Literary: Even though verse one is an important concluding verse to the subject o f the previous chapter, it also serves as a transition into this chapter. As noted, the Book of Mormon text makes no distinctions between these sections, and a continuous reading seems to be warranted. The last chapter provided a condemnation of Babylon (and of Babylon as the representative of sin and all that contradicts the Lord’s plan). This chapter will end with a "taunt-song, a song of derision possible only by nation or a people finally triumphant.
Because no weaker nation would dare taunt a stronger one for fear of reprisal, the ability to sing the taunt-song requires that Israel be triumphant. It is these transitional verses (1-3) that provide the context of an Israel exalted in its position through the power of its Messiah.
Verses 1 and 2 use the Isaianic technique of reversal to show how complete the shift is for Israel. There are two reversals contained in the text, one of location and one of status.
The reversal of location is the gathering of Israel from the counties to which she has been scattered. Thus verse 2 specifically mentions those being gathered from the ends of the earth. In this case, however, Israel does not return alone. Also in this gathering are the “strangers” in verse 1. Who are these “strangers” who “shall cleave to the house of Jacob?” The only way to really understand who they are is to note that they are the subject of the next theme of reversal, of status.
When Israel was scattered abroad, it was not through conquest but through defeat. They were taken to the lands of strangers not as honored guests, but as servants. In the reversal of the final days, the triumphant Israel will return from these “strange” or foreign lands bringing their “captives” with them. Where they were dispersed into servitude, they return victorious, with servants of their own brought from these foreign lands.
This is the meaning of the closing sentence of verse 2: “And the house of Israel shall possess them, and the land of the Lord shall be for servants and handmaids; and they shall take them captives unto whom they were captives; and they shall rule over their oppressors.”
“They shall take them captives unto whom they were captives” is the ultimate reversal of status. The very people who captured Israel will become Israel’s captives. The very people who placed Israel in a condition of servitude will become the servants of Israel. The triumph of the returning Messiah will turn the tables on the powerful of the world, and Israel’s position will also be reversed, from captive and dispersed to triumphant and unified.
Variant: The Book of Mormon adds the text in brackets to the KJV Isaiah:
Isa. 14:2
2 And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place:[ yea, from far unto the ends of the earth; and they shall return to their lands of promise.] and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the LORD for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors.
Tvedtnes does find some variation in the textual transmission, but nothing that parallels precisely this specific addition. Tvedtnes also attempts an explanation of how this phrase might have been lost, but the explanation is convoluted and unconvincing (Tvedtnes, 1981, p. 55.) Aside from the specifics of his explanation in this verse is the clear Brass plates theme echoed in this phrase, a theme that has also been seen to be absent in the received tradition.
This concept of the gathering from the ends of the earth and the Isles of the Sea is an added emphasis in the Book of Mormon, seen also in Isaiah 49:8/1 Nephi 21:8. In that case, “O isles of the sea” is an additional text, and likewise has no version support. The context fits, but the specificity of the Book of Mormon/Brass Plates version is missing in the received textual tradition. In order for Tvedtnes’ explanation of the loss of this phrase to be valid, he would have to have a similar explanation of loss for the other case, and he does not (Tvedtnes, 1981, p. 73.)
This appears to be a separate tradition, and one highlighted by the Nephite perception as one of those dispersed to the isles of the sea.