I. Introduction
If we were to claim that America’s prison system is fraught with problems and plagued by difficulties, it is likely that no one would object. Public opinion has come to associate prisons with overcrowding, racial disparity, human debasement, and with an inability to accomplish a core purpose – the reduction and prevention of criminal activity. Whether one operates from a Christian worldview, one that hopes in the idea of human redemption, or from a secular-humanistic perspective, there is broad agreement that our prison system is failing to do what we intend for it.[1] Yet, despite our general cynicism toward the prison system, there is also a partial antipathy ascribed, at times fairly, to persons with conservative leanings, many of whom come from evangelical Christianity. On a practical level, we want state and federal systems to keep us safe from harm and injustice by removing violent and malicious criminals from society. If this swells our prison population, so be it. After all, the criminal is the person who chose to commit a crime. Further, on an ideological level, there is a sense that it is liberals, both secular and Christian, who would push for prison reform. Efforts to shorten prison sentences, to introduce treatment plans, or to use diversion programs must stem from a belief in human perfectibility and evolutionary progression that does not give credence to depravity and sin. To be soft on crime is to lessen the gravity of sin, both at the level of specific infractions and at the higher level of humanity’s sin nature.
Clearly, these are complicated and thorny issues with which to deal, and it would be wrong for us to claim that the solutions are simple. Our world does not need more trite answers. However, as persons living under the call of God in Jesus Christ by the power of the Spirit, we do recognize our cultural mandate. Jesus calls us to be salt and light in the world (Matt 5:13-16), and one way to do this is by facing the problem of sin, particularly as it relates to our practice of dealing with sin by incarcerating offenders. Thus, in this essay, we will proceed by examining the idea of imprisonment from two perspectives: from a modern perspective by considering the history of prisons and current practices in the state of Oregon, and from a biblical perspective. To close, we will offer our thoughts on how a biblical perspective can engage the reality of prison as it stands in our community.
II. Imprisonment: Development and Current Practices
While it may come as a surprise to most, the practice of imprisonment has undergone drastic reformation over the past 200-300 years. Humans have imprisoned other humans since ancient times, but in each era religion, sociology, psychology, political policy, and matters of practicality combine in various ways to influence what a community means to accomplish through its detention system. In what follows, we will briefly outline the evolution of imprisonment practices, and then we will discuss what the state of Oregon is currently doing with its correctional facilities.
A. Prison: A Short Modern History
Scholars in the field of Criminal Justice trace the concept of prison or imprisonment as far back as the 5th cent. B.C., but it is important to recognize that the original purpose of imprisonment was not to punish criminals.[2] Rather, prisons existed to detain an alleged perpetrator until the community could determine their guilt or innocence. If a person was cleared, they went free. If they were found guilty, the actual punishment would follow.[3] Imprisonment provided a practical means of keeping the accused on hand for trial and to receive the prescribed punishment. This ancient system of justice is quite similar to certain aspects of our modern criminal justice system. People who are arrested for serious crimes must wait in custody at county jails until the adjudication of their case.
Through the centuries, societies and individuals have developed various theoretical concepts of laws, of crime, and of punishment. However, it is not until the 17th and 18th cents. A.D., the Colonial Era, that incarceration began to stand as a form of punishment in its own right. In this period, the Anglican code provided the legal framework for the western world and allowed for capital punishment, corporal punishment, fines, and exile to designated penal colonies for offenders. Thus, the British government established prison colonies in America, Australia, and Tasmania.[4] In this way, there was a wedding of religious and social law where we begin to see the early structures of our modern corrections system.[5] Popular sentiment at this time saw the death penalty as too severe for anything but serious offenses. Hard labor was a better fit for minor crimes, and proponents of the penal colony system saw it as an effective tool to deal with crime for two reasons; a) it removed the criminal from society, and b) it acted as a deterrent to future criminal behavior.
Toward the later part of the 18th cent., known as the Penitentiary Era in the field of Criminal Justice, penal reformers like John Howard and Jeremy Bentham began to argue for changes in society’s detention practices. These men were on the cutting edge of penal reform by suggesting that prisons should rely on paid employees, that each prisoner should receive an appropriate diet of food, that inspectors ought to evaluate facilities, and that men and women should stay in separate facilities. These efforts resulted in a more equitable system of punishment for offenders, in better living conditions inside prison facilities, and in better treatment of inmates by their wardens. At this time, Bentham also designed a new style of prison house, which we know as the Panopticon. His structure “allowed a centrally placed observer to survey all the inmates.”[6] It featured cell blocks radiating out from a central point where a single guard could monitor inmate behavior. Bentham’s design became the standard for prison construction over the next 50 years.[7] It was during this period that the United States opened its first prison, the Walnut Street Jail in Philadelphia, designed to incarcerate “sentenced offenders” with the purpose of reformation as its “primary objective.”[8] Richard Seiter explains that “inmates were expected to read the Bible, reflect on their wrongdoing, and do penance for their crimes.”[9] For these reasons, such centers came to be known as penitentiaries.
In the first half of the 19th cent., capital punishment continued to decline in use, and the so called shaming sanctions, such as the medieval stockade, also fell out of favor.[10] Throughout the rest of the 19th cent. and early 20th cent., the Reformatory Era, religious groups such as the Evangelicals and Quakers were responsible for moving prison policy away from the notion of punitive punishment and toward rehabilitation through “personal redemption.”[11] Other aspects of the Reformatory Era featured a greater awareness of social, economic, psychological and political influences affecting crime.[12] Reformers pushed for education and vocational programs to prepare inmates for life after prison.[13]
From the early 1900s to around 1935, the United States experienced a 170% growth in its prison population. This sparked the Industrial Era of prison practice, where prison organizations would use inmates to produce goods which the prison could sell on the open market. This practice mirrored the contemporary context with the growth of factory labor, but officials quickly ran afoul of labor unions who objected to the free inmate labor that prisons could utilize.[14] After the unions successfully lobbied for new laws restricting competition with prison-made products, thousands of inmates were suddenly idle, leaving prison administrators with a dilemma. Prisons that had been built for manufacturing abruptly lost the demand for their products.[15] Thus, prisons in the U.S. went through major transitions from 1935-1960. With overcrowding, an unoccupied workforce of inmates, and a lack of programs to keep them engaged, frequent riots broke out in prisons across the country. This period also marked the end of the “hands-off doctrine” which “restricted judicial intervention in the operations of prison.”[16] This opened the floodgates of legal cases filed by inmates in federal and lower courts demanding better living conditions and an end to cruel and unusual punishment.[17]
In the 1970s and 1980s, the crime rate in the United States rose to historic levels, changing the political landscape. Public officials felt pressure to find new solutions to age old problems of crime control and prison overcrowding. During this time, corrections began to move away from a rehabilitation model of imprisonment to, as Todd Clear and George Cole say, “crime control through incarceration and risk containment.”[18] New tough on crime laws were passed with “determinate sentencing” intended to “incarcerate offenders for longer periods of time.”[19] Judges were less likely to grant bail to offenders accused of serious crimes and were mandated to impose maximum penalties on career criminals convicted of certain crimes. Many states also reinstituted capital punishment at this time. In Oregon, the rise in crime manifested itself, in part, by the migration of criminal street gangs from California into Oregon’s larger cities. Oregon responded by implementing policies and laws specifically targeting gang activity, which they followed with aggressive prosecution at the federal, state, and local levels. On a national scale, the more punitive philosophy of crime and punishment that arose in the 1970s and which has carried through to the present day, has led to an explosion in prison populations and in prison construction. However, faced with the unsustainable price tag of the tough on crime policies, officials are once again looking for ways to better manage our criminal justice system.
B. Current Practice in the State of Oregon
Oregon’s solution to the perplexing dilemma of crime and punishment in an era of crime control is the Oregon Accountability Model (OAM). The OAM is designed to reduce recidivism by incorporating new policies, programs, and community partnerships prioritizing the use of empirical research and measurable results. The OAM, according to the state’s site, has six components, which, when woven together “strengthens [its] ability to hold inmates/offenders accountable for their actions.”[20] The components are Criminal Risk Factor Assessment and Case Planning, Staff/Inmate Interactions, Work and Programing, Children and Families, Re-entry, and Community Supervision and Programming.[21]
Criminal Risk Factor Assessment and Case Planning assesses each individual who enters Department of Corrections (DOC) custody for risks and needs. After meeting with an offender, a social worker creates a customized plan of programs and services, which provides a roadmap to success. Persons with substance abuse issues will receive drug and alcohol treatment. Persons with anger problems can receive anger management counseling.
Emerging research in criminal recidivism is suggesting that Staff/Inmate Interactions are also key to assisting inmates in learning pro-social behaviors. Thus, prison staff receive training in using the 3 R’s: Role Modeling – create a pro-social learning environment for inmates; Reinforcement – reinforce pro-social behavior; Redirection – intervene and redirect anti-social behavior.[22]
Oregon’s Ballot Measure 17, the Prison Reform and Inmate Work Act of 1994, mandated that all inmates work full-time or be engaged in programs such as education, alcohol and drug treatment, mental health services, religious services, and/or cognitive classes. This constitutes the Work and Programming aspect of the OAM. Work opportunities include employment with Oregon Corrections Enterprises (OCE). The OCE is a prison industries organization, affiliated with the Oregon DOC, where inmates manufacture select products that other agencies then use in their programs around the state. Other work opportunities include institution-based small businesses, community work crews, and community service projects.[23]
Research has also shown that keeping inmates connected with their children and families helps decrease the number of behavioral problems within the institutions, makes re-entry into the community easier, and reduces recidivism dramatically after release.[24] Thus, an inmate can receive regular visits from family members, and prison facilities incorporate equipment for play and interaction.
The goal of the OAM’s Re-entry component is to create a “bridge or link” for an inmate with their new community outside of prison. This begins with a “reach in” by parole and probation, presently called Community Corrections Officers, working with inmates on a release plan which may address needs like housing, employment and education.[25]
Finally, Community Supervision and Programming works to keep the community safe by monitoring the conditions of a former inmate’s supervision and by holding them accountable for violations. Post prison programming includes, alcohol and drug treatment, mental health and sex offender treatment, domestic violence treatment, drug courts, cognitive restructuring, and anger management training.[26]
Although the OAM is a secular-based program, it clearly has high ideals that are in step with religious and moral principles. Repentance and redemption are key concepts in the model’s efforts to change anti-social behavior and to help rebuild the individual and their community. Oregon’s low rate of recidivism and proven success with the OAM suggest that this approach to prison practice is an effective way to address crime and its effects in our society.
The modern history of imprisonment reveals that imprisonment as a means of punishment has been a relatively late introduction, within the last three hundred years. Early imprisonment served to hold a prisoner until just punishment could be administered. Current trends in the penal system reveal a priority in reforming and restoring criminals as a part of imprisonment.
III. Imprisonment: Biblical Data
As we transition from current practices of imprisonment to the Scriptures, our study will proceed in two steps. First, we will briefly describe a few of the prototypical cases of imprisonment in the Bible. This will include both why humans imprison other humans, as well as why God may imprison humans. Second, we will consider in depth how God uses imprisonment in Isa 40-55 as a tool for redemption.
A. Exemplary Cases
As one might expect, the imprisonment practices that we observe in the Bible largely accord with a pre-modern perspective on prisons. Typically, authorities held a person in prison only until they can determine the subject’s innocence or guilt. Perhaps the most commonly known examples of such detention come from the Joseph narratives in Genesis. By the time we reach ch. 40, Joseph’s brothers have already sold him into slavery in Egypt, and Potiphar’s wife has arranged for his unjust imprisonment.[27] At the beginning of the chapter, the narrator explains that two of Pharaoh’s attendants – his cupbearer and his baker – have offended him, and so they land in prison with Joseph (vv. 1-3).[28] These three remain incarcerated for an undisclosed amount of time (ויהיו ימים) (v. 4), after which, Pharaoh metes out his justice. The text does not reveal the reasoning behind Pharaoh’s decisions, but, in accordance with Joseph’s predictions (vv. 12-13, 18-19), Pharaoh clears and reinstates his cupbearer, and he executes his baker (vv. 21-22).
In the wilderness narratives of the Pentateuch, we find two more cases that are similar to what we see in the Joseph stories. On separate occasions, two men, for whom the text does not give names, transgress laws that Yahweh has given to Moses. In the first case, a man uses God’s name in a curse (Lev 24:10-11), which violates Exod 22:27.[29] In the second case, a man chooses to gather wood on the Sabbath (Num 15:32), which violates Exod 31:13-17. In both cases, the community is not sure of what to do with the offender, and so they detain each (ויניחהו במשׁמר Lev 24:12; ויניחו אתו במשׁמר Num 15:34) until they can hear from Yahweh. He deems that each man is guilty of a capital offense, but for our purposes it is sufficient to note that the actual imprisonment is simply a necessary step in determining guilt. It is not a form of punishment in its own right.[30] Had the community known how to act in these situations, there would have been no need to hold these men.[31]
Whereas the preceding examples deal with humans detaining other humans, there is also a case of God incarcerating persons for the purpose of deciding their punishment.[32] Isaiah 24:21 describes a day in which Yahweh will bring judgment on “the high host in the height, and on the kings of the ground.”[33] Verse 22 goes on to explain that these parties, “are gathered as a collection of prisoners into a pit – they are shut up in a dungeon,” and “after many days, they will be judged.”[34] Calvin suggests that this imprisonment is intended to, “plunge [the host and kings] into darkness and filth, and gradually wear them out, in order to subdue their obstinacy,” but this fails to account for the temporal clause at the end of the verse.[35] Yahweh will first detain his enemies, and then he will come at an undisclosed time following their detention to judge them.[36] Walter Brueggemann appears closer to the sense of the verse when he sees incarceration for Yahweh’s enemies, “and then an even more ominous unspecified punishment.”[37] Yahweh’s enemies may have to wait “many days” (מרב ימים), but they can expect a separate dispensation of judgment when Yahweh decides.[38] Thus, again, we find the distinction between imprisonment and punishment.[39]
Before moving on to the concept of imprisonment in Isa 40-55, there is one, puzzling passage in Ezra to consider. In ch. 7, the narrative introduces Ezra and describes his relationship to the restoration community. Ezra is a descendant of Aaron, Israel’s first high priest (vv. 1-5), and a skilled scribe himself (v. 6). Further to our point, the narrator also explains that Yahweh has influenced king Artaxerxes so that he would support Ezra’s work in rebuilding Judah (v. 6). This cooperation leads the king to give Ezra a charge in vv. 25-26 before he sets out for Jerusalem:
And you, Ezra, by the wisdom of your god that is in your hand, appoint leaders and judges who are to be judges for all the people who are beyond the river, that they may know the laws of your god, and if one does not know them, you may teach him. Any who does not do the law of your god or the law of the king – diligently, let judgment be done to him because of it, if death, if corporal punishment, if confiscation of property, or if imprisonment.[40]
In the closing list of authorized punishments, we are familiar with capital punishment, corporal punishment, and confiscation of property (cf. Exod 21:12, 15-17, 29; Deut 25:1-3; Exod 22:1-15), but the use of imprisonment to induce law-keeping is surprising.[41] Sensing this irregularity, a number of commentators have referred this stipulation to Persian law. Joseph Blenkinsopp is representative of this solution when he says, “imprisonment was not part of Israelite penal law…it seems that the Persian penal code was invoked even for infractions of traditional Jewish law.”[42] However, Blenkinsopp et al. do not give any evidence of this practice in ancient Persia.[43] Surely this indicates the need for further research, but at this point it is sufficient to see that, at least during the Restoration period, the ancient Judeans did see imprisonment as a possible form of discipline. It is unclear, though, if the community ever actually maintained a prison population. In the Ezra story, we only see Ezra threaten the loss of property for those who refuse to follow his reforms (Ezra 10:7-8).[44]
We can see that while the ancient Israelites did have practices and policies for imprisonment, they do not appear to have used prison as a primary form of punishment. Generally, prisons held accused persons so the authorities could decide their fate. Where Ezra appears to offer a counter example, it is unclear if this is a novelty that came from Persian culture, or if the Restoration community ever actually followed the practice.
B. Prison, The Servant, and Redemption
As we turn to the book of Isaiah, we will proceed in two steps. First, we will consider the function of chs. 40-55 in relation to the material that precedes it. Second, we will discuss those passages in chs. 40-55 that deal with prison/imprisonment. This will also entail significant discussion of the Servant of the Lord, as this figure plays a prominent role in all three passages dealing with prison/imprisonment.
1. Isaiah 40-55
In the past century, there has been much discussion over how Isaiah came to exist in the form that we have it today, but we will not enter into that debate at this time. Rather, we will only review a few of the literary features from Isa 40-55 in relation to the wider book, as this is what is relevant to our current study. For those who are interested in the literary history of Isaiah, we suggest the literature below.[45]
In Isa 1-35, there is a clear perspective describing God’s judgment as a future reality. If Israel will engage with Yahweh and acknowledge its sin problem, he is willing to forgive and start anew (Isa 1:18).[46] If, however, Israel continues to sin and reject the prophetic message, then Yahweh will bring judgment in the form of an Assyrian invasion (Isa 8:6-8). Thus, in ch. 32, Yahweh’s warning sounds an ominous note for the nation when he foresees an abandoned city and the cessation of rejoicing (vv. 9-14). Judging by chs. 1-35, it appears that the nation will not repent. It is destined for military defeat.
This is in stark contrast to a number of features in Isa 40-55. First, while Assyria is the military threat in chs. 1-35 (cf. chs. 8, 36), Babylon assumes the role of the adversary in chs. 40-55 (cf. Isa 43:14; 47:1; 48:14, 20).[47] Second, it seems as if God’s judgment has already come on the nation, and now it is the time for restoration. In ch. 47, Yahweh castigates Babylon for its harsh treatment of his people (v. 6) and warns of their coming judgment (v. 9). This, however, assumes that Judah has already gone into exile in Babylon and that it is time for the return to Jerusalem (cf. Ezra 1-2). Third, in conjunction with the previous point, there is a marked turn toward comforting the people in chs. 40-55 as compared with chs. 1-35. God still has to correct his people at times (cf. Isa 42:18-25; 43:22-24), but he also tells them to forget the former things (i.e. judgment) because he is doing a new thing (i.e. bringing restoration) (cf. Isa 42:9; 43:18-19; 48:3-14).[48]
With this brief review in mind, we need also to give attention to the literary function of Isa 40:1-2 with regard to the rest of chs. 40-55. In a close reading of the verses, we see the command go out from God to comfort his people and for his messengers to speak tenderly to Jerusalem (Isa 40:1-2aα), for the nation’s striving is completed and its penalty for iniquity is concluded (Isa 40:2aβ).[49] This change in God’s disposition toward the nation has come about because the people have received their punishment from Yahweh (Isa 40:2b). In this way, vv. 1-2 provide a global perspective on what comes in the following chapters.[50] Isaiah 40-55 is God’s argument to his people for why they should be obedient and trust that he has their best interests in mind, particularly by leading them out of exile and back to their home land. God is working to restore their covenant relationship, and Isa 40:1-2 encapsulates what his prophetic message will accomplish. The nation has languished in exile for long enough, and now chs. 40-55 – God’s statement of release from exile – are his comforting words to his people. Thus, it is the nation’s experience in exile that sets the context for chs. 40-55, and which helps us to understand any of the text’s references to prison/imprisonment.
2. Imprisonment and the Servant in Isaiah 40-55
In Isa 40-55, there are three passages that have vocabulary related to detention and incarceration. Coincidentally, each of these passages also deals with the enigmatic Servant of the Lord, so, in each of the following three sections, we will examine what the text has to say about prison/imprisonment and how the Servant interacts with these matters.
a. Isaiah 42:7
Our first case appears in Isa 42:7, where Yahweh says that he has appointed his servant, “to lead out the prisoner from the dungeon – those dwelling in darkness from the prison house.” However, we must set this passage in the context of its chapter to grasp its full sense. In Isa 42:1, Yahweh sets forth his servant (עבדי), whom he has chosen (בחירי). This reference recalls similar vocabulary in Isa 41:8-9 where God identifies Israel as his servant (עבדי), the one whom he has chosen (בחרתיך).[51] Assuming that Israel continues to be the referent in this passage, we see that Yahweh has called the nation to bring justice to the gentile nations (Isa 42:1b) and even to be a light to them (Isa 42:6).[52] Verse 7, then, goes on to describe what this ministry will be like: Israel is to reach out to the nations, making the blind to see and setting the captives free.
The chapter moves on from this point to discuss Yahweh’s preeminence, but we can draw two conclusions for our study. First, we should note that vv. 6-7 employ multiple metaphors to describe a greater reality. Yahweh is not saying that Israel will take on bioluminescence for the sake of the nations, and in this way they will enable them to see. Rather, the idea of being a light evokes images both of salvation and instruction.[53] If this is the case, then we should likely consider the prison language in v. 7 to be metaphoric as well. The appositional equation of those in the prison house with those who sit in darkness in the closing hemistich shows that imprisonment is a figural condition. Second, it is also important to note that it is the gentile nations that are imprisoned in this passage, not Judah. This is significant for our study because Isa 40-55 has Judah’s punishment and exile in view. If the gentile nations are in prison, it raises questions about how they got there and the purpose of their imprisonment. If this were a typical case of imprisonment, we would expect Israel to arrive as a judge to decide the gentiles’ innocence or guilt. This would accord with our understanding of imprisonment in ancient Israel, but this is not Israel’s role. Instead, they are to enlighten and save the nations. If, however, we consider this imprisonment as a metaphoric reality, perhaps we should understand it in relation to the paired metaphor of blindness. As Claus Westermann suggests, blindness and imprisonment are examples of human suffering, which Israel comes to relieve.[54] Rather than being a place of decision, in this passage prison is a condition that highlights the need for salvation. Like blindness, its woeful state directs a person to the possibility of relief in God’s mission.
b. Isaiah 42:22
If Israel is Yahweh’s chosen servant, sent to liberate gentile nations from their suffering in Isa 42:7, we find a dramatic reversal by the time we reach Isa 42:22. In v. 18, Yahweh addresses the deaf (החרשׁים) and the blind (העורים) commanding them to hear and to see, and we might assume that he is referring to the gentile nations. This would pick up their earlier description as blind and in need of light (vv. 6-7; see also v. 16) and would seem to add deafness to their list of maladies. However, in the following verse, a series of rhetorical questions reveal that it is Israel that is in view. Yahweh asks, “who is blind (עור), but my servant (עבדי), and who is deaf (חרשׁ) but my messenger that I send? Who is blind (עור) like the one who is made at peace, blind (עור) like the servant (עבד) of Yahweh?”[55] (Isa 42:19) Apparently, though Yahweh had intended for Israel to heal and release the nations, they are in an even worse physical state. They are blind and deaf.[56] This serves as an explanation of the nation’s current condition which comes in v. 22. On account of their sins, Israel is a nation, “spoiled and plundered – all of them trapped in holes and hidden away in prison houses” (Isa 42:22a). Furthermore, the text says, “they are spoil with no one to deliver, plunder with none to say, ‘Go back!’” (Isa 42:22b). Israel was supposed to be an agent of release and deliverance, but now, the same fate that they came to relieve has befallen them.[57]
Considering the importance of this exchange for our study, we should begin yet again by acknowledging the metaphoric nature of these images. J. Alec Motyer and Westermann both note that Judah’s experience in exile was, to the extent that we are aware, less severe than these images describe.[58] The Judeans were able to settle together in communities in Babylon, and they engaged in a range of economic activities while in exile.[59] This does not, however, undermine the power of the images. By referring to Judah’s exile as an imprisonment, this passage makes the concept abstract and continues to push the reader to understand prison in new terms. It directs our attention to broader questions related to the circumstances and purpose of Judah’s time in exile. In this light, it is interesting that vv. 24-25 expressly ground Judah’s exile – their metaphoric imprisonment – in Yahweh. Verse 24 opens with a rhetorical question, “Who gave Jacob up to be plunder and Israel to despoilers?” and then answers, “Was it not Yahweh?” On account of their sins, Yahweh had, “poured out the heat of his anger,” on the people (Isa 42:25).[60] We should not, though, categorize this passage with Isa 24:22 as a case of detention awaiting decision.[61] Judah’s violations of God’s laws were numerous and evident to all (cf. Isa 42:24bα; 2 Kgs 24:19-20). Rather, we would do better to compare Judah’s experience with exile to the gentiles’ experience earlier in the passage. Israel was intended to relieve suffering like one would find in prisoners, but now they find themselves in the same situation. In the same way, then, their suffering ought to direct them toward their need for salvation. Like the gentiles who were helpless to remedy their condition, so Judah is also in need of a savior, one who can release them from their bondage.
c. Isaiah 49:9
The final occurrence of prison language in Isa 40-55 appears in Isa 49:9a. Yahweh is addressing his servant and explains that he has commissioned him, “to say to the imprisoned ones ‘Come out!’ – to those in the darkness, ‘Be revealed!’” Yet, as has been the case in the previous two passages, we must set this verse within the growing concept of the servant in these chapters. Only then can we understand the scope and significance of the servant’s actions.
In Isa 42, we saw the unraveling of Israel’s mission to proclaim release for the gentiles (v. 7) to the point that they too are bound and held in prisons (v. 22). Not only did this turn of events link Israel’s experience to that of the gentiles, but it also began to raise doubts about the nation’s effectiveness in the role of God’s servant. This theme resurfaces in Isa 48, where the text accuses the nation of false devotion (v. 1). In the past Israel was unfaithful to God (v. 4), and even under exile, they have neither heard nor understood what God was doing (v. 8a). All of this comes about because, as God accuses, “I have known that you would be treacherous, and that you have been called a rebel from the womb” (v. 8b). To borrow Brevard Childs’ words, “The whole chapter now functions in a homiletic style to confront Israel’s unbelief in relation to the divine prophecies made on its behalf.”[62] However, an individual does emerge at this point in the text who appears to take on the role of the servant. The first hint of this individual comes in Isa 48:16b – “But now, lord Yahweh has sent me and his Spirit” – but he waits for ch. 49 to step into full view.[63] The opening four verses describe the special relationship that exists between Yahweh and the servant, and then, in Isa 49:5-6, we get a clear picture of the servant as an individual. He relates what Yahweh has said to him, that his role is, “to turn Jacob back to him [Yahweh], that Israel may be gathered to him [Yahweh]” (v. 5a).[64] Yet, Yahweh did not stop there. The servant continues, “He said, ‘It is too small for you to be a servant for me who upholds the tribes of Jacob and who turns back the preserved ones in Israel. I give you as a light of the nations, to be my salvation to the ends of the earth” (v. 6). In this way, the servant presents himself as a person from within the nation, who now has a mission to the nation and to the world at large.[65]
Noting the transition of the servant from the entire nation of Israel to an individual from within the nation provides context for our understanding of the prison language in Isa 49:9. The vocabulary of the verse is most closely related to the wording in Isa 42:7, wherein Israel is to free the nations. In ch. 49, Yahweh sends the servant to give the command “Come out (צאו)!” to the “imprisoned ones (אסורים),” and in ch. 42, Yahweh commissions the servant to “bring out [lit. cause to come out] (הוציא)” the “prisoner (אסיר)”.[66] Further, the servant will say to, “those in the darkness (בחשׁך), ‘Be revealed!’” (Isa 49:9aβ), which picks up the idea of prisoners, “dwelling in darkness (חשׁך)” in Isa 42:7bβ. Apparently, the individual servant is to carry on the service that Yahweh originally gave to Israel with respect to the nations.[67] This does not mean, though, that the individual servant will not serve the nation of Israel as well. We have already noted that the individual servant will bring the nation back to Yahweh (Isa 49:5), and we know that the nation, too, is bound and suffering in prison (Isa 42:22). Thus, when Isa 49:9b-12 pictures a new exodus and a return to the land, we see that Judah will also partake in this release.[68] As Yahweh has said, the individual servant will serve both Israel and the nations (Isa 49:5-6).
We can divide into two categories the implications of this passage for our understanding of prison/imprisonment. On the one hand, we have the formal aspects of the text. As we saw in the previous cases, Isa 49:9 clearly uses prison as a metaphor. The first half of the verse views the servant’s subjects as humans, but the second line pictures them as livestock.[69] The passage describes the human condition with known categories. We can also say that this is not a case of an imprisonment awaiting a ruling. The fact that v. 9 intentionally recalls Isa 42:7, along with Isa 42:22 by extension, shows that the servant is still dealing with the imprisonments from earlier in the section, and neither of these detentions are for the purpose of decision. These points are both apparent, but also repetitive of what we have learned from Isa 42:7, 22. On the other hand, the theological statement of the passage is fresh and profound. In taking over the nation’s job as the servant, the entire thrust of Isa 49:1-9 is for the individual servant to bring redemption to all of humanity. Like the gentiles, God has shut up Judah in prison. All people suffer under his judgment, but Yahweh’s focus in ch. 49 is to find an instrument to bring release and renewal. In Isa 40-55, prison is simply a means to a restored and repaired relationship. The incarceration of the peoples has anticipated their release and return to God. Thus, Isa 49:13 sees all of creation rejoicing because, “Yahweh has comforted (נחם) his people.” The resonance between this verse and Isa 40:1 – “Comfort (נחמו), comfort (נחמו) my people” – brings us full circle. In Isa 40, comfort is a command and is, therefore, potential. Someone must comfort God’s people. In Isa 49, comfort is a completed action. Now that God has found a servant willing to proclaim the nation’s release from prison, their release from exile, along with the gentiles, this is Yahweh comforting his people.[70] The metaphor of imprisonment and release from prison in Isa 40-55 gives a vivid picture of God’s grace and redemption for all of humanity.
IV. Conclusion
We would like to offer three concluding thoughts related to our relationship with our prison system. First, considering what we have learned about the development of imprisonment as a form of punishment, perhaps it would be helpful to reexamine our assumptions about proper forms of criminal discipline. The cult of the present can lead us to believe that “this is how it’s always been done” – that is, we imprison offenders – but it fails to see that humanity has made due without long-term incarcerations for millennia. This, of course, does not mean that any use of prison for punishment is necessarily wrong. The references to prison in Isa 40-55 give precedent for the use of prison in this manner when coming from a biblical worldview. We only mean to point out that our attempts to deal with crime through detention is a historical anomaly. Second, while the Bible does have room for the use of prison as a punishment, it offers a much wider scope of punishments to deal with criminal behavior than just imprisonment. In fact, God, in all of his wisdom, did not see fit to institute a standing prison system when he promulgated his laws to the nation of Israel. This, again, does not mean that we feel all of our legal punishments should mirror punishments found in the Law. We mean only to say that the idea of alternative consequences for criminal behavior also finds precedent within the Bible. Should a political or civil figure suggest a mandatory treatment plan, a restitution arrangement, or a diversion program, this is not necessarily a rejection of a biblical perspective on how to confront sin. Finally, inasmuch as the prison system seems to be an entrenched part of our society, we would hold out the Servant in Isaiah as a model for our actions. God, who is just, used prison for his own ends, even if only metaphorically, but we must also recognize God’s call on the Servant’s life and his service to what appear to be intractable criminals. It is only through his sacrifice of his own person that others were able to find release and redemption – He was crushed for our iniquities, oppressed and afflicted, for the transgression of my people (Isa 53:5, 7-8). His heart of compassion, his unselfish sacrifice and his yearning for repentance and restoration light a righteous path for His followers as they minister to those who have fallen short of the standard.
[1] For an informational report on recidivism rates in America, see Caitlin Dickson, “America’s Recidivism Nightmare,” The Daily Beast, n.p. [cited August 21, 2014].
Online: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/22/america-s-recidivism-nightmare.html. For a stinging critique, see David Haglund’s re-posting of John Oliver’s segment (“Watch John Oliver Explain How Broken America’s Prison System Is,” Slate, n.p. [cited August 21, 2014]. Online: http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/07/21/john_oliver_prison_segment_on_last_week_tonight_is_one_you_should_watch.html. CAUTION: This clip includes coarse language and mature topics.
[2] “A History of Prison in the World,” Laws, n.p. [cited Aug. 6, 2014]. Online: http://prison.laws.com/prison/prison-history.
[3] Punishment, as defined here, could take two forms. Capital punishment sought to remove a threat from the community permanently. For non-capital offences, corporal punishment was the most common penalty. Such punishments included, but were not limited to, beatings, whippings, and/or bodily mutilation (Deut 25:11-12) (“History of Imprisonment,” Crime Museum, n.p. [cited Aug. 6, 2014]. Online: http://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/history-of-imprisonment.).
[4] The British government also experimented with housing prisoners at night on large ships – hulks – that were anchored just off a shoreline, but this practice did not become widespread (“History of the Prison System,” The Howard League for Penal Reform, n.p. [cited Aug. 6, 2014]. Online: http://www.howardleague.org/history-of-prison-system/.).
[5] History of World Criminal Justice, directed by Banning Lary (2008; New York: Insight Media/Promedion Productions, 2008), DVD. Todd Clear and George Cole, American Corrections (6th ed.; Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomas Learning, 2003), 58.
[6] “History of the Prison System.”
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Richard Seiter, Corrections: An Introduction (4th ed.; Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2014), 3.
[10] “History of the Prison System.”
[11] This was also part of an increasing sense of compassion or humanity on the part of society (Ibid.).
[12] Clear and Cole, American Corrections, 48.
[13] Seiter, Corrections, 22.
[14] Ibid., 22.
[15] Ibid., 22.
[16] Ibid., 22.
[17] The U.S. Supreme Court decision ending the “hands-off doctrine” is found in Cooper v. Pate (1964) (Ibid., 22).
[18] Clear and Cole, American Corrections, 57.
[19] Ibid., 57.
[20] “The Oregon Accountability Model,” Department of Corrections, n.p. [cited Sept. 12, 2014]. Online: http://www.oregon.gov/doc/GECO/pages/oam_welcome.aspx.
[21] Each of these components began as a stand-alone program in the Oregon Corrections system, and, technically, they still stand on their own as discreet projects (Ibid.).
[22] The DOC implemented the 3 R’s in 2003 and has “received national recognition” for this concept. Research shows that the principles employed in the 3 R’s contribute significantly to a reduction in recidivism (Ibid.).
[23] Institution-based businesses include “mattress repair, boot repair, wood products, sewing, mending and embroidery.” Inmate work crews include firefighting, planting trees and maintaining trails in parks and campgrounds (“The Oregon Accountability Model – Work Programs Component,” Department of Corrections, n.p. [cited Sept. 12, 2014]. Online: http://www.oregon.gov/doc/GECO/Pages/oam_work.aspx.).
[24] The DOC’s initiative, The Children of Incarcerated Parents Project, “provide[s] inmates with tools for successful parenting and allows opportunities for inmates to practice those pro-social behaviors” (“The Oregon Accountability Model”).
[25] The DOC coordinates the release of around 4,500 offenders per year. The Governor’s Re-Entry Council is a statewide leadership group that works collaboratively to improve success and safety in an inmate’s transition back into our communities (Ibid.).
[26] Offenders typically have many restrictions and conditions placed upon them when released from prison. Community Corrections Officers are the offender’s primary point of contact upon release, and they must adhere to all conditions of their release or possibly face being sent back to prison (Ibid.).
[27] While this section focuses on the detention of Pharaoh’s cupbearer and baker, it is still worthwhile to discuss Joseph’s imprisonment. Potiphar places him in prison for his supposed infraction (Gen 39:11-20), but we should be surprised when the authorities do not determine his guilt or innocence in the following scene. Instead, Joseph remains in prison for more than two years (Gen 40:4; 41:1). This novelty, though, plays a literary role in the development of the Joseph narratives. God has been clear about his future (cf. Gen 37:2-11), but circumstances appear to frustrate God’s plan. From the reader’s perspective, it seems that Joseph will remain in prison without trial.
[28] The text at this point is quite expressive, using three distinct descriptors for the prison account: [Pharaoh] gave them into the watch (משׁמר) of the chief of the house of the bodyguards (בית שׂר הטבחים), to the round house (בית הסהר).
[29] Lev 24:11 is, admittedly, difficult to understand, and interpreters are divided over whether the man cursed his opponent using Yahweh’s name (this seems to be the position of Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation [JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989], 166), or if he directed his curse toward Yahweh (cf. Dennis H. Livingston, “The Crime of Leviticus XXIV 11,” VT 36, no. 3 [1986]: 352-54). Erhard S. Gerstenberger gives support for both views without deciding either way (Das dritte Buch Mose: Leviticus [völlig neubearbeitet Auflage; ATD 6; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993], 330-31). However, one’s choice on this matter does not affect the point that we make here.
[30] It is surprising that the Israelites did not know what to do with the man in Num 15, as Exod 31:14-15 clearly dictates that he should die. For a discussion of this point see Philip J. Budd, Numbers (WBC 5; Colombia: Thomas Nelson, 1984), 175-76.
[31] Exod 32:2-6, 21-28; 1 Kgs 21:9-13.
[32] One might point out that vocabulary related to prison is common in Jer 32-33, 37-39, where authorities imprison Jeremiah for extended periods of time, but it is best to view Jeremiah as a kind of political prisoner. His experience is not indicative of how prison relates to guilt and punishment. For similar examples in the HB, see 1 Kgs 22:27; 2 Kgs 17:4; 23:33, and in the NT, see the gospel stories of John the Baptist (Matt 14:3-5; Mark 6:17-20;) and Peter and Paul in Acts 12:1-4; 16:16-24; 24:24-27.
[33] All translations come from Dr. Jones, unless noted.
[34] A number of scholars suggest that the NT authors may draw their ideas of God’s eschatological judgment from this passage (cf. George Buchanan Gray, The Book of Isaiah: I-XXXIX [vol. 1; ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912], 423; and Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah: The English Text, with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes [3 vols.; NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965-1972], 1:179-81).
[35] John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (4 vols.; trans. William Pringle; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1850-53; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009), 1:185.
[36] For similar comments, see Gary V. Smith, Isaiah 1-39 (NAC 15a; Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2007), 425.
[37] Walter Brueggemann, Isaiah 1-39 (Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 195.
[38] If 2 Pet 2:4 is re-using Isa 24:22, 2 Pet 3:8 – “a day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years are like a day” – may suggest that God does not count the “many days” before his judgment like humans do.
[39] For additional examples, the interested reader can consider Gen 42; Judg 15; Job 12, 36.
[40] For a discussion on translating לשׁרשׁו/לשׁרשׁי as corporal punishment, see Frithiof Rundgren, “Zur Bedeutung von ŠRŠW – Esra VII 26,” VT 7, no. 4 (1957): 400-404.
[41] See Jean Louis Ska, “‘Persian Imperial Authorization’: Some Question Marks,” in Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch (ed. James W. Watts; SBLSymS 17; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 167.
[42] Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 152. See also F. Charles Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 108; and H.G.M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985), 105.
[43] The ancient Sumerian “Nungal-Hymn” does discuss imprisonment and possibly imprisonment for correction, but it is difficult to link this text to Ezra for two reasons (for a translation and commentary on the hymn, see Tikva Simone Frymer, “The Nungal-Hymn and the Ekur-Prison,” Journal of the Econoic and Social History of the Orient 20 [1977]: 78-89). First, it is possible that the hymn uses prison as a metaphor for the afterlife. Second, there is little evidence of Sumerian influence in Ezra elsewhere.
[44] Nehemiah uses corporal punishment in Neh 13:25, but it is unclear if he does so under Persian authorization.
[45] Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892); John Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-39 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 17-23; andH.G.M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994).
[46] In this paper, we follow Isaiah’s relatively lax approach to naming the audience. Though the biblical narrative pictures a political divide between Israel and Judah (cf. 1 Kgs 12), Isaiah seems to use the names Israel and Judah, among other names, to address the Judean audience (cf. Isa 1:1, 3). This device continues even into chs. 40-55, when we would expect only Judah to be in view (cf. Isa 41:8; 48:1).
[47] Yahweh does mention Assyria in Isa 52:4, but this is in retrospection. Outside of this verse, Assyria does not appear in chs. 40-66.
[48] Interpreters have accounted for these contrasts in Isa in various ways. Scholars who tend toward critical methods argue that an anonymous prophet penned Isa 40-55 during the exile, whereas scholars who tend toward a conservative stance hold that the historical prophet Isaiah has simply projected himself into the future and speaks as if he is standing in the exile.
[49] There is a long standing debate as to whom God addresses with his commands (cf. Christopher R. Seitz, “The Divine Council: Temporal Transition and New Prophecy in the Book of Isaiah,” JBL 109, no. 2 [1990]: 229-38), but how one decides the matter does not affect our discussion.
[50] On this point, see Young, Isaiah, 3:26; and Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40-55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (vol. 3; AB 19A; New York: Doubleday, 2000-2003), 179.
[51] Cf. Shalom M. Paul, Isaiah 40-66: Translation and Commentary (ECC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 184. Others argue that the referent has shifted away from the nation and onto an individual – Christ (Young, Isaiah, 3:108-11; Fraz Delitzsch, Biblischer Commentar über den Prophet Jesaia [Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1866], 414-15), but we see this shift coming in ch. 49.
[52] There has been much discussion over what לברית עם (a covenant to the people, NRS) may mean in Isa 42:6 (Delitzsch, Jesaia, 417-18; R. N. Whybray, Isaiah 40-66 [NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975], 74-75; Mark S. Smith, “BĔRÎT ‘AM / BĔRÎT ‘ÔLᾹM: A New Proposal for the Crux of Isa 42:6,” JBL 100, no. 2 [1981]:241-43), but how one decides on this matter does not necessarily affect our discussion. The closing reference to bringing light to the gentiles suggests that they continue to be in view in Isa 42:7.
[53] Cf. Mic 7:8; Rom 2:19. Consider, also, Yahweh’s command to Isaiah to deafen and blind the people, which is closely related to their understanding and their salvation (Isa 6:9-10).
[54] Claus Westermann, Das Buch Jesaja: Kapitel 40-66 (4. Ergänzte Auflage; ATD 19; Götingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 83-84.
[55] The term משׁלם (one who is made at peace) has troubled interpreters (cf. Paul, Isaiah, 199-200), but the parallel reference to the “servant of Yhwh” makes clear who the referent is.
[56] For a discussion of how this passage picks up themes of deafness and blindness in Isa 6, see R. E. Clements, “Beyond Tradition History: Deutero-Isaianic Development of First Isaiah’s Themes,” JSOT 31 (1985): 101-03.
[57] Cf. Paul (Isaiah, 201), who notes the similar imagery in vv. 7 and 22 – prison house(s) (בית כלא/בתי כלאים). See also Young, Isaiah, 3:135.
[58] J. Alec Motyer, Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC 20; Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1999), 300; Westermann, Jesaja, 92.
[59] Cf. Laurie E. Pearce, “New Evidence for Judeans in Babylonia,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (ed. Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 401-02, 408.
[60] For similar comments, see Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40-55, 219; and Walter Brueggemann, Isaiah 40-66 (Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 51.
[61] Nor should we understand this passage as saying that the Judahites are simply prisoners of war. (For this, see Zech 9:11-15.) Terms such as spoiled/spoil/despoilers (בזוז/בז/בזזים) and plundered/plunder (שׁסוי/משׁסה) (vv. 22, 24) could point in this direction, but our knowledge of Judah’s time in exile suggests that at least the references to being trapped in holes and hidden in prison houses is metaphoric (see n. 33). Further, the other occurrences of prison house (בית כלא) in the HB suggest that it was a place of detention and confinement (1 Kgs 22:27; 2 Kgs 17:4; 25:27; Jer 37:4, 15, 18), which does not accord well with the purpose of taking prisoners of war. Conquering peoples did better to put their prisoners to work, rather than to detain and sustain them.
[62] Brevard Childs, Isaiah (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 372.
[63] There is nothing in chs. 48 or 49 indicating that this person is a male, but if ch. 53 describes the same individual, a point that most assume, there are masculine pronouns that reveal his gender in that passage.
[64] Reading the qere לו over the kethib לא.
[65] For similar readings of the passage, see Christopher R. Seitz, “‘You are My Servant, You Are the Israel in Whom I Will Be Glorified’: The Servant Songs and the Effect of Literary Context in Isaiah,” CTJ 39 (2004): 124-31; and Peter Wilcox and David Paton-Williams, “The Servant Songs in Deutero-Isaiah,” JSOT 42 (1988): 88-93. However, if the reader sides with those scholars who continue to see the servant as the nation (cf. Philip Stern, “The ‘Blind Servant’ Imagery of Deutero-Isaiah and Its Implications,” Bib 75, no. 2 [1994]: 224-32; Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, A Farewell to the Servant Songs: A Critical Examination of an Exegetical Axiom [Scripta Minora; trans. Frederick H. Cryer; Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1983], 38), it should only have limited implications for this essay. One would simply need to reapply our conclusions related to prison/release to the nation’s service. We would, though, offer Childs’ comments on the passage as an important stipulation in our view, “what is crucial to observe is that one, bearing all the marks of an individual historical figure, has been named servant, not to replace corporate Israel – the servant in Second Isaiah remains inseparable from Israel – but as a faithful embodiment of the nation Israel who has not performed its chosen role” (Isaiah, 385).
[66] The verbal component in each of the verses is a differing conjugation of the same verb יצא (go/come out), and the nominal components are adjectival and participial forms of the root אסר (tie/bind/imprison). Similar vocabulary appears in Isa 61:1, where the speaker proclaims that Yahweh has appointed him, “to proclaim an opening (פקח־קוח) for the imprisoned ones (אסורים),” but we have decided not to include this in our study for two reasons. First, references to “those taken captive” and the “release” of the Jubilee year in the verse suggest that it may be best to read אסורים as “bound ones,” i.e. captives of war or enslaved persons. Second, the noun פקח־קוח is a hapax legomenon, which makes the entire phrase difficult to interpret.
[67] Blenkinsopp (Isaiah 40-55, 306) sees a similar re-appropriation of the servant’s task, though he differs on which characters fill the various roles.
[68] They will pasture along the roads, and on every open space they will have their pasturing. They will not hunger and they will not thirst, and the burning heat of the sun will not strike them, for the one who has compassion on them will lead them. He will guide them to streams of water. I will make all my mountains into a road, and all my highways will rise up. Look at these! – from afar they come. And look at these – from the north, and west and these from the land of Sinim. (Isa 49:9b-12) Calvin (Commentary, 4:26-27) also sees a reference to the Exodus in this passage.
[69] See Paul, Isaiah, 329-30 for similar comments.
[70] So Childs, Isaiah, 387; and Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40-55, 307.
