"Woe to those who rise early in the morning" to run after strong drink, who feast with music and wine "but do not regard the deeds of the Lord" (a paraphrase of Isaiah 5:11–12).

Isaiah pronounces woe on those who let strong drink dominate their time. He pronounces woe on those who let entertainment become their dominant pastime. He pronounces woe on those who fail to consider and acknowledge God's works.

The crisis here is the worshiping community's failure to worship their Creator.

Friends, you can substitute any number of things for "strong drink" and "feasts" — work, family, vacation, parties, exercise, social media, and so on. The issue here is not that drink or feasting is inherently evil, but the way these can dominate our time and attention to the neglect of our chief duty, which is to worship God and to be attentive to what He has done and is doing in the world.

So, dear friends, what is your first and last thought every day? What do you give your best time to? And whether you work or play or engage in any activity, is it merely to gratify yourself and others, or to glorify God in keeping with His calling on your life?

I can testify that when I have prioritized God, things have gone better; when I have neglected to put Him first and central, little has seemed right. Is there a formula for true success? I believe so: put God first and central.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Isaiah 5 contains a series of six woes (5:8, 11, 18, 20, 21, 22), and the one the comment cites is the second. The chapter opens with the Song of the Vineyard (5:1–7), in which God describes planting a choice vineyard that yielded only wild grapes, and then names the disappointment: "he looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, an outcry" (5:7). The woes that follow spell out the failures — land-grabbing, drunkenness, cynicism, moral inversion ("woe to those who call evil good and good evil," 5:20), self-conceit, and corrupt courts.

The specific charge in 5:12 is inattention: they "do not regard the deeds of the Lord." The problem was not the music or the wine as such, but that a whole society could feast without noticing God at all. Isaiah adds a sobering consequence in the next verse: "Therefore my people go into exile for lack of knowledge" (5:13). The comment's application is sound and could be extended to Jesus' warning about lives "weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and cares of this life" so that the day comes on us suddenly (Luke 21:34).

The Lord spoke to Isaiah with His strong hand upon him and warned him not to walk in the way of this people: "Do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy," nor fear what they fear; the Lord of hosts is the one to honor as holy, "let him be your dread" (a paraphrase of Isaiah 8:11–13).

In Isaiah's day, the Lord told him not to listen to what the people around him were saying. He was not to fear what they feared. Instead, he was to honor and fear the Lord steadfastly.

"And he will become a sanctuary and a stone of offense" and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel. Many will stumble on it; they will fall and be broken; they will be snared and taken (a paraphrase of Isaiah 8:14–15).

God foretold a "stone of stumbling" for the people of Israel and Judah. Many would stumble and fall and be broken. Many would be snared and caught.

What the people feared would become a real threat. Yet their anxieties would not protect them from stumbling. Why? They were not trusting in the Lord or seeking His wisdom. They would turn to worldly and occult means to resolve their fears, but not to God or His Word (Isaiah 8:19–20).

Friends, doesn't God allow calamity in our lives so that we may learn to turn to Him and trust His Word? Do we try to take matters into our own hands? Do we seek worldly means to calm our fears? Shouldn't we instead pray, find perspective in God's Word, obey what we clearly know and understand, and wait patiently on the Lord?

Today I was overwhelmed with anxiety just an hour before waking. On this last day of our family vacation, I was flooded with worries about things that needed to be done and remained undone. It caused me to reflect on my own activities: had I been lazy, irresponsible, negligent, or unfaithful to the Lord? But as quickly as the anxiety came, I felt a flood of peace as I reflected on my salvation in Christ, the abundance of God's providence, and the sufficiency of His grace. I am reminded of Jesus' words to Martha: "Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, but one thing is necessary." (Luke 10:41–42).

Only one thing is necessary. Is it not simply to trust in the Lord? Is it not to quiet our anxious thoughts, still our busy activity, and simply listen to His Word? May the Lord help us to do just that.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Isaiah 8:12–14 was spoken during a national crisis, when Judah's King Ahaz faced an alliance of Syria and Israel and was tempted to seek help from Assyria rather than trust God (Isaiah 7). The word "conspiracy" reflects the political fear of the moment — rumors, alliances, and plots. God's instruction to Isaiah was to refuse to be driven by the crowd's fears and to make the Lord his fear instead. Peter quotes this passage directly to suffering believers: "Have no fear of them," but "in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy" (1 Peter 3:14–15). In a remarkable move, Peter substitutes "Christ" where Isaiah has "the Lord of hosts," identifying Jesus with the Lord Isaiah told Israel to fear.

The "stone of stumbling" in 8:14 is likewise applied to Christ in the New Testament (Romans 9:33; 1 Peter 2:8). The same Lord who is a sanctuary to those who trust Him is a stumbling stone to those who refuse Him. The comment's application to anxiety is well chosen. Jesus' words to Martha do not condemn her service but reorder her priorities: sitting at His feet and hearing His word is "the good portion." For those whose anxieties persist, Scripture's invitation to cast our cares on God (1 Peter 5:7) sits comfortably alongside seeking wise counsel and help.

Isaiah 7–8 describes how, in a short time, God will bring destruction on Aram (Syria) and Samaria (the Northern Kingdom of Israel) at the hands of Assyria. The prophet Isaiah is sent to Ahaz to encourage him not to fear Aram and Samaria, who are threatening Judah and even conspiring to replace him with another king.

Ahaz must choose between trusting the Lord and taking matters into his own hands. Isaiah tells him that if he does not stand firm in faith, he will not stand at all (cf. Isaiah 7:9). Disastrously, he chooses the second route, making an alliance with Assyria by sending the Assyrian king a large tribute. In doing so he makes Judah a vassal of Assyria, and not long after the fall of Israel, Assyria would capture all the fortified cities of Judah, with only Jerusalem left standing when his son Hezekiah was king. It would be Hezekiah's faithfulness to the Lord that ensured Jerusalem's survival and the eventual downfall of Assyria.

In the days of Ahaz, Isaiah declares that the Lord told him not to listen to what people were saying or fear what they feared, but simply to trust the Lord. The Lord spoke to him with a strong hand and warned him not to walk in the way of this people: he was not to call conspiracy all that they called conspiracy, nor fear what they feared, nor be in dread; the Lord of hosts was the one to regard as holy, and He was to be Isaiah's fear and dread (a paraphrase of Isaiah 8:11–13).

The people were deaf and blind to what God was doing. That is why they were afraid and expected the worst. But Isaiah trusted in the Lord.

Friends, there is a lot going on around us. The geopolitical landscape is constantly changing, and there are all kinds of economic uncertainties. But let us remember that God is in control, He knows the future, and He has prepared a good future for those who trust in Him. So let us trust in Him and focus our energies on honoring and obeying Him.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Isaiah 7:9 contains a wordplay in Hebrew that is difficult to capture in English: "If you are not firm in faith, you will not be firm at all" — both verbs come from the same root as "amen." Ahaz's refusal is sharpened by the sign Isaiah offers him. When Ahaz piously declines to ask for one ("I will not put the Lord to the test"), Isaiah announces that God will give a sign anyway: "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (7:12–14) — the prophecy Matthew applies to the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:22–23). The king who would not trust God was given the promise of "God with us."

Isaiah 8:12–13 also has a New Testament afterlife. Peter quotes it to believers facing hostility: do not fear or be troubled, "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy" (1 Peter 3:14–15). What Isaiah said of "the Lord of hosts," Peter applies to Christ. And Isaiah 8:14, which calls the Lord "a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling," is applied to Christ as well (Romans 9:33; 1 Peter 2:8). The comment's call to fear God rather than the anxieties of the moment is the same call Peter made to a persecuted church.

A couple of days ago I saw a disturbing movie, The Dark Knight Rises. It was a sequel to an equally disturbing The Dark Knight. Unlike other films, these movies achieved their fame through their villains rather than their hero. While the villains epitomized evil, they were also complex characters, who were very eloquent and espoused a philosophy that celebrated as most natural the worst of human nature and at the same time embraced the vanity of any kind of virtue. This is the heart of a philosophy known as Nihilism, popularized in the second-half of the nineteenth century by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.

Nihilists believe that there is no real substance to traditional social, political, moral, and religious values. It denies that those values have any objective validity or that they impose any binding obligations. Indeed, it postulates that they could at times have negative consequences.

Nietzsche, as well as the villains in Batman, namely, the Joker and Bane, saw most people in society as effectively nihilists themselves. Many, if not most, probably wouldn't admit to it, but Nietzsche saw that the old values and old morality simply didn't have the same power that they once did. It is here that he announced the "death of God," arguing that the traditional source of ultimate and transcendental value, God, no longer mattered in modern culture and was effectively dead to us. He regarded this "death of God" as being ultimately a good thing for society. Nietzsche believed that traditional moral values, and in particular those stemming from traditional Christianity, were ultimately harmful to humanity. Thus, the removal of their primary support should lead to their downfall — and that could only be a good thing. Nihilists look at the death of God and conclude that, without any perfect source of absolute, universal, and transcendent values, then there can be no real values at all. It is in recognizing and embracing this that the individual becomes a kind of "superman," unbeholden to any value or virtue except their own primal nature and desire. Thus, the Joker, and then Bane, are presented as this kind of nihilistic "superman," feared by the others, who see them as "pure evil."

Thus, Nihilists celebrate what the Bible condemns. In Genesis 6, we find the outcome of the philosophy of Nihilism gone to seed: "Every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time" (Genesis 6:5). The result was a world filled with corruption and violence (Genesis 6:12–13). At the heart of this evil was people doing everything as they saw fit, without values and contrary to virtue. I believe in the Genesis account the "Nephilim" were the corrupt and powerful leaders that led the people into increasingly violent acts. While they were destroyed in the flood, such leaders would appear in the generations after the flood (Genesis 6:4).

So, in the current movie, the villain tells everyone in Gotham to do whatever they want, even to steal, kill, and destroy. Interestingly, this is Jesus’ description of the thief, who "comes only to steal and kill and destroy" (John 10:10).

What does this have to do with Isaiah? Remember this?

Listen, O heavens! Pay attention, earth! This is what the Lord says: “The children I raised and cared for have rebelled against me. Even an ox knows its owner, and a donkey recognizes its master’s care— but Israel doesn’t know its master. My people don’t recognize my care for them" (Isaiah 1:2–3).

This is an apt description of those that reject their Maker. They are lower than work animals, for at least these recognize their owner and master. When Isaiah is commissioned in chapter 6, he would be preaching to a people that had rejected their Maker:

And he said, “Yes, go, and say to this people,

‘Listen carefully, but do not understand. Watch closely, but learn nothing.’ Harden the hearts of these people. Plug their ears and shut their eyes. That way, they will not see with their eyes, nor hear with their ears, nor understand with their hearts and turn to me for healing" (Isaiah 6:9–10).

Thus, he was not sent for their conversion but for their condemnation:

Then I said, “Lord, how long will this go on?” And he replied, “Until their towns are empty, their houses are deserted, and the whole country is a wasteland; until the Lord has sent everyone away, and the entire land of Israel lies deserted. If even a tenth—a remnant—survive, it will be invaded again and burned (Isaiah 6:11–13).

This is why I never like Isaiah 6 being used as a primary passage to encourage evangelism and missions. Isaiah 6 is a commission for Isaiah to preach condemnation, not salvation, but Jesus came to save and not condemn. Therefore, our intent is to "go and make disciples," not to "harden the hearts of these people."

The message of nihilism is a message of independence from God. While the scenario presented in the movie seems over the top, the philosophy that brings such self-destruction is not far from our present reality. With a society elevating "self-esteem," "being your own man," "being your own woman," "looking out for yourself," and a sin nature that gladly accommodates such a view of life, we may be moving again toward a kind of nihilistic, narcissistic (i.e. self-absorbed) way of thinking that seeks to use God rather than worship and serve Him.

Soon people will help others not because of God's command but in order to feel better about themselves or to gain recognition from others. Ministry will no longer be a sacrifice of service but a means to secure a steady income, discounted services, and an alternative to failure in other pursuits. The character and mission of the church will not be much different from any other business seeking to profit and grow.

The median salary of a pastor in America today is $85,500 (source: http://www1.salary.com/Pastor-Salary.html). The median income in America is $46,300 (source: http://www.mybudget360.com/how-much-does-the-average-american-make-breaking-down-the-us-household-income-numbers/). Thus, pastors make twice the median income of most Americans. I only mention this to demonstrate that the old belief that most pastors are poor is a thing of the past. They do quite well and better than most.

While it may seem like I'm picking on pastors here, many will need to give an account for their affluence. But pastors aside, Christians today would do well to reflect on their own priorities. Just as we can't just blame the government for setting a poor example of fiscal responsibility, so we can't just blame pastors for setting a poor example of Christian priorities, even though there are a number of stand-out exceptions.

But I want us to stop making excuses for ourselves because we think that we are better or not much worse than our leaders. As we read the Scriptures, they serve as a mirror for our own lives and our own priorities, for which we are ultimately accountable to God. Therefore, let us stop and reflect, humbling ourselves before God, repenting of our self-centered pursuits, and reordering our lives to align with the priorities of God.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The movement from a disturbing film to Isaiah's prophetic commission raises a searching question: what happens when moral language remains available but no longer governs conduct? A person can praise sacrifice while organizing life around comfort, or speak of service while treating ministry chiefly as a route to recognition. Isaiah's criticism is especially penetrating because it addresses God's professing people. Religious vocabulary does not protect a community from practical rebellion against the God it names.

The philosophical comparison needs care. Nietzsche's relationship to nihilism is more complex than the claim that he simply advocated unrestricted appetite. In the madman's speech in The Gay Science, section 125, the loss of the old religious horizon appears as a profound, disorienting event whose consequences have scarcely been understood. A Christian may reject Nietzsche's critique of Christianity while still representing it accurately. Fictional villains can illustrate destructive impulses, but they cannot substitute for a philosopher's own argument or establish what all unbelievers believe.

The biblical comparisons likewise benefit from precision. John 10:10 describes the thief in contrast with Jesus, the life-giving shepherd; the verse does not explicitly identify that figure as the antichrist. Genesis 6 describes pervasive corruption and violence, but the identification of the Nephilim as a class of corrupt political leaders remains an interpretation of a difficult passage. These distinctions prevent an evocative illustration from acquiring more scriptural authority than its evidence warrants.

Isaiah 6 contains a severe commission: the prophet's message will encounter and expose hardness until devastation comes. Yet the chapter also begins with Isaiah's own uncleanness and gracious purification, and it ends with a holy-seed image in the remaining stump. The passage should not be reduced to a generic invitation to volunteer for missions, but neither does judgment eliminate every element of hope. In Christian mission, the desire for repentance can coexist with the sober recognition that truth may be rejected. Jesus' saving purpose does not mean his ministry never exposes guilt or announces judgment.

The financial comparison concerning pastors is best treated as a dated, unverified illustration. Different surveys may compare unlike populations, compensation packages, and household or individual income. Those figures cannot establish that most pastors are affluent. The underlying ethical question remains valid without them: are resources, authority, and public influence used faithfully?

Isaiah directs that question first toward the worshiper. We can examine the work we avoid because it brings no recognition, the criticism we dismiss because it threatens our position, and the needs we overlook while defending our lifestyle. Repentance becomes concrete when those priorities change. The fitting response to God's holiness is neither fascination with other people's evil nor confidence in our religious image, but truthful confession followed by renewed obedience.

Isaiah hears the Lord ask whom He should send, and simply responds, "Here am I, send me" (a paraphrase of Isaiah 6:8). It's remarkable — Isaiah hears God ask whom He should send, and simply responds, "Send me!" In the very next chapter, the LORD speaks directly to King Ahaz, and his response is completely different. Ahaz, king of the southern kingdom of Judah, found himself facing an alliance between the king of Aram and the king of the northern kingdom of Israel, marching against Jerusalem — though they couldn't overpower it (a paraphrase of Isaiah 7:1). God tells Ahaz to be careful, stay calm, and not be afraid, promising that these two nations wouldn't conquer Jerusalem. God even invites Ahaz to ask for a sign, in the depths or the heights, to confirm it — but Ahaz refuses, saying he won't put the LORD to the test (a paraphrase of Isaiah 7:10–12). On the surface, that sounds pious. But the real motive behind it was that Ahaz didn't want to hear what God might actually say — he'd already made up his mind how he was going to handle the situation and didn't want the LORD interfering with his plans. Both men heard directly from the LORD, but responded in opposite ways: one committed his life to God's work, the other ignored God's prompting because it didn't match the plan he'd already settled on.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The specific detail this comment highlights — that Ahaz's refusal sounds pious but actually conceals resistance — is worth naming as a genuinely common spiritual pattern: religious-sounding language ("I won't test the LORD") can function as a socially acceptable way to avoid engaging with God at all, rather than as genuine reverence. Isaiah's contrasting response in chapter 6 is worth noting for what came immediately before it — he'd just had an overwhelming vision of God's holiness and his own unworthiness (Isaiah 6:1–5), and his eager "send me" comes only after that experience of being genuinely undone. That sequence suggests willing availability to God tends to follow real encounter with who God actually is, while resistance dressed up as piety, like Ahaz's, often signals the opposite — a decision already made that no encounter is being allowed to disturb.