Isaiah 6, As Quoted in the Gospels And Acts


This is part II of “ A Dispensational Perspective On Isaiah Six”.


We begin with John’s reference to Isaiah 6, found in 12:37-41. He uses two contexts, Isaiah 6 and 53. He too makes reference to a fulfillment ( like Matt. 13:14 ) John makes the connection with Isaiah 6 by stating that the prophet saw the Lord’s glory in his vision and he quotes from 6:10 in 12:40.
John gives a “resultant” quotation. In Is. 6:9, the prophet is told to by the Lord to carry out the mission of 6:10. John shows that if Isaiah performs this mission for the Lord, it is just as if the Lord has performed this mission.
In the time of Moses’ mission before the Egyptian Pharaoh, the Lord is said to have hardened Pharaoh’s heart in that happening. A close reading of the text reveals that when the Lord stopped dealing with Pharaoh ( through the ‘signs’ by causing them to cease) Pharaoh then hardened his own heart and would not let the people go. When the Lord was dealing with Pharaoh through those mighty plagues, signs, wonders and judgments, it was then, that the heart of Pharaoh was NOT hardened. So, how did the Lord harden Pharaoh’s heart ? By leaving him alone and Pharaoh then hardened his own heart.
But there in Isaiah’s time, the more the Lord deals with the people through the prophet and his preaching, the more they remain unresponsive and there is no change by repentance. But John is not saying that Isaiah saw every instance where his prophecy is quoted and that each instance becomes another ‘fulfillment’ situation. Isaiah saw the Lord during the time when King Uzziah died. He did not see the Lord Jesus in his earthly ministry, nor does John give that intimation.
Luke records in Acts 28, the witness of Paul to the Jews at Rome, as he closes dialog with them by a final one word. This portion has had too much laid upon it and support is lacking that this incident in Rome decides the national fate of the people of Israel whose center is Jerusalem, a city far from Rome. This, then, is not the casting away of Israel. This is not their place of falling. Those who make this claim, say that Israel has now been set aside, as the channel used to bless the nations through the Abrahamic covenant. Paul does not make that claim. This is a case where interpreters have made the claim and this is their theological position but this is reading into the text.IF Israel is likened to an Olive Tree, one cannot cut the tree down in Rome, when the trunk of the tree is found in the land of Israel.
Paul brings forth how Isaiah speaks well about the fathers, not those gathered in Rome. He is more in harmony with Stephens conclusion (while not stating such ) as your fathers did, so do ye. Acts 7:51b There is no ‘fulfillment’ again stated here. But, even if that word (‘fulfillment) was used, the actual reason for quoting Isaiah’s text is to show an example of a parallel happening, not another fulfillment, as such, as many may want to so explain it.
In Acts 28:28, the salvation of God that is said to be sent to the Gentiles, can not be made to say that now the Jews are some how excluded from that same salvation. The very truth that some claim to be unfolded after Acts 28, that of the revelation of the Church, which is Christ’s Body is defined as a joint body of Jews and Gentiles. Therefore this cannot be a message sent to ‘Gentiles’ alone. It must be a message that can support and sustain a joint body, a body made up of Jews and Gentiles. Therefore, it is a message to Jews and Gentiles. Acts 28:28 speaks about the past, something that has already been happening. It does not refer to a future which is yet to happen.

*********************
A friend sometime ago gave to me a list of ‘helps’ for the study of prophecy. These helps were stated to be ‘laws’ or rules that would guide and direct. A better word might have been theories.
The law of recurrence. The law of double reference. Concerning near and far fulfillment. Near and partial fulfillment. Far and complete fulfillment

These are attempts to show how prophecy unfolds, but they are really and mainly just attempts. Walter C. Kaiser in his book, The Uses of the Old Testament in the New in his own style shares his understanding of how prophecy should be properly understood and might be visualized by a chart his draws on page 71. There his basic premise is that a prophecy like Isaiah 6 has fulfillment in Isaiah’s own time and in the time of Jesus and in the time of Paul(( as this writer understands Kaiser. Wherever Isaiah 6 is used as in the N. T. we have an extension, another outreach of Isaiah’s prophecy, having another fulfillment. This does not seem to hold true (to me) in this case)).
At this point in this study it might be important to bring out this truism. No one today can teach and interpret with such authority and ‘correctness’ as Peter did in Acts 2. As he sought to explain the true meaning of the happening on that particular day of Pentecost, he said, THIS IS THAT. Acts 2:16 We need to qualify our teachings with such words as the following

As I presently see and understand the Scriptures, these are my findings…. My studies has led me to this conclusion at this present time…. I stand, with many others, and accept the Scriptures as unfolding like this….

Final observations for this study are here given.
Isaiah 6 should not be expounded as to be saying that Israel as a nation is judged to be unfit as a channel of blessing to the nations.
The references to this chapter as found in the four Gospels and Acts do not reflect further fulfillments of a judgment upon Israel which causes them to be cast away, set aside, or showing them to be ‘falling’ from a state of favor as being the chosen channel for blessing others, and now, to be replaced by other nations or by the church, which is Christ’s body. Those are deductions said to be made from the texts, but they are not really found in the texts there or supported internally within the text.
The key to the interpretation of Isaiah’s prophecy lies with the answer to the question, How long ? Is. 6:11 Is he to tell these people about judgment that lasts ‘until’ a certain period of time has an ending, such as Daniel’s seventy years ? Or did Isaiah ask, how long must he preach a message that will NOT be responded to by these people ? The ‘until’ refers not to how long a judgment lasts, but refers to the length of time Isaiah must preach his broken-record message to a people who are determined not to respond. He must preach until the results come from what follows in 6:11-12. The final, distinct dispensational statement to be made is- Isaiah 6 does not figure to be dispensationally distinct.