The name Ariel means Lion of God, and in this passage is used as a symbolic reference to Jerusalem (the city where David dwelt). The only place where Ariel is used as a name for Jerusalem is in this chapter of Isaiah. There is some dispute as to if Ariel means Lion of God (the literal translation) or an altar for burning, which is a very similar word in Hebrew (used in passages like Ezekiel 43:15-16). If it is to be understood as an altar for burning, then the idea is that “The fighting and bloodshed around Jerusalem would make the city like a giant place of sacrifice.” (Wolf) But, considering the context as a whole, it is best to see Ariel with its literal meaning – Lion of God. When we consider the way Ariel is used in these verses, and the context as a whole, the idea behind calling Jerusalem Lion of God is probably sarcastic. The repetition of the name (four times in two verses), and the context of God’s judgment against Jerusalem, suggest the idea that Jerusalem may have thought of herself as the Lion of God, but God didn’t share that lofty opinion of the city. It may be that the people of Jerusalem had taken to calling themselves by the name Ariel, to both express and strengthen their confidence.
Isaiah 29:13 The Lord says:
“These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is based on merely human rules they have been taught.[a]
The people of Israel offered Him lip service for many years, but the meaningless words overflowed from proud, uncaring hearts. (Isaiah 29:13)
How did this happen?
Outwardly, they worshipped. But inwardly, they wandered. (2 Kings 17:7-20; Jeremiah 7:30-31; Hosea 5:3-7, 11) Outward devotion is meaningful only when it matches inward devotion. What is an apology without remorse and repentance? How often do we emphasize appearance over attitude? What looks right instead of what is right?
Jesus quoted Isaiah 29 to address this firsthand. (Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13) He rebuked the Pharisees and teachers of the law for upholding a "Corban" offering practice, (Mark 7:11) wherein Jewish men could vow to reserve for God what otherwise would assist their parents. However, the money didn't necessarily support religious purposes. And even when a so-called vow wasn't made wisely, the Pharisees misused Scripture to defend it. (Numbers 30:1-2)
Instead of following God's law — to honor one's parents (Exodus 20:12; 21:17) — the Pharisees followed human-made rules. They even cited Scripture out of context to nullify God's commandment and avoid family responsibilities. Jesus states, "So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God" (Matthew 15:6).
Like the Israelites, the Pharisees missed the point. Although traditions and rituals are worthwhile at times, they require the right attitude. God asks only for love and obedience; we can bring nothing else to worship or to God's law that would improve it.
The Pharisees and teachers also missed seeing Jesus the Messiah right in front of them. Like Paul before his encounter with God, they esteemed the law rather than He who fulfilled it.
By prizing appearance over attitude, the Israelites and the Pharisees elevated human "wisdom" above God's wisdom, human authority above God's authority. Both believed they knew better. The Israelites and the Pharisees lost sight of what really mattered: seeking God with love and obedience.
We're often guilty of the same. This might mean going to church but going through the motions. Preaching generosity but passing the needy person. Donating time but denying engagement. Asking forgiveness but acting indifferently. Serving God on Sundays but serving idols the rest of the week. Liking Jesus but loving worldly things.
Isaiah 29:16
You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it,
“You did not make me”?
Can the pot say to the potter,
“You know nothing”?
Indeed, man says exactly this today. Instead of seeing the absolute need for an intelligent designer who created all things, many believe that chance – absolute blind, random, purposeless chance, having no understanding at all – brought all things into being. People who are otherwise intelligent often fall into this delusion. Jacques Monod, a biochemist, wrote: “Chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution.”
But assigning such power to “chance” is crazy. Chance has no power. For example, when a coin is flipped, the chance it will land “heads” is 50%; however, “chance” does not make it land heads. Whether or not it lands heads or tails is due to the strength with which the coin is flipped, the strength of air currents and air pressure as it flies through the air, where it is caught, and if it is flipped over once it is caught. Chance doesn’t “do” anything but describe a probability.