What does this mean?
Isaiah 27:6 (ESV) “In days to come Jacob shall take root, Israel shall blossom and put forth shoots and fill the whole world with fruit.”
You can read the context (Isaiah 27:1-13), but you ‘ll see that like other places in Isaiah, this is a brief word of hope in the midst of words of judgment. That makes it easier then, as this is a short passage to analyze. What is it talking about?
The time: the reference here is the “days to come” (or, more literally, “the coming ones.”) Isaiah is speaking about something that is in his future.
The subject: the two subjects are of course one, as Israel is another name for Jacob. Both are used not only for the individual, but after his passing, the nation of his descendants. This seems rather simple and straightforward, and it is. But because of the time (the future) and the predicate (see below), many Bible readers feel that they must say that Israel is not Israel and Jacob is not Jacob.
The event: This is clearly a metaphor. Don’t allow dispensationalist-bashers (and there are many) to fool you into thinking that dispensationalists take everything literally, thereby denying figurative language. That is a straw man argument. Proper interpretation understands figurative language figuratively and literal language literally. When dispensationalist-bashers say that we ‘re taking figurative language literally, what is really happening is that they are taking literal language figuratively. This is not to deny that there are cases that are difficult to determine. But it’s the easy cases that are the point of departure and not the difficult ones.
The people of Israel are obviously not going to start sprouting branches out of their ears and hips. This is a picture of the nation’s 1) firm establishment (“take root”), 2) manifestation of life (“shall blossom and put forth shoots”), and 3) worldwide fruitfulness (“fill the whole world with fruit”). Is Isaiah speaking about the nation from an economic standpoint or from a spiritual standpoint or both? He doesn’t say here, but it’s not too hard to figure it out from other prophecies made by Isaiah and his colleagues.
As you know, I’m concerned about the fulfillment of prophecies in Scripture. So I ask, has this been fulfilled already? Is this a conditional prophecy, and might it have been revoked in the past because of Israel’s failure? If it is yet to occur, what will it look like? I can think of three general approaches to interpreting this passage:
1. Isaiah spoke to encourage the Israelites. He did not know the future, but he assumed that God would do good things for Israel. We shouldn’t insist on finding fulfillment in the details.
2. Israel as a nation failed, but Jesus Christ (a descendant of Israel) is the new Israel and he is presently fulfilling this. Think of the “mustard seed” that becomes a tree (Matt 13:31-32).
3. Israel was failing when Isaiah spoke. They were anything but established in the land as the exile had already started (in 733 BC by the Assyrians). They were largely lifeless and rotting. Instead of sending fruit into the world for others, they were bringing the world’s fruit into their dining rooms and feasting. Isaiah predicted that this would be reversed and that Israel would be returned from exile (see a few verses down in Isaiah 27:12-13). The people would be alive like buds in springtime, and their productivity would cover the earth’s surface.
The problem with approach #1 is that it doesn’t make any sense. Why would Isaiah encourage a wicked people unless God led him to? What sign did he see that there was any hope? If Isaiah was merely making assumptions, he was making some stupid ones. The only reason why we can even read Isaiah today is because #1 is not true and God faithfully preserved his people according to his promises.
#2 is partly true. Israel’s restoration could not occur apart from the faithful obedience of Jesus Christ. This was a necessary condition, and I agree with all of my non-dispensational brothers that Jesus’s sacrifice which gives life and establishes the new covenant is indeed most glorious. The problem is that they have substituted the cause for the effect. Because of Jesus, Jacob will fill the whole earth with fruit. This passage does not say that Jesus shall take root and the Gentiles shall fill the earth with fruit. The hope is for the physical descendants of Israel, the same ones whose branches were presently being chopped off.
The faithful Israelite hearing Isaiah’s words of judgment knew that his nation would live again and fulfill God’s promise that all nations would be blessed (Gen 12:3). If it is true that Jesus is the fulfillment of this passage, then there is no reason for the continued existence of the Jewish people. Isaiah and the prophets thought otherwise, for they saw Jesus and they saw the fruits of his work.
Yes, the substitutionary death of Jesus is glorious. Yes, the eternal rule of Christ over his creation is glorious. And yes, the redemption of a stiff-necked, lifeless and selfish people is glorious. That Christ is redeeming Gentiles now does not preclude his redemption of Israel. One day we will marvel when this prophecy is fulfilled. This is because, frankly, it seems just as impossible today as it must have in Isaiah’s day.
“Isaiah predicted that this would be reversed and that Israel would be returned from exile”–how do we know that he’s not talking about the return in 539? Those that came back then probably thought they were a fulfillment of this, no?
Benj – that’s an important question. In my thinking, most prophecies had a sense of “imminence.” A timeline was usually not given and thus it could occur “at any time.” Thus, prophecies that spoke of Israel’s glorious future were the longing of Israel’s faithful. The exiles had many prophecies that spoke of restoration, the kingdom, and the messiah. They didn’t know when these would be fulfilled, but they certainly desired their immediate fulfillment. Probably many of them were hoping that they were in the beginning of fulfillment, but that could only be known as time went on and they could see the full picture.
So, for example, an Israelite leaving Persia in 536 BC with Sheshbazzar probably thought that this passage (and many others) were being fulfilled. But ten years later, when not much had changed (Israel didn’t have sovereignty, the temple was a mere concrete slab, no worldwide fruit), he may have started to doubt. Another ten years later he saw the dedication of a rather pathetic temple building. His doubts were being confirmed. Thirty more years and still…no sovereignty, no national righteousness, no fruit filling the whole world, no messiah, and no atonement for sins (Isa 53). Yes, some prophecies were fulfilled (Jeremiah’s 70 years), but others were not, including this one.
You could argue that “part” of this prophecy was fulfilled (“Jacob took root”) and only later would the rest. Maybe this was a viable position in the post-exilic years. But when Israel was uprooted again (in AD 70), it became clear to all that this prophecy was never fulfilled, and that one day in the future Israel must be established, demonstrate life, and “fill the earth.” Thus it seems best to me not to say that part A was fulfilled in 536 and parts B and C are still future, but rather that all are still future. I think this better fits the eschatological sense of “the coming days.”