband and sent away from Him after multiple opportunities to change; wrongly perceives and misremembers him as having abandoned her for other women and being a short tempered, angry man; her children were killed; she became barren, or feels barren because her children were dead; her husband died [so she thinks]; and she ended up a self harming alcoholic lying naked in the dust and sexually abused by passers by. This would be true to observed experience, in my decades of running soup kitchens and dealing with older people in addiction. And yet from that low point she could have been transformed... And "the power that hath saved thee" and made Zion free is now available to all who want to be God's woman.

But all the images are what Zion thought within her mistaken and non factual narrative. She thought God was an angry God who in a burst of anger had sent her away; when His heart was bursting with love for her, and He was aware of her as a mother is aware of her newborn baby. He says that in fact there is no "bill of divorce"- possibly implying He had not divorced Judah, although He had divorced Israel. She says she is barren- when she had had children, who had died. Her husband had died, so she thinks- because of the belief that a god was married to his capital city, and if the city fell to another god and the inhabitants taken away, then this meant the god had died. Yet God goes along with her narrative, as His Son did with the issue of demons. And reasons with her on each point as if it were true, rather than making point blank attacks on her wrong positions. This is the behaviour of many Protestant groups who think it's all about winning theological battles, rather than saving people one by one.

There are other options, however, to considering all the descriptions of Zion as describing the singular characterization of one woman. The phenomenon of "communal amnesia" can occur in exiled communities, and maybe this feeling as if she has never had children is a way of reflecting that. Or we could consider that seeing her sons had been slain, she had the mentality of a barren woman. For to not have children was social death for a woman; hence the tragedy of sons being slain during the mother's lifetime. In this case, God feels so deeply her pain, recognizing how defined she was by the social views around her, sensitive to how she felt that losing her sons made her feel as if she had never in fact given birth to them. Such feelings may not be applicable to many modern women; but they were how women felt at that time, and Yahweh appreciated that. And gave her an opportunity to have children again, new children who would be counted hers and who would take away her shame amongst women and elevate and fulfil her. The idea is that adopted children were as legitimate to a woman as those she gave birth to. This may be hard for us to appreciate. But having children was such a huge social issue, and was a woman's sole purpose and pride. If she had children named to her and their mother was not around, this was indeed as fulfilling as having her own native children. 

The language of crying aloud and breaking forth is that of the pain of childbirth. But this once barren woman gives birth without pain, and instead with cries of joy: "burst into song and shout, you who endure no birth pangs". The curse would be removed, which goes along with the language of Eden being restored. The same idea is in Is. 66:7 "Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered or a man child". However, a totally different scenario had been originally envisaged- the trauma of the Babylonian invasion was to be Zion's painful labour, but she would go to Babylon and there be delivered of a child- hinting surely at her repentance, bringing forth a spiritual child: "Be in pain, and labour to bring forth, daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail; for now you will go forth out of the city, and will dwell in the field, and will come even to Babylon. There you will be delivered. There Yahweh will redeem you from the hand of your enemies... Therefore He will abandon them until the time that she who is in labor gives birth. Then the rest of his brothers will return" (Mic. 4:10; 5:3). All that had changed. Yahweh did abandon them in exile (Is. 54:7) but He put an end to that- even though Zion didn't give birth as intended. She didn't give birth to the child- instead she was given the Gentiles as children. But she refused them. Now another scenario is presented, quite different and far more gracious than that found in Micah. Zion had not brought forth the child in Babylon. But God didn't abandon them. The idea was that although in Isaiah's time the child had come to the birth but there had been no strength to deliver (Is. 37:3), yet she would deliver the child in Babylon. But she didn't. In another figure, her children were dead and she was barren, laying drunk in the dust having drunk the wine of condemnation and having become addicted to it. And they had refused to accept the redemption from Babylon when it was offered. She had indeed been in labour pains but had brought forth the wind, nothing (Is. 26:17,18), they conceived chaff and brought forth stubble (Is. 33:11). Now, by absolute grace, God is offering yet another scenario, whereby the barren and bereaved Zion has children, without pain. And even then they resisted, retreating into hard right wing nationalism and xenophobia, resisting any idea of the Gentiles becoming Zion's spiritual children. And so God redefined Zion, and the essence of these things comes true for that new Jerusalem.

God's hope here in Is. 54:1 is that Zion would cry out in joy as she gave birth to the Gentiles, and had those children counted to her. But it was Yahweh Himself who had likened Himself to a woman who had been in labour throughout the years of exile, and would now "cry out like a travailing woman" (Is. 42:14). He would be totally identified with them in this birth process. But still they refused that personal identity with Him, remaining merely culturally associated with Yahweh on the level of religion.    

The allusion is to Sarah, to whom the exiles had earlier been bidden to "look" for inspiration (Is. 51:2). Sarah in her time of child-birth is likened to us all as we enter the Kingdom, full of joy (Is. 54:1-4); and yet at that time she was eaten up with pride and joy that she could now triumph over her rival; see on Gen. 21:10. And yet Sarah at that time is seen from a righteous perspective, counted as righteous, in that she is a type of us as we enter the Kingdom. God's mercy to Sarah and Abraham is repeated to us daily.

It could also be that what is in view here are spiritual children. The Divine hope was that the lack of spiritual 'children' amongst the exiles, repentant converts to the prophetic message, was going to be replaced by such "children" from among the Gentiles. 

For more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, says Yahweh-

"The city of your holiness has become desolate / barren, Zion has become as a wilderness, Jerusalem, a curse" (Is. 64:10). Her barrenness was because of a Divine curse. The children of Zion are clearly defined in Gal. 4 as the Christian believers, having Jerusalem as "the mother of us all". The bridegroom of Zion is presented in Revelation as the Lord Jesus, for He marries a new, beautifully adorned Jerusalem. And yet Paul seems to interpret "the desolate", barren woman as Sarah, and the "the children of the married wife" as Jews under the law, being the children of Hagar, born into slavery. But in that case, here Hagar is called "the married wife". Possibly the connection is with Rom. 7:2, "A married woman is subject to the law of her husband so long as he lives". But the idea is that Zion had been an unfaithful wife, a prostitute who was now barren [so Hosea; and Is. 1:21 "the faithful city of Jerusalem has become a harlot"; who could be transformed into "a city of righteousness, the faithful mother-city Zion" (Is. 1:26 LXX). "The married wife" may not be a different woman [Hagar], but a reference to how Zion was when she miserably married, before her divorce with God. What is in view is Sarah when barren, and Sarah who rejoiced at the birth of Isaac. Paul's point in Gal. 4 is that if you want to live as a slave to the law, then you are the child of Hagar the slave; for she "bore children into slavery" (Gal. 4:27). And so the allusion may not be so much to Hagar, but the point may rather be that the two women represent Zion past and present. When she had been married to Yahweh she was barren; but the paradox is that now she was "desolate" she was going to have children, and she would do so without going through "travail" for them (Gal. 4:27). Gal. 4:27 confirms this interpretation and develops it, connecting unbelieving Israel with the barren woman and the largely Gentile church with the fruitful one.

The idea of God being destroyed in the destruction of His people (see on Jer. 6:26) may be the basis of the descriptions of Zion as being left widowed (Lam. 1:1; Is. 54:1-8). We ask the question- if she was a widow, who died? Her husband, God, was as it were dead. The very idea of the death of God is awful and obnoxious. But this was and is the depth of God’s feelings at His peoples’ destruction.

We must follow the images carefully. Zion is presented in Is. 49:14 as a forsaken young wife. She is also presented as a young mother who had lost her children, who suddenly gets them back. But Is. 49:15 then applies feminine imagery to God as Zion's mother. God is the eternal mother, the figure that every man, if he is honest, would dearly love to have. Not an old frail lady with dementia, as his last memories of her might be, but the younger woman who, as a child, apparently had all the answers and made all the provisions. Even if man never had a mother or had a bad mother, that is the ideal desire of every man. It is clearly enough why men have a "thing" about women's breasts. And that is God to man. God has set eternity in our hearts, a longing for things which we shall never quite achieve in this life. But that longing is met uniquely in Him. The woman longs for a strong father, a wonderful ever present husband, and children who are always somehow present and not distant, who crown her maturity with teeming happy grandchildren (Is. 49:21-23). She never has those things... her father may or may not have been the strong one, but he grows old and weak. Her husband was not perfect, and is not always strong. Her children are not as she would wish, perhaps she is estranged from one and another is lost to her, under the influence of in-laws or drugs... or not thinking spiritually as she does. But these deep longings are met uniquely in the things of the Father and His Kingdom. Yahweh is revealed as the eternal husband of Zion, the go'el who redeems from all life's problems, the father of her wonderful children. Family life, good as it can be when lived in the Lord, never fully meets these longings of both man and woman. And even the best of human relationships are time limited. Only Yahweh of Israel can be eternally all these things to man. The failures and lack of total fulfilment in family life for both men and women are merely to hone and focus upon what we would ideally wish for- and we shall receive it eternally, in our relationship with God and His people in His Kingdom. And in Is. 54, Zion is presented as a once barren woman. Now and for eternity she not only has children but her children are abundant (Is. 54:1), widespreading (Is. 54:22) and prosperous (Is. 54:13).

Isaiah 54:2 Enlarge the place of your tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of your habitations; don’t spare: lengthen your cords, and strengthen your stakes- They would need more space for all the children- the Gentile converts who would be made seeing that the Jews were unresponsive (:1). This extension of her tents meant enlarging the boundaries of the land (:3). The implication could even be that the further they lengthened their tent cords, the more Gentile converts would come in. "The place" of the tent, the territory where it was pitched, had to be expanded. God's redeemed family was to be extended beyond the limits of the eretz promised to Abraham.

Isaiah so often uses the idea of ‘stretching out’ the Heavens with reference to His creation of His new Kingdom (Isaiah 40:22; Is. 42:5; 44:24; 45:15; 51:13; 65:17,18). Zechariah 1:6 cp. 12:1 show that to stretch out Jerusalem is parallel with stretching out the ‘heavens’. The ‘singing’ of the heavens refers to Judah’s intended joy at the restoration (Isaiah 49:13 cp. 48:20). Israel were being told to peg out their tent as wide and far as they could; because this would be the extent of their Kingdom. The Kingdom would be as ‘large’ for them as they had vision for in this life. The God who stretched out the heavens would have no difficulty in stretching out barren Zion's tent to include new children. But she had to herself move the tent pegs. And how far she moved them limited how many children God would give her. All things are possible to those who believe, God Himself is unlimited.

This expansion of the tent or tabernacle of the once barren Sarah is in order to include the Gentiles. This implies they are within the tabernacle, and this is perhaps why Paul alludes to this passage in Galatians 4- in argument against the Judaizers who were against the inclusion of the Gentiles within the tent of meeting.

Isaiah 54:3 For you shall spread out on the right hand and on the left; and your seed shall possess the nations-

"Spread out" is the word used in Gen. 28:14 of the promised seed spreading forth to all points of the compass. This fulfilment of the Abrahamic promises was to be an outcome of accepting the new covenant. They would have responded to the appeal of Is. 51:1 to look to Abraham and Sarah, to be likewise energized by the Spirit and made fruitful out of the most fruitless, barren position. See on :2. GNB "You will extend your boundaries on all sides; your people will get back the land that the other nations now occupy". The idea is that Israel would possess all the nations within the eretz promised to Abraham, and yet expand those borders. The Abrahamic promise was that the seed would possess the gate of their enemies- the nations on the edges of and bordering on the eretz (Gen. 22:17; 24:60). 

And make the desolate cities to be inhabited- At the restoration the temple still lay “waste” (Hag. 1:4,9) just as it had lain “desolate” [s.w. Jer. 33:10,12] after the Babylonian destruction. The ‘restoration’ was in fact not really a restoration at all, in God’s eyes. Thus Ezra sat down desolate [AV “astonied”] at the news of Judah’s apostasy in marrying the surrounding women; using the very same word as frequently used to describe the ‘desolate’ Jerusalem that was to be rebuilt (Ezra 9:3 cp. Is. 49:8,19; 54:3; 61:4). He tore his priestly garment (Ezra 9:3), as if he realized that all Ezekiel’s prophesies about those priestly garments now couldn’t come true (s.w. Ez. 42:14; 44:17,19). Is. 58:12,13 prophesied that the acceptable rebuilding of Zion was dependent upon Judah keeping the Sabbath acceptably; and yet Nehemiah’s record makes clear their tragic abuse of the Sabbath at the time of the restoration; and this therefore meant that the rebuilding of the temple and city were not going to fulfill the Messianic prophecies about them which existed.

Isaiah 54:4 Don’t be afraid; for you shall not be ashamed: neither be confounded; for you shall not be disappointed-

Ancient society was shame based. People were humiliated because they had been shamed. But Zion is encouraged: "do not be humiliated, for you will not
be ashamed". This fear of shame is still a major issue in human psychology. Those redeemed in Christ are in Him, who refused to feel shame because He was innocent (Is. 50). Insofar as we feel in Him, we too can live without shame in this world. Humbled before Him, but without the fear of possible shame... if people knew my sins, if life doesn't work out, if my poverty is revealed as it is, if my family life goes wrong.

Harmonizing with the second half of the verse, LXX has "Fear not, because thou has been put to shame, neither be confounded, because thou was reproached". The shame of the Babylonian captivity was strong in their reasoning; they feared leaving Babylon lest such shame be repeated. It was to be the makers of idols who were "confounded" (s.w. Is. 41:11; 45:16) and only the true Israel would not be "confounded" (Is. 45:17; 54:4). The sinners in Israel had refused to be confounded or ashamed of their sins (Jer. 3:3 s.w.) and so they would be shamed in condemnation. Repentance involves an imagination of ourselves coming to judgment day and being condemned, and feeling shame for that; that is how we shall not be ashamed. And it is the servant alone who shall not be ashamed / confounded because of His righteousness (Is. 50:7). Our identity with Him removes that shame. If we condemn ourselves, we shall not be condemned (1 Cor. 11:31). The enemies of Israel would perish alongside the apostate within Israel, in the same judgment.

Yahweh had promised support for them if they returned to the land; He would preserve them on the way. Consider Is. 50:10: “Who is among you that fears the LORD, that obeys the voice [s.w. Ezra 1:1 re the proclamation of Cyrus] of his servant [i.e. Cyrus, Is. 45:1], that walks in darkness, and has no light? let him trust in the name of the LORD, and stay upon his God”. Yet Ezra was ashamed to ask the king for soldiers to guard them on the journey only because he had earlier told the king that Yahweh would be with them (Ezra 8:22), as if he really did want the support but was ashamed to ask for it. He disallowed Isaiah’s prophesy that the restored Israel would never be ashamed [s.w. Ezra 8:22; 9:6] nor confounded (Is. 45:17; 49:23; 54:4). Nehemiah accepted such support when he came up from Babylon (Neh. 2:9).

For you shall forget the shame of your youth; and the reproach of your widowhood you shall remember no more- Their widowhood implied their husband Yahweh had as it were died; see on :1. GNB "You will forget your unfaithfulness as a young wife, and your desperate loneliness as a widow". This death of God was not just a reference to His total identification with the exiles' sufferings and deaths. "God was in Christ" in the Lord's death. Whilst God is not Jesus and neither can God die, He was totally identified with the death of His Son. And that left Israel a widow, as it were.

The "reproach" of widowhood was that if a husband died without having had children by the wife, the woman was shamed for not having had children. The word is used by Rachel when she rejoices at her pregnancy because "God has taken away my reproach" (Gen. 30:23). This shame was to be taken away by suddenly being given other children, just as happened for Job. For Job lost his children but then suddenly got them back in the form of other children, when his captivity was turned by Yahweh. Job's story was clearly written for the exiles. But they didn't want this "reproach" removed, because the word is repeatedly used of how things were for the returned exiles (Neh. 1:3; 4:4; 5:9). Because they didn't want the Gentile children offered to them by God. That reproach could have been taken away (Is. 25:8), if they had accepted the command to identify with the reproach-less Servant and "not fear the reproach of men" (Is. 51:7). The removal of reproach was a feature of the new covenant (Ez. 36:15,30; Joel 2:19). But they refused. This offer to be free from all shame placed on us by society, because of our identification with the Lord, is now made to us. Earlier, God had told Judah that their reproach was indelible: "Because you say this word, The burden of Yahweh, and I have sent to you saying, You shall not say, The burden of Yahweh; therefore, behold, I will utterly forget you, and I will cast you off, and the city that I gave to you and to your fathers, away from My presence: and I will bring an everlasting reproach on you, and a perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten" (Jer. 23:38-40). It was of God's grace alone that He was offering a way out of this reproach and shame- and they refused it.

This refusal is remarkable [as is all refusal of the Gospel of God's love]. It was understood that a deity was married to his capital city, and thus Yahweh had been married to Zion / Jerusalem. If a city was destroyed and the inhabitants taken into captivity, it was as if the deity had died. Thus Babylon would become a widow when she fell (Is. 47:9). And thus Zion is described as widowed. But Yahweh is telling the exiles that Zion is free, is redeemed, He their God is gloriously alive, and they can now return to Zion and thus to Him. But they refused. Although they zealously retained the appearance of being His people, in reality they preferred the Babylon life and did not want actual restored relationship with Him. Which seems how it is for many 'Christians' today, who effectively have no active relationship with God.

The continued assurances of freedom from shame are in the context of Yahweh as Israel's go'el or "redeemer" (:5). The redeemer paid money to get the family member out of debt, took vengeance for his blood- all to save the family from shame. And this work of the "redeemer" to free from shame is applied to God's people generally; and it applies to us too. The verse opens using three separate words for shame, translated here "ashamed... confounded... disappointed". In ancient societies, public disgrace, humiliation and embarrassment were feared more than death- and they still are today. Whether in life on a council estate, or high society. In Christ, we are ultimately freed from all aspects of shame, requiring four different words for it in just this one verse- through being declared righteous / innocent, justified, free from condemnation, in Christ.

Isaiah 54:5 For your Maker is your husband; Yahweh of Armies is His name: and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; the God of the whole earth shall He be called- As explained on :2,3, the entire eretz promised to Abraham would convert to Yahweh. LXX "He that delivered thee, He is the God of Israel, and shall be called so by the whole earth".  And this could have potentially happened had the exiles returned in faith and repentance. "The Holy One of Israel; the God of the whole earth" is a phrase used in Zechariah regarding the Angel co-ordinating the restoration.

Israel is so often set up as the bride of God (Is. 54:5; 61:10; 62:4,5; Jer. 2:2; 3:14; Hos. 2:19,20). This is why any infidelity of theirs to God is spoken of as adultery (Mal. 2:11; Lev. 17:7; 20:5,6; Dt. 31:16; Jud. 2:17; 8:27,33; Hos. 9:1). The very language of Israel 'selling themselves to do iniquity' uses the image of prostitution. This is how God feels our even temporary and fleeting acts and thoughts of unfaithfulness. This is why God is jealous for Israel (Ex. 20:15; 34:14; Dt. 4:24; 5:9; 6:15)- because His undivided love for them is so exclusive. He expects them to be totally His. 

We note how the description of Yahweh as Israel's "redeemer" often goes together with His title as "the holy one of Israel" (here and Is. 41:14; 43:14; 47:4; 48:17; 49:7). His redemption of His worthless people is what sets Him apart, makes Him so "holy". No other god would have done this. There was and is no greater grace. And He is His people's "Holy one" in the sense of being their / our only one. Israel belongs exclusively to her redeemer, and He belongs exclusively to them. Because His redemption of them is so unique; and the price of that redemption is ultimately in the blood of His son, given as a "ransom [payment] for many". In this same verse we likewise have a similar metaphor- Yahweh is the husband of His people, and they are His wife.

Isaiah 54:6 For Yahweh has called you as a wife forsaken and grieved in spirit, even a wife of youth, when she is cast off, says your God- see on Zech. 11:10,11. God speaks as if He died, and therefore Israel was left as a widow (Is. 54:4,6); see on :1. "Cast off" is the term found later in the prophets: “My God will cast them away” (Hos. 9:17; Is. 54:6); the same Hebrew word occurs when God says He would “reject” Israel (Hos. 4:6). But even when Israel were to be in the land of their enemies as punishment for their sins, “I will not cast them away” [s.w.] (Lev. 26:44). God will not cast away Israel (Is. 41:9). Only if Heaven can be measured will God cast away Israel (Jer. 31:37). God has not cast away His people (Rom. 11:2). We see here the deep tension within God's mind as He considers His status and position toward His unfaithful people. He here compares Himself to a young man hopelessly in love with a woman (Israel) who was really no good, a man who took the blame when it was undoubtedly her fault (Is. 54:6,7), grieving that she wouldn't return to Him (Am. 4:8 etc.). "I am broken with their whorish heart... I am crushed" (Ez. 6:9; Jer. 8:21 NIV). God likens Himself to a broken man because of Israel's fickleness. He went through the pain of the man who knows He has been forgotten by the woman he still desperately remembers (Hos. 2:13). RV “even a wife of youth, when she is cast off”. The Hebrew is difficult. We can read it as an exclamation: "and a wife of youth—can she be rejected?". As if it were unthinkable to permanently reject the wife of your youth. Through Malachi, Yahweh condemned the Jews for doing this to the wives of their youth. He reasons as if the wife of your youth is always your wife. Whatever. And despite all Judah's adultery, He now reasons the same way. For "the shame of your youth" (:4) is related to her having been a wife in her youth. The shameful things of her youth were done whilst she was married to God.

However, as discussed on :1, we can understand God's words in :6,7 as merely reflecting the claims Zion was making- that her husband had abandoned and forsaken her. God would then be using those terms and running with them, not arguing that they were false accusations, but rather saying that 'Fair enough, so you say, but now there is a glorious and eternal future possible for our marriage'. And that is typical of how He responds to criticism, and it was how His Son dealt with false accusations too. This may also explain how Zion is described as "barren", when barrenness would not be her fault. She had in fact had children, but the idea she had been "barren" was part of her own false narrative. And God runs with that, saying that the barren will bear children, as did Sarah (Is. 51:1,2). Too quickly we write off people who have spun a false narrative and bought into it and repeated it to the point they believe it is true. God instead runs with their narrative, and seeks to show it leads to something far greater and better. And His narrative is to be the final Truth.

Isaiah 54:7 For a small moment have I forsaken you; but with great mercies will I gather you- But even in this small moment [intended to be 70 years], He was watering them and caring for them. He is involved "every moment" in the life of His people; Job, presented as the suffering exiles, came to realize this (Is. 27:3 cp. Job 7:18 s.w.).

The sufferings of Christ on the cross have connections with the punishments for Israel's sins (e.g. being offered gall to drink = Jer. 8:14; Lam. 3:5). Israel were temporarily forsaken by God because of their sins (Is. 49:14; 54:7), and therefore so was the Lord. He too was chastened with the rod of men "and with the stripes of the children of men", i.e. Israel (Is. 53:5; 1 Pet. 2:24; Mic. 5:1), in His death on the cross.

The deathless love of Hosea for Gomer, the very intensity and height of it, in itself highlights the tragedy of God. That His love, yes, the passion and longing of God Himself, was rejected by His people. There are some reasons to think that the book of Hosea was rewritten (under inspiration) during the captivity. Isaiah had explained here that although God and Israel had departed from each other, they would come together again by Israel being regathered- i.e. by their return from Babylon to the land. And perhaps Hosea was rewritten at the same time, as an appeal for the Jews to ‘return’ to their God, i.e. to return to Judah. And yet, so tragically, whilst they all avowed their allegiance to Yahweh, generously supported the few who did return… the majority of the Jews didn’t return to their God. They chose the soft life in Babylon, where they remained. It’s why the close of the book of Esther is so sad- the Jews are there in prosperity and popularity in Babylon, no longer weeping by the rivers of Babylon.

And yet we still struggle with the language here. God says He was angry for just "a moment" (:7,8), but will give them eternal love. But 70 years is a human lifetime, and the first generation of exiles died in captivity. His 'forsaking' is compared to His eternal mercies. Likewise His "wrath of a moment" is favorably contrasted with "everlasting loving kindness" (:8). But His wrath had been very real, resulting in the deaths of so many, and the total wreck of their lives. It could seem that God is rationalizing His wrath and the extent of it. For as Job would complain, He doesn't see as man sees, He doesn't have "eyes of flesh" (Job 10:4); for Him, 70 years is a moment, for man it is a lifetime. Moses in Ps. 90 complains likewise. So is this really God out of touch, using inadvertently upsetting language, because He doesn't "get it" as to how His words will be taken by humans? I suggest not. He also speaks of how He has co-suffered in silence throughout the exile "for a long time" (Is. 42:14), as if in labour pains for His people for 70 years. He presents it as a matter of perspective- a long time in one sense, a moment of time in the prospect of the infinity which He had offered Zion. He is intentionally provoking us with this reasoning- and demanding we see things from an eternal, Kingdom perspective. In which perspective, all human sufferings is miniscule and momentary. He is forcing us to engage with Him. As often noted, He had offered Judah restoration only if they repented, and had in any case consigned them to perish amongst the Gentiles. Because of generations of whoredom on their side. Any complaint that 'God is being insensitive to man' drives us to that recognition of the total unworthiness of man to even be alive. We have no right to life, no human rights. We are sinners. By grace, God was prepared to upend His own words of judgment. And we should be grateful for that.

Isaiah 54:8 In overflowing wrath I hid My face from you for a moment; but with everlasting loving kindness will I have mercy on you-

"In a little wrath" is literally 'In an outbreak of wrath' as if God as the husband desperate to reconcile is now taking false guilt, misrepresenting Himself as a bad tempered man who had sent his wife away in a moment of rage. He presents as wanting to take all the responsibility, to say or do anything in order to get her back. Or we can read this, as discussed above, as God 'going along' with Zion's wrong narrative. And reasoning onwards from where she stood, rather than trying to correct her. We read of the anger of God "for a moment" (Ps. 30:5; Is. 54:7,8), and of His wrath coming and going, leaving Him "calm" and no longer angry (Ez. 16:42). When we sin, we provoke God to anger- i.e. at a point in time, God sees our sin, and becomes angry. This is attested many times in Scripture. But it's meaningless if God is somehow outside of our time and emotions. The very use of the terms 'remembering' and 'forgetting' suggest God is so fully willing to enter into our kind of time; for a Being cannot forget and remember simultaneously, an element of time is involved. Likewise at times we read of God being slow to anger (Ex. 34:6), at others, of Him not restraining His anger, or restraining it (Ps. 78:38; Is. 48:9; Lam. 2:8; Ez. 20:22), and holding His peace (Is. 57:11; Ps. 50:21), and being provoked to anger by the bad behaviour of His covenant people (Dt. 32:21; Ps. 78:58; Is. 65:3; Jer. 8:19). God clearly has emotions of a kind which are not unrelated to the emotions we experience, as beings made in His image. But those emotions involve a time factor in order to be emotions.

The prophets spoke of the amazing grace and eternal love of God for Israel, how His wrath endured but for a moment (Is. 54:8; 57:16); and yet Israel asked: “Will He be angry for ever?” (Jer. 3:5). It was more than frustrating for the prophets; they shared God’s feelings of having poured out so great a love, to see it ignored and disregarded, no time to look at it, too busy sowing my seeds, weeding my garden, having coffee…

Says Yahweh your Redeemer- As Hosea ‘redeemed’ Gomer in His attempt to force through His fantasy for her (Hos. 3:1), so Yahweh is repeatedly described in Isaiah as Israel’s go’el , redeemer (Is. 41:14; Is. 43:14; Is. 44:6,24; Is. 47:4; Is. 48:17; Is. 49:7,26; Is. 54:5,8). The redeemer could redeem a close relative from slavery or repurchase property lost during hard times (Lev. 25:25,26, 47-55; Ruth 2:20; Ruth 3:9,12). The redeemer was also the avenger of blood (Num. 35:9-28; Josh. 20:3,9). All these ideas were relevant to Yahweh’s relationship to Judah in captivity. But the promised freedom didn’t come- even under Nehemiah, Judah was still a province within the Persian empire. And those who returned complained: “We are slaves this day in the land you gave…” (Neh. 9:36). The wonderful prophecies of freedom and redemption from slavery weren’t realized in practice, because of the selfishness of the more wealthy Jews. And how often is it that the freedom potentially enabled for those redeemed in Christ is in practice denied them by their autocratic and abusive brethren

Isaiah 54:9 For this is like the waters of Noah to Me; for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah shall no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I will not be angry with you, nor rebuke you- LXX offers "From the time of the water of Noe this is my purpose". The idea is that out of judgment comes a new creation, where the wrath of God doesn't figure because it has as it were been dealt with through the judgments. What is in view is a time when His judgments shall never again need to be revealed upon His people. This could have happened at the restoration but it evidently didn't, and all this is therefore reapplied to the time of the Lord's return. It applies to His people now in that we are free from condemnation. Because we are "in" the Servant, who can ask "Who is he that shall condemn Me?", and those words are applied to all in Christ in Rom. 8:32,33.

God is changing the metaphors. Initially, it was His people who were to be slain for their sins in exile, and only the repentant minority would survive. Then He moves to the image of His people having sold themselves into debt slavery for a period. But He has now bought them out by a redemption payment. Then He speaks of His having divorced them but having destroyed the bill of divorce, so they are free to return. Now He speaks of His having died, leaving them a widow; and finally of His having briefly thrown them out of the house in a fit of wrath. The movement of the metaphors is all one way, towards a growing desperation to persuade His people to return to Him. He ends up both minimizing their sin and His wrath. In Is. 54:9 He speaks of how His wrath was only "a little" when it had been flaming and intense. He begs them to return to them, saying He will never again even "rebuke" them, He will impute such righteousness to them that He will see them as never needing His criticism. He likens their exile to the flood, and after the flood there had been a new covenant and realisation by God of human weakness. He as it were downgraded His hopes of man. As He had promised never to judge the earth again with water, now He says He will never condemn His people again. If they are "in" His servant, they will be free of condemnation.

Isaiah 54:10 For the mountains may depart, and the hills be removed; but My loving kindness shall not depart from you- The departure of the mountains may refer to the huge geological changes at the time of the flood, but the mountains also figuratively refer to the nations and kingdoms which would be subsumed beneath the mountain of Yahweh's Kingdom- which could have come when the little stone of the exiles were cut out of the mountain of Babylon / Persia and returned to the land. But another, longer term fulfilment of the image prophecy of Dan. 2 had to come into play. As discussed there, the metals of the image initially represented "kings", and the application to "kingdoms" was brought about by the refusal of the exiles to repent and act as the little stone destroying the image of Babylon.

Neither shall My covenant of peace be removed, says Yahweh who has mercy on you- Every Israelite was intended to be a priest; they were to be "a Kingdom of priests". The "covenant of my peace" was with both Israel (Is. 54:10) and the priesthood (Mal. 2:5). The same is true of spiritual Israel; "a spiritual house, an holy priesthood" (1 Pet. 2:5). But the covenant in view was likely the new covenant of peace with God which the exiles could have accepted (Ez. 20; Jer. 31).

Isaiah 54:11 You afflicted- This is the word usually translated "poor" in the material sense. It was the poor who were to enthuse about the reestablishment of Zion (Is. 14:32; 41:17; 66:2 s.w.). The book of Esther makes clear that there were many wealthy Jews in Babylon / Persia. It was the simple pull of materialism which kept many of them from responding to the Gospel of quitting all that for the sake of the restored Kingdom of God. And it is the same today where "to the poor the Gospel is preached" with most response. Or we can simply read this as God hearing all their false excuses why they couldn't accept His love, and responding and feeling: 'You poor thing'.

Tossed with storms- The usual word for "whirlwind", the symbol of God's judgment which had scattered them in exile. It is also the term used for Jonah's experience in the storm (Jonah 1:11,13); and he is to be read as representative of a disbelieving Israel.

And not comforted- The "comfort" of Is. 40 had been offered to them, but they had refused. But here God as it were feels sorry for them even in their "not comforted" position, which was due to their refusal of His comfort. Such is His grace and His earnest  desire to as it were force through, as far as legitimate, His saving purpose with His people.

Behold, I will set your stones in beautiful colours, and lay your foundations with sapphires- The “stones” were laid (Nehemiah 4:2 s.w.), but not with colours, as could have been (Is. 54:11-14). And neither were the foundation stones gemstones, as could have been. This prophecy was therefore reapplied in Revelation to the things of the Kingdom to be established at the Lord’s return. RVmg. "with antimony", a precious eye-powder. God says He will use this as liberally as cement for the setting of the previous stones. This suggests the precious stones were like eyes; and "sapphires" recalls the cherubim Ezekiel had seen hovering in exile (Ez. 1:26). It's as if the cherubim would return to Zion and settle in the new temple. Ezekiel's final visions of the glory returning have this also in view. It never happened as the exiles precluded it. And so it has application to the indwelling of the spiritual Zion by the Spirit.

The precious stones of :11-13 are typical of the wedding gifts given by a husband at a royal wedding. Zion the city is of course effectively God's people. She is adorned by her husband with these gifts, in the most glorious remarriage ever conceivable. For Yahweh had done the same to Israel at their previous wedding at Sinai: "I beautified you with ornaments, put bracelets on your hands and a chain on your neck. I put a jewel on your forehead, earrings in your ears and a beautiful crown on your head" (Ez. 16:11,12). Now He does it again to her. He marries her as if she is a virgin, when in fact she has been a prostitute whilst married to Him before, and this is a remarriage: "For as a young man marries a virgin, so your sons shall marry you; and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so your God will rejoice over you" (Is. 62:5). This is the extent to which God can sanctify man from sin and make us a new creation. And yet the wedding jewels are interpreted as her Gentile converts- which the exiles increasingly refused to accept as legitimate: "Lift up your eyes all around, and see: all these gather themselves together, and come to you. As I live, says Yahweh, you shall surely clothe yourself with them all as with an ornament, and dress yourself with them, like a bride" (Is. 49:18).

Isaiah 54:12 I will make your pinnacles of rubies, and your gates of sparkling jewels, and all your walls of precious stones- LXX "and thy gates crystal"; GNB "and the wall around you with jewels"; see on :11. This is all alluded to in the description of the new Jerusalem in Rev. 21,22. It could've come true at the time of the exiles, had they repented; but is deferred to the second coming of the Lord Jesus.

Isaiah 54:13 All your children shall be taught of Yahweh; and great shall be the peace of your children- Their children were not taught of Yahweh, because the priests were lazy to do so (Mal. 2). And so Yahweh Himself (who is speaking here) will teach them; hence GNB "I myself will teach your people". Teaching was envisaged as going forth from the restored Zion (Is. 2:2-4). But many of the exiles preferred to remain in exile because they likely excused themselves with the argument that remaining would be better for their children. Seeing the exiles refused this, these words are quoted of us in Jn. 6:45. It is the language of the new covenant, the law being written on our hearts directly by God, of being taught directly by Him through the Spirit, free from any human teacher; of having the ear of the disciple as the Lord had (see in Is. 50:4). This is not to decry human teachers, but they only have legitimacy insofar as they teach God's words led by His Spirit. "Shall be taught" is literally 'shall be disciples'.

Isaiah 54:14 In righteousness you shall be established: you shall be far from oppression, for you shall not be afraid; and from terror, for it shall not come near you- This could be an appeal for the exiles to act rightly and justly so that the Kingdom could come about. Hence LXX "abstain from injustice, and thou shalt not fear; and trembling shall not come nigh thee". Our eternal establishment in the Kingdom will be "right", not because we personally were righteous but because God judged us in Christ as right, we were eternally justified as right.

Isaiah 54:15 Behold, they may gather together, but not by Me: whoever shall gather together against you shall fall because of you- The idea may be that whoever now attacks Judah, would not be doing so under God's direction as had previously been the case. And they would therefore face His wrath and destruction (:17). LXX "Behold, strangers shall come to thee by me, and shall sojourn with thee, and shall run to thee for refuge".

God had previously threatened to judge His people by gathering their enemies together to destroy them by acting like a smith blowing fire upon them. But we will read that the judgment / condemnation of His people which He had planned- would now no longer come about. He would count them righteous, so this would not happen: "they may gather together, but not by Me... Behold, I have created the smith who blows the fire of coals, and brings forth a weapon for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy. No weapon that is formed against you will prevail; and you will condemn every tongue that rises against you in judgement... their righteousness is of Me, says Yahweh" (Is. 54:15-17).

It is another way of saying that His people would be free from the condemnation from Him which on one hand was just. We will now read of the smiths making weapons with which to destroy Israel, and the allusion is clearly to the threat against the exiles made in Ez. 21:31: “And I will pour out upon you My indignation; with the fire of My wrath I will blow upon you; and I will give you into the hands of fiery men, smiths of destruction”. God likens Himself to a smith, gathering materials and blowing fire upon them in judgment of Judah: "As they gather silver, brass, iron, lead and tin into the midst of the furnace to blow the fire onto it to melt it; so will I gather you in My anger and in My wrath, and I will lay you there, and melt you. Yes, I will gather you, and blow on you with the fire of My wrath, and you shall be melted in its midst" (Ez. 22:20-22). God is now saying that this will not in fact happen. He would not be in this 'gathering'. The weapons He had formed / sharpened against His people would not in fact prosper. We too "are saved from [God's] wrath through Him", the Lord Jesus.

Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith who blows the fire of coals, and brings forth a weapon for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy- This leads on to the statement in :17 that the forming of any weapon against Israel is doomed. The creators were themselves created, by God- including those who had been created to destroy God's people in judgment. Both evil and good were from God (Is. 45:5-7). These who were created by God to destroy contrast with the category noted in :15, who were not sent by God in this mission.

The Jewish commentator Rashi has it about right: ""Behold I am He Who created a smith who devises a weapon, and I am He Who has created a destroyer that destroys it". That is, to say: I am He Who incited the enemy against you; I am He Who has prepared retribution for him". The idea is that God is the creator of the men who form weapons which frighten His people. If He created those men, He is well in control of what they may create.

Isaiah 54:17 No weapon that is formed against you will prevail-

"Formed" can be understood as whetted or sharpened. This will be true in the latter day context of Joel 3:9,10: "Sanctify war [against God's people]! Stir up the mighty men. Let all the warriors draw near. Let them come up. Beat your ploughshares into swords, and your pruning hooks into spears".

The "weapon" is that of :16. The exiles imagined all manner of opposition if they were to accept the prophetic call to quit Babylon / Persia and return to Judah. But God's promise was that they would leave in peace, be led by His visible presence and have the natural creation bursting into applause on the way (see on Is. 55:12). But they doubted that, focusing upon all the human devices ["weapons"] which they imagined might stand in the way. So many today likewise resist the call of the Gospel of the restored Kingdom of God for the same reasons. The word for "prevail" is used four times in the record of Rebekah's journey from the east (where the exiles were) to the land of promise; it was indeed made prosperous (Gen. 24:21,40,42,56). And their journey to the land of the Kingdom likewise would have been made prosperous, and no opposition to it could have prospered with God on their side. The prophetic word of the restoration was to prosper and achieve their return and revival (Is. 55:11).

And you will condemn every tongue that rises against you in judgement- We are "in" the Servant who cannot be condemned and condemns every tongue that speaks against Him. And Rom. 8 applies those words to each of us in Christ; "Who shall condemn us?". Those suffering with the pain of others' words need to remember this rather than just playing the tape of those words. See on Is. 51:1,6,7. As explained on Is. 50:8, we need not fear insults nor false accusation from men because we shall ultimately be justified, and even now have righteousness imputed to us. And the exiles were invited to believe that, as they imagined all the verbal opposition they might encounter by returning to Judah.

This is the heritage of the servants of Yahweh, and their righteousness which is of Me, says Yahweh- This again refers to what Paul would term imputed righteousness, counting right those who believe in God's grace. LXX "ye shall be righteous before me". Israel are the plural "servants" because they have found identity in the singular servant "Israel" who was sent to redeem Israel. From now on in Isaiah we never read of "the servant" singular, but only of the plural "servants"- those in Him. "Says Yahweh" is literally "The utterance of Yahweh", and can be a legal allusion, especially if we render it as a separate sentence. This is as it were His final statement as the judge of all. His people have been declared righteous. With all that eternally implies.