Isaiah 40, 41: Comfort in the Wilderness: Chapter 3: The Return of Judah and Israel

The first prophecy of Isaiah 40 is about John the Baptist preparing the way for the coming of Christ. John fulfilled this prophecy by preparing the hearts of the people. He preached the gospel of repentance. In other words, his mission was to cause the people to return to God, and thus reverse the exile.

This shows that to return (shuwb) is to repent—to return to God. One did not need to return physically on a paved highway to fulfill the prophecy, for John the Baptist fulfilled his mission without doing any road construction. His concern was the condition of men’s hearts. The Hebrew word shuwb can be interpreted either literally or metaphorically. As we see so often, the prophets use literal word pictures to represent deeper truths.

How to Return

Israel had persisted in sin and was exiled to Assyria. This is clear from the first half of Isaiah. Recall the earlier prophecy in Isaiah 9:10, which says,

¹⁰ The bricks have fallen down, but we will rebuild with smooth stones; the sycamores have been cut down, but we will replace them with cedars.

In other words, Israel refused to repent when God sent them a harbinger of judgment as a warning. So also, when the Twin Towers were demolished on September 11, 2001, the politicians followed Israel’s bad example by quoting the verse above. They refused to repent. But Isaiah had prophesied even this in Isaiah 9:13,

¹³ Yet the people do not turn back [shuwb, “return”] to Him who struck them, nor do they seek the Lord of hosts.

The requirement of God was not for Israel to travel down a particular highway but to repent and return to God. The required path is pictured in Isaiah 35:8 as the Highway of Holiness. This spiritual highway is described further in Isaiah 35:8-10,

⁸ … The unclean will not travel on it… ⁹ But the redeemed will walk there. ¹⁰ And the ransomed of the Lord will return [shuwb] and come with joyful shouting to Zion, with everlasting joy upon their heads, they will find gladness and joy, and sorrow and sighing will flee away.

If this highway were physical, there might be an opportunity for the unclean to travel on it. However, this is a metaphorical highway, on which the repentant ones alone can walk. It is not possible for the unclean to walk on it.

The Jewish “Return”

In the past century many have applied these verses to a Jewish return to the old land. Somehow Jews who continue to reject Christ are cleansed apart from repentance. Somehow the Highway of Holiness has been turned into a literal path to the old land, where Jews may return to the “Holy Land” while yet remaining under the Old Covenant.

But that is obviously a misreading of the passage, at least from the standpoint of a believer who sees that Jesus is the Mediator of the New Covenant. Those who remain in Judaism are those who continue to reject the baptism of John, who bore witness of Christ and prepared the way before Him. John’s calling was rooted in Isaiah 40:3-5, and no one can reject John and Jesus and still return to God on a holy Highway.

Prior to 1948 most Bible teachers believed and taught that the Jews would have to repent before returning to the old land. When the state of Israel was established in 1948 without seeing a great national repentance, they altered their view, saying that they would repent within 3½ years or perhaps 7 years at the most. When that did not happen, they quietly dropped that requirement instead of reexamining their understanding to see where they went wrong.

Out of this misunderstanding came a more sinister teaching called the Dual Covenant Theology, which teaches that Jews are saved by the Old Covenant, while Gentiles are saved by the New Covenant. The Wikipedia summarizes this view as follows:

“Dual-covenant theology is unique in holding that the Old Covenant or the Law of Moses remains valid for Jews while the New Covenant only applies to non-Jews or gentiles.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-covenant_theology

Such a view has arisen out of the idea that God allowed the Jews to establish the State of Israel even though they continued to reject Jesus as the Messiah. Their conclusion is that the Jews must therefore be righteous and holy apart from Christ. Two paths of salvation, then, must exist side by side—one for the Jews and another for the gentiles. Hence, the Old Covenant must be the valid path for Jews, even while the New Covenant is the valid path for gentiles.

In my view, let me be clear, Dual Covenant Theology is nonsense. I believe Peter’s testimony which he gave in Acts 4:10-12 after healing the lame man,

¹⁰ Let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by this name this man stands here before you in good health. ¹¹ He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the chief corner stone. ¹² And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.

One cannot be saved by invoking the name of Moses. Though he was indeed a great man, he did not die for the sin of the world, for he was a blemished lamb and thus was in need of “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world,” as John the Baptist put it (John 1:29).

Dual Covenant Theology has attempted to resolve the difficulty of Zionism being successful apart from being founded on Jesus Christ. Instead of questioning Zionism itself, such theologians have questioned Peter’s assertion in Acts 4:12. Their conclusion is that since the Jews appear to have fulfilled the prophecies of Israel’s “return” without accepting the Mediator of the New Covenant, this surely must mean that Jews are holy while they remain separate from Christ.

Yet I am reminded of the science experiment, where a young man pulled one leg off a cricket and then shouted at it: “JUMP!” The cricket jumped sideways. The man pulled the other leg off the cricket and again shouted: “JUMP!” The cricket did nothing. The young man then wrote his scientific report, concluding, “Legless crickets are deaf.”

The Return of Judah

In order to understand Isaiah’s prophecies of the return, we must first understand that Israel and Judah were two distinct nations. Each was given different prophecies. Each was exiled to a different empire, Israel to Assyria and Judah to Babylon.

Judah’s return from Babylon was accomplished under the Old Covenant, so it was a literal return. It was necessary to return physically so that the Messiah could come from Bethlehem of Judea. Yet the real preparation for His coming was done by John the Baptist, who issued a call to repentance. Hence, Judah’s “return” was a matter of turning from the traditions of men to the proper understanding of the law of God.

We know from the story in the gospels that while many Judeans (“Jews”) were baptized by John and later came to accept Jesus as the Messiah as well, the nation itself rejected Jesus. John 1:11 says,

¹¹ He came to His own [nation], and those who were His own did not receive Him.

We also know that John started an investigation known in Scripture as a “visitation,” to see if the nation would bear fruit (Matt. 3:8-10). His investigation was cut short after just one year, and Jesus continued it for another three years (Luke 13:6-9). At the end of the investigation, Jesus found a fruitless fig tree. Knowing that it represented Judah, He cursed it, saying, “No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you” (Matt. 21:19).

This alone should have given Christians the understanding that the Jewish nation would never bear fruit. Only individuals within that nation could bear fruit, for God always sets apart a remnant for Himself. Jesus later prophesied that this “fig tree” (nation) would someday bring forth more leaves (Matt. 24:32-34), but He did not abrogate His curse. He said nothing about the tree bearing fruit.

The State of Israel, formed in 1948, fulfilled this prophecy. The fig tree did indeed come back to life, as prophesied. But the people as a whole did not turn to Christ, because the nation could not bring forth the fruit that God demands. John the Baptist had said in Matt. 3:8, 9,

⁸ Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance; ⁹ and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, “We have Abraham for our father”; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham.

For this reason, it should have been clear from the beginning that the State of Israel would be formed apart from bearing “fruit in keeping with repentance.” Dual Covenant Theology is not the answer. The answer is that “God is able to raise up children to Abraham” without relying on Judah to provide those children. The fact that the Jewish nation yet refuses to accept Jesus as the Messiah should be no surprise to anyone. Yet many Christians have been blinded to this.

Such blindness was necessary, because, as I have already shown, the nation was also to fulfill the prophecies of Edom, having conquered and absorbed the Edomites more than a century earlier. The Edomites were forcibly converted to Judaism, and by the time of Christ they were also the most rabid and carnally minded among the Jews.

The State of Israel was established in order to do justice to Esau-Edom after Jacob had stolen Esau’s identity to obtain the birthright. So in 1948 Esau stole Jacob’s identity, claiming also his name, Israel. Most Christians do not know the history of Esau-Edom and therefore have misunderstood the significance of the Israeli state in prophecy.

Dual Covenant Theology is a warped view of salvation and the covenants, derived from ignorance of the divine plan regarding Esau-Edom as well as the fruitless fig tree of Judah. Likewise, the view failed to distinguish between Israel and Judah, thinking that the Jews were the Israelites and misapplying Israel’s prophecies to Judah.

Hence, many prophecy teachers failed to understand God’s purpose in allowing the State of Israel to be established in 1948.

The conclusion, then, is that both Edom and the unrepentant portion of Judah wanted to return in a carnal manner to the old land. Edom’s Zionism is seen clearly in Mal. 1:4; Judah’s Zionism is prophesied in Matt. 24:32-34. Both have had this one factor in common: they have not repented, nor have they brought forth the fruit that God requires to fulfill the true “return.”

Returning Under a New Covenant

The last half of Isaiah is a New Covenant promise and must be read in that light. Therefore, when the prophet speaks of the restoration of Jerusalem, we must understand that he was speaking of the New Jerusalem, not the old. That was also John’s understanding when he described the New Jerusalem while quoting Isaiah in Rev. 21 and 22.

Isaiah saw the downfall of Samaria and the exile of Israel, and though Judah was delivered in his day, he also foretold Judah’s exile to Babylon (Isaiah 39:7). But in chapter 40 and onward the prophet shifts his focus to the “return” and the restoration of Israel as a whole. It is as if he knew that the breach between Israel and Judah would be repaired in the prophetic “wilderness.”

To see this repair of the breach purely in physical terms, however, is to view this through Old Covenant eyes. Likewise, to see this restoration purely in terms of the regathering of those whose fathers were of Israel or Judah is to view this through Old Covenant eyes. As we will see from Isaiah 56:6-8, the prophet included foreigners as well in this regathering, and hence, he is known as a “universalist” prophet.

⁶ Also the foreigners… ⁷ will I bring to My holy mountain and make them joyful in My house of prayer…For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples. ⁸ The Lord God, who gathers the dispersed of Israel, declares, “Yet others I will gather to them, to those already gathered.”

In other words, though Isaiah recognized the existence of races and nations, he did not consider God’s prophecies to Israel to be exclusive to Israel and Judah. They were to be stewards, not hoarders.

The Return of Israel and Others

The Apostle Paul got much of his revelation from Isaiah, quoting him more than any other. Isaiah’s writings thus formed the biblical basis of his entire ministry “to the gentiles.” He saw that the Law of God, though given to the nation of Israel (along with the foreigners among them) made the entire world “accountable to God” (Rom. 3:19). Salvation was “for all who believe, for there is no distinction” (Rom. 3:22). Why? Because “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23), not just those who were of Israel and Judah.

Paul says again in Romans 10:11-13,

¹¹ For the Scripture says [Isaiah 28:16], “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” ¹² For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him, ¹³ for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved” [Joel 2:32].

In all of this, we see Isaiah’s influence upon Paul’s thinking and upon his ministry. It is the New Covenant mindset which was first established in God’s universal covenant with Noah in Genesis 9, then again with Abraham, who was to be the father of many nations, and yet again with Moses when the New Covenant promise of God was applied equally to “those who are not with us here today” (Deut. 29:14, 15).

Defining “My People”

With this perspective in mind, we can see how Isaiah defines “My people” who are receiving “comfort” in Isaiah 40:1. We should note that the Old Covenant was to make Israel “My people” (Lev. 26:12; Exodus 19:5). When they failed to fulfill their own promises, God made a second covenant with them (Deut. 29:1), based upon His own promise to change their hearts—so that they could be “His people” (Deut. 29:13). The first covenant had failed to make them “His people,” so the second covenant was necessary.

The point is that no one is truly “His people” apart from genuine faith in God which ultimately leads to being like Him. To be “His people” means to become “sons of God,” which is not by blood line or by the will of man but through God’s promise to send the Comforter to change the hearts of all men. “My people” never had a racial meaning as far as God was concerned. It was always about those who were coming into the image of God.

The Glory of God

The preparatory ministry of John the Baptist was designed to prepare the hearts of the people through the baptism of repentance, so that they would recognize and accept the Messiah. Isaiah 40:5 says,

⁵ Then the glory of the Lord will be revealed, and all flesh will see it together; for the mouth of the Lord of hosts has spoken.

This is a clear New Covenant promise. Hence, if the glory of God is NOT seen by “all flesh,” then we cannot blame “all flesh.” We would have to conclude that the promises of God have failed. But this is not possible, because the will of God is stronger than man’s will. God has the ability (and the right as the Creator) to change the hearts of all men and thus make them all “His people.”

This did not happen through the ministry of John, even though he was the voice crying in the wilderness. John was “Elijah,” which was a great prophetic ministry, but the success of this ministry required the double portion of “Elisha.”

Hence, there is an Elisha ministry being raised up in our time that precedes the second coming of Christ. Whereas John was the last of the Old Covenant prophets representing Elijah, God is now raising up New Covenant prophets, of whom Elisha was the prophetic type.

Unfortunately, most of the prophets today lack the necessary understanding of the New Covenant to be fully a part of that Elisha company. They are still bogged down by a racial definition of Israel, Judah, and “My people.” They do not often comprehend the sovereignty of God that is the basis of the New Covenant. They think that salvation is based upon the will of man. The result is that they lack a clear vision of the end of the story, for they usually conclude that history will end in cosmic dualism, where a few are in heaven and the vast majority are lost in eternal hell.

Such people lack true faith in the ability of God to save all mankind. In other words, they do not truly have the faith of Abraham, believing “that what God had promised, He was able also to perform” (Rom. 4:21). More specifically, they think that the promise of God is to provide all men with an opportunity to be saved. Then, because even believers remain imperfect, they believe that men should pray that God will help them fulfill their Old Covenant vows by their own “free will.”

But God has promised to turn every heart so that they can be saved. That is the nature of His promise. Abraham believed He could indeed do this. Most people do not believe this, because they see man’s will as an insurmountable impediment to the power of God.

Yet in spite of men’s lack of faith, the power of the Comforter will win, all hearts will be turned to Him—if not in this lifetime, then certainly at the great Judgment. Every knee will bow, every tongue will “swear allegiance” to Christ (Isaiah 45:23), and the glory of God will cover the earth.

The purpose of creation will be fulfilled, and the divine plan will be a smashing success.