“In a surge of anger I hid my face from you for a moment, but with everlasting kindness I will have compassion on you,” says the LORD your Redeemer.” was said in Isaiah 54:8 and I wonder, does God get angry? 

Its seems the answer is yet, slow to anger and quick to forgive. Reach the commentaries below. I will post a longer personal opinion after more reading. 

“54:6-10 As God is slow to anger, so he is swift to show mercy. And how sweet the returns of mercy would be, when God should come and comfort them! He will have mercy on them. God’s gathering his people takes rise from his mercy, not any merit of theirs; and it is with great mercies, with everlasting kindness. The wrath is little, the mercies great; the wrath for a moment, the kindness everlasting. We are neither to despond under afflictions, nor to despair of relief. Mountains have been shaken and removed, but the promises of God never were broken by any event. Mountains and hills also signify great men. Creature-confidences shall fail; but when our friends fail us, our God does not. All this is alike applicable to the church at large, and to each believer. God will rebuke and correct his people for sins; but he will not cast them off. Let this encourage us to give the more diligence to make our calling and election sure.”

In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment,…. This signifies much the same as before, when God hides his face from his people, withdraws his gracious presence, and does not grant the discoveries of his love; or they are under the frowns of his providence, and have not the smiles of his face and the light of his countenance as formerly, then they think they are forsaken by him; though all this is but for a moment, a small period of time; and though it seems to be in “wrath”, it is but “little wrath”; and this wrath is no other than the displeasure of a loving and tender hearted father. The Syriac version renders it, “great wrath”; and so Schultens (o) thinks the word signifies “overflowing wrath” (p), and the vehemency of it; to which agrees R. Menachem (q), who interprets it, “the heat of wrath”; so the Lord’s suffering such a scene of bloody persecutions to attend his church in the first ages of Christianity might seem to be: 
but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer; all the dealings of God with his people, however dark and dismal they be, whatever appearances there are in them of wrath and displeasure, they are all agreeable to, and do not contradict, his everlasting love; and sooner or later he will make it manifest, he has mercy in store for his people, which he does and will exercise towards them; this mercy flows from his love and kindness to them, which kindness is everlasting, and continues in and through all states and conditions into which they come; the consideration of which is very comfortable and encouraging, and of which they may be assured from the relation the Lord stands in to them as their Redeemer; for, having redeemed them at the expense of his blood, he will effectually gather them by grace in calling, and will never lose them, or suffer them to perish here or hereafter. 

Isaiah 52:14 NLT ‘Just as there were many who were appalled at him — his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being and his form marred beyond human likeness–“

From what I have read is that the section 52 of Isaiah is a prophecy of the coming Messiah. 

Studylight.org says:

John Gill’s Exposition of the Whole Bible

“As many were astonished at thee,…. Not so much at the miracles he wrought, the doctrines he taught, and the work he did; or at his greatness and glory, at his exaltation and dignity, though very wonderful; as at his humiliation, the mean appearance he made, the low estate he was brought into; the sufferings and death which he underwent. These words are placed between the account of his exaltation and humiliation, and may be thought to have respect to both; and indeed it is astonishing that one so great as he was, and is, should become so low as he did; and also that one that was brought so low should be raised so high:

his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men; though fairer than the children of men, as he was the immediate workmanship of the divine Spirit, and without sin; yet, what with his griefs and sorrows he bore, and troubles he met with; what with watchings and fastings, with laborious preaching, and constant travelling about to do good; what with sweat and blood, with buffetings and scourgings, never was any man’s face more marred, or his form more altered, than his was.”

Bibletools.org shows this mention of prophesy:

A mention of prophesy” “he prophet Isaiah prophesies how Jesus appeared after the scourging: “Just as many were astonished at you, so His visage [appearance, margin] was marred more than any man, and His form more than the sons of men” (Isaiah 52:14)

Isaiah 50:6 NLT “I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting.”

Stated onhttp://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/isaiah_50_6.htm

“The prophet Isaiah received many prophecies from God about the Messiah, about 700 years before the Messiah (Jesus) was born. In Isaiah’s prophecies, he often referred to the Messiah as a servant. In Isaiah 50:6, Isaiah wrote about the abuse that the Messiah would endure at the hands of sinful people, that he would offer his back to those who beat him, his face to those who rip out his beard, and himself to those who mock and taunt him.

Christians historically have acknowledged this Old Testament prophecy as being fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Jesus, as explained in the New Testament, was beaten, mocked and taunted shortly before his crucifixion by the Romans. In Matthew 26:67 (NIV translation), for example, it says: Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him and said, “Prophesy to us, Christ. Who hit you?”

 

In Isaiah 41:14 ESV it says “Fear not, you worm Jacob, you men of Israel! I am the one who helps you, declares the LORD; your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel.”

StudyLight.org Adam Clarke’s commentary:

“Fear not, thou worm Jacob – In the rabbinical commentary on the five books of Moses, Yelamedenu, it is asked, Why are the Israelites called a worm? To signify, that as the worm does not smite, that is, gnaw the cedars, but with its mouth, which is very tender, yet it nevertheless destroys the hard wood; so all the strength of the Israelites is in prayer, by which they smite the wicked of this world, though strong like the cedars, to which they are compared, Ezekiel 31:3.”

This site also has a good explanation: https://gracevalley.org/sermon/the-theology-of-a-worm/

In Isaiah 29:1 it states NLT “What sorrow awaits Ariel, the City of David. Year after year you celebrate your feasts.”

Bible-Studys.org states “The word Ariel means “lion of God,” referring to the city’s strength and perhaps “hearth of God,” referring to the place where the altar of God always burns. (Verses 7-8), show this to be a name for Jerusalem and the chapter looks to the invasion of Jerusalem because of unbelief.”

 

The passage in Isaiah 13:17 was very confusing to me. It says “Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.”

Bible Hub gives this explanation: Which shall not regard silver.—The Medes are represented as a people too fierce to care for the gold and silver in which Babylon exulted. They would take no ransom to stay their work of vengeance. So Xenophon, in his Cyropædia (5:3), represents Cyrus as acknowledging their unbought, unpaid service.”

StudyLight.org says the following:

Adam Clarke Commentary 

Which shall not regard silver “Who shall hold silver of no account” – That is, who shall not be induced, by large offers of gold and silver for ransom, to spare the lives of those whom they have subdued in battle; their rage and cruelty will get the better of all such motives. We have many examples in the Iliad and in the Aeneid of addresses of the vanquished to the pity and avarice of the vanquishers, to induce them to spare their lives.

The explanation I like best is that they wish so much destruction upon them that they care not for gold or silver. 

I ran across the word Shoel many times while reading the Bible. In the Bible i I found it frequently, below is a site that explains it well:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_113.cfm

“The Hebrew word “Sheol” is often translated “hell” in the English versions. However this gives the wrong inference. It is never used of the final destination of the wicked. Sheol is used in Old Testament in basically five ways: 

1. The unseen realm of the dead 

2. The grave – the actual place where bodies are buried 

3. Specifically, the place of punishment for the wicked 

4. Symbolically 

5. The place from where the righteous are saved”

This is what I found in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Judith

Historicity of Judith

It is generally accepted that the Book of Judith is ahistorical. The fictional nature “is evident from its blending of history and fiction, beginning in the very first verse, and is too prevalent thereafter to be considered as the result of mere historical mistakes.”[26]

Thus, the great villain is “Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians” (1:1), yet the historical Nebuchadnezzar II was the king of Babylonia.[26] Other details, such as fictional place names, the immense size of armies and fortifications, and the dating of events, cannot be reconciled with the historical record.[26] Judith’s village, Bethulia (literally “virginity”) is unknown and otherwise unattested to in any ancient writing.[26]

Nevertheless, there have been various attempts by both scholars and clergy to understand the characters and events in the Book as allegorical representations of actual personages and historical events. Much of this work has focused on linking Nebuchadnezzar with various conquerors of Judea from different time periods and, more recently, linking Judith herself with historical female leaders, including Queen Salome Alexandra, Judea’s only female monarch (76-67 BCE) and its last ruler to die while Judea remained an independent kingdom.[31]

 

This site has a lot more information as to this logic: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08554a.htm

Catholics  with very few exceptions accept the book of Judith as a narrative of facts, not as an allegory. Even Jahn considers that the genealogy of Judith is inexplicable on the hypothesis that the story is a mere fiction (“Introductio”, Vienna, 1814, p. 461). Why carry out the genealogy of a fictitious person through fifteen generations? The Fathers have ever looked upon the book as historical. St. Jerome, who excluded Judith from the Canon, nonetheless accepted the person of the valiant woman as historical (Ep. lxv, 1).

Against this traditional view there are, it must be confessed, very serious difficulties, due, as Calmet insists, to the doubtful and disputed condition of the text. The historical and geographical statements in the book, as we now have it, are difficult to understand: thus

  • Nabuchodonosor was apparently never King of Nineveh, for he came to the throne in 605, whereas Nineveh was destroyed certainly not later than 606, and after that the Assyriansceased to exist as a people;
  • the allusion in i, 6, to Erioch, King of the Elicians, is suspicious; we are reminded of the Arioch of Genesis 14:1. The Septuagint makes him King of the Elumaens, presumably the Elamites,
  • the character of Nabuchodonosor is hardly that portrayed for us on the monuments: in the India House Inscription, for example, his sentiments are remarkable for the modesty of their tone. On the other hand, we must remember that, as Sayce says, the “Assyrian kings were most brazen-faces liars on their monuments”;
  • the name Vagao, or the Septuagint Bagoas, for the eunuch of Holofernes is suggestive of the Bagoses, who, according to Josephus (Antiquities, XI, vii, 1), polluted the temple and to whom apparently we have a reference in the recently discovered papyri from Assuan;
  • the mixture of Babylonian, Greek, and Persian names in the book should be noted;
  • the genealogy of Judith as given in the Vulgate is a medley: that given in the three principal Greek codices is perhaps better but varies in every one. Still it is an historical genealogy, though ill-conserved;
  • a geographical puzzle is presented by the Vulgate of ii, 12-16; the Septuagint is much superior, and it should be noted that throughout this version, especially in Codex B, we have the most interesting details furnished us (cf. particularly i, 9; ii, 13, 28-9). The Septuagint also gives us information about Achior which is wanting in the Vulgate; it is apparently hinted in vi, 2, 5, that he was an Ephraimite and a mercenary hired by Moad;
  • Bethulia itself is a mystery: according to the Septuagint it was large, had streets and towers (vii, 22, 32), and withstood a long siege at the hands of a vast army. Its position, too, is stated with minuteness; it stood on the edge of the Plain of Esdrelon and guarded the pass to Jerusalem; yet no trace of the existence of such a place is to be found (unless we accept the theory of Conder, “Handbook”, 5th ed., p. 239);
  • the names, Judith (Jewess), Achior (brother of light), and Bethulia (?Bethel, i.e. ?Jerusalem, or perhaps from the Hebrew meaning “virgin” — in the shorter Hebrew version Judith is called not “the widow” but “the virgin”, i.e. Bethulia), sound rather like symbolic names than those of historical places or persons;
  • in Judith’s speech to Holofernes there is (xi, 12, 15) some apparent confusion between Bethulia and Jerusalem;
  • while the events are referred to the time of Nabuchodonosor, and therefore to the close of the Hebrew monarchy, we seem to have in v, 22, and viii, 18-19, an allusion to the time subsequent to the Restoration;
  • there is no king in Palestine (iv, 5), but only a high priest, Joachim or Eliachim; and in iv, 8; xi, 14; xv, 8 (Sept.), the Sanhedrin is apparently mentioned;
  • the book has a Persian and even a Greek colouring, as is evidenced by the recurrence of such names as Bagoas and Holofernes.

 

 

 

I kept running across people who covered themselves in sackcloth or laid on it during times of distress. 

According to https://www.gotquestions.org/sackcloth-and-ashes.html “Sackcloth was a coarse material usually made of black goat’s hair, making it quite uncomfortable to wear.”

Many other websites are unsure exactly what sackcloth was, but its meaning was quite clear. 

In the book of Tobit, it mentions the angel Raphael. He is also found the book of Enoch.

https://www.gotquestions.org/angel-Raphael.html

In the book of Tobias, Raphael identifies himself as one of seven archangels “who stand before the Lord” ( Tobit 12:15 ). Raphael also offers prayers on Tobias’ behalf, and Tobias, in turn, thanks the angel because he is “filled with all good things through him” ( Tobit 12:3 ).

John sheds some light on the religious notions in the time of Christ. “A great multitude of sick people” are sitting beside a pool in Jerusalem, waiting for “the moving of the water.” They believed that an angel would descend from heaven and stir the water, making the pool a place of healing for them. Jesus approaches a man who had been infirm for 38 years and asks him if he wants to be healed. The man’s sad, superstitious reply is that he cannot be healed, because he cannot get into the pool quickly enough. Jesus then bypasses all superstition and shows His power to immediately heal the man (John 5:3-9). 

Raphael bound Azazel under a desert called Dudael according to Enoch 10:4–6:

And again the Lord said to Raphael: “Bind Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. And on the day of the great judgment he shall be cast into the fire.