In Is. 13-34 we see around many nations and people groups prophesied about/against by Isaiah. This is a complex portion of the book because we have statements that seem to be focused upon the immediate end of exile that would occur once Israel/Judah was released from Assyria/Babylon/Medo-Persia. Some of the language has messianic overtones. Some of the language seems eschatological/apocalyptic. I think it would be hard to read these passages with a strict chronology. Rather, there is a sense in which a poetic vision that covers centuries is smashed together in such a way that the reader may assume a sort of cause-and-effect relationship (e.g. When exile ends Messiah must come and Israel must rule the nations, successively.), but that does not seem to be how these passages function. At least over time we have seen that the physical end of exile was not followed immediately by Messiah and the Messiah has not been followed immediately by Israel/Judah’s prominence amongst the nations.
As I read through Is. 19 recently I must confess that I thought about modern Egypt and their political transition. I didn’t think that Is. 19 was referring to contemporary events, per se, but all the events in the news came to mind. That being said, I was a bit surprised to read Walter Kaiser’s take on the Koinonia blog (see the post here).
For Kaiser the recent events did just bring Is. 19 to his mind, he argues that Is. 19 is relevant to what has been happening. Let me share the relevant three paragraphs:
Yes, I believe the Isaiah 19 passage is most relevant. Verses 16 to 25 place the coming events “in that day” six times (vss 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, and 24). Since the prophecies to the foreign nations are bounded by chapter on the first advent of Christ (Isa 7-12) and the second advent of Christ (24-27), chapters 13-23 fall between those two end pieces in position and apparently in time as well. That is why I also stress the eschatological phrase “In that day.”
After the Civil Disaster of 19:2-4, the economic disaster of 19: 5-10 (as a result of the Aswan Project in 1970), and the Intellectual Disaster im 19:11-15, a bridge passage of vss 16-17 has the Egyptians afraid of Judah for the first time in her history, which cannot be other than the events of the six day war in 1967.
However, the text turns to the distant future of “In that day” in vss 18-24 and gives five new works of God’s salvation and deliverance for Egypt: (1) Revival will break out in Egypt’s five cities, one being “City of the Sun,” otherwise known as Heliopolis (18), (2) a monument will be erected like our statute of Liberty to remember the great Egyptian Spiritual Revival (19) at the country’s border, (3) the nation of Egypt will be oppressed and apparently given a cruel leader, but God will replace him with a “savior,” much as he did in the book of Judges (21), (4) God will once again strike Egypt with a plague of some sort, but he will heal them as well and the Egyptians will turn to the Lord (22), (5) there will be a highway between Egypt and Iraq (Assyria) so that Iraqis, Egyptians and Israelis will worship together in that day (23) and (6) words of blessing formerly used exclusively of Israel are now used of Egypt, “My People,” and Iraq, “My Handiwork,” and Israel “My Inheritance.”
Kaiser seems to be saying that modern Egypt is the fulfillment of Is. 19. Iraq is the fulfillment of Assyria. And modern Israel is positioned in such a way that for the first time in the nation’s history she stands in strength between these two nations.
This is a bold claim.
What do you think of Kaiser’s reading? Do you think modern Egypt has anything to do with Is. 19 Egypt? How do you respond to this type of hermeneutic?
I’d like to hear your thoughts here but I also recommend going to the original post to fully hear Kaiser in his own words.
the archives near Emmaus 
maybe not a direct fulfillment but it could have some application?
@Brian: It is possible! These types of prophetic passages are so difficult to interpret and apply because while we read it as Event A followed by Event B followed by Event C when it fact it could be Event A followed by long gap of time before Event B and so forth.
I don’t have a problem with Kaiser’s interpretation, it’s quite interesting. At some point in “this” history prophecies in the Bible must line up with the reality on the ground; if the kettle is black. Of course there is always the tenuous risk of engaging in modern day pesher as well; to say “this is that,” with too much force could potentially be hazardous. I think in a tentative way, though, Kaiser has identified something really interesting. Of course, this says a whole lot about someone’s hermeneutical a priori commitments.
@Bobby: It is difficult because (as you said) we need to remind ourselves that if biblical prophecy has any weight, and we cannot find a historical referent that matches the prophecy, and there is no evidence that it was conditional based on this or that, then we should expect future fulfillment. Of course, there has been generation after generation seeking to apply various passages to this and that event. I remember my pastor saying 9/11 was the burning of Babylon in the Book of Revelation on the 12th of September. I am sure it felt like it, but on February 15th, 2011, it seems like it was a silly thing to say.
@Brian,
I agree. Of course some things are just silly, and other things might have more merit. Given “who” Kaiser is, I would give his insights more weight than most pastors (probably). Again, though, we do see things as through a glass darkly. But then again, we’re son’s of the day of the light; not of the darkness that it should over-take us (I Thess 5 and think of the context).
I grapple with this all of the time, Brian. I am soooo excited about the Lord’s return! When I see the convergence of things in world history right now (given the context of all of world history that we know of today), I struggle with not engaging in pesher. I know folks who are “careful” “academic” “dispassionate” “objective” don’t allow themselves to engage in such fanciful thinking, but again; I believe the LORD is intimately at work in “this” history, and at some point He’s coming back (why not now?). Sometimes I get the feeling from Christians that we have this mentality that “this could never happen to me-syndrome;” and that we apply it to the Lord’s coming, almost like a coping device (so we don’t become disillusioned). Just being frank and thinking out-loud (or blogging 😉 ).
In the end, we won’t really know where we were in salvation history until we are with the Lord and are able to look back.
I just read the rest of Kaiser’s post. His reading of a “cruel leader” is interesting, too. I would think that if you asked most Egyptians if they just got rid of the “cruel leader?” they would say, YES! Which just illustrates why this “kind” of pesher interpretation is so tenuous; it’s based on our “subjective” and “ethnocentric” paradigms, often.
I wanted to say, that Kaiser seems to think that Egypt is as of yet still going to have a future “cruel leader;” which goes against the way folks thought of Mubarak. So there seems to be inconsistency in even Kaiser’s historical interpretation and construction as well.
@Bobby: This goes together with the post I wrote a few days ago about the Second Coming. I think many Christians (at least in our part of the world) are a bit burnt out by apocalyptically minded pseudo-prophets so there has been a pendulum swing to the other side where we barely want to consider the possibility that Jesus could return or prophecy could be fulfilled. I wonder how we find that happy medium?!
There are some interesting twist and turns with Kaiser’s reading. It seems like he may be causing himself more trouble by giving too much chronology to the whole thing.
I think generally that we must say that historically biblical texts have but one main fulfillment, but that they can have many applications. And with the eschatological it is always spiritual & theological first. Note 2 Thess. 2, with Matt. 24 / Mk.13, etc.
@Brian,
I totally agree with you! There needs to be balance on this stuff, one way or the other. I was just thinking the same thing about Kaiser’s interpretation. He has to presuppose a certain, almost idiosyncratic, order of the unfolding of eschatological events in order for what he is saying to work. Here’s something I find interesting (I believe Kaiser is a “pre-tribber”), a central part of a pre-trib hermeneutic and argument is for the imminent (any moment) return of Christ. When pre-tribbers like Kaiser say things like he does here, it makes it seem like there are still certain things that need to unfold prior to the coming of Christ; which is an inconsistency with his hermeneutic of “any moment.”
@ Fr. Robert: I’m interested in hearing more about this approach. What would be an example of a “fulfillment” and what would be an example of an “application”.
@Bobby: That is an interesting observation. Maybe he is a pre-tribber who doesn’t necessarily adhere to imminence but does see it as being before a tribulation?
@Brian,
Maybe, I don’t know how he would respond to that. This is just something I’ve noticed as a common theme amongst pre-tribbers. Like prior to 1948 the pre-tribber needed the nation to become a nation prior to His return; which again cuts against the pre-trib herm. The sine qua non of pre-trib argument is imminence (or “any moment”). I’ve been a pre-tibber my whole life, just recently I’ve revamped my view to what’s called pre-wrath.