A "canonical" translation of Isaiah 1:2?

How do you translate the qatal verbs in Isaiah 1:2?

שִׁמְעוּ שָׁמַיִם וְהַאֲזִינִי אֶרֶץ כִּי יהוה דִּבֵּר בָּנִים גִּדַּלְתִּי וְרוֹמַמְתִּי וְהֵם פָּשְׁעוּ בִ

I would follow all the standard translations and go for the past tense (has spoken). An offline interlocuter, however, has suggested that we translate them in the present (Yhwh speaks, I raise up, they sin against me). Here's his reasoning:

If you read just the opening verses of Isaiah your preference for a past tense makes sense. But I am working with a reading of the entire scroll of Isaiah that sees the pattern of divine good - rebellion - punishment, and each stage in it, as occurring at many times and not just at this one time. Two points are relevant. One, a translation of a given passage in any biblical book depends on one's understanding of that whole book and the place of that passage in it; it is not solely a matter of the forms and syntax of the passage itself. Two, the Hebrew text - verbs, nouns, etc. - can often support a range of meaning but a translator into English has to choose only one part of that range. Both "YHWH has spoken" and "speaks" and "I reared" and "I rear" are possible depending on one's focus on just these verses or on the larger scroll.

From what I can see, this would be an attempt at "canonical translation," a translation that attempts the communicate the substance of the entire scroll by means of its parts.

I do agree that there is an effort at typologizing in Isaiah's scroll. I recently read Brevard Childs' commentary on Isaiah, which made the same point. He also made another point, however, which would lead me to want to retain the past tense translation, even though I agree with the pattern my dialogue partner discerns. Here's my logic:

The pattern in Isaiah is of a certain kind, i.e. it is typological, which means that that one object (e.g. Assyria) is placed within a larger scheme and associated with another object (e.g. Babylon), so that the two distinct entities become types of a larger, single reality (e.g. human hubris). The literary technique of juxtaposition and intertextual linkaging operates on the principle that entities diverse in space and time (Assyria and Babylon) are really just pictures, types, of a single reality. They are juxtaposed on the basis of their ontological unity, they point beyond themselves to something more general. In this case, my friend's desire to translate Isaiah one in the present simple tense is correct, as this tense points to a general, repeated action. Perhaps we could say that his translation gets to the substance of the message of Isaiah as a whole.

However, what is equally as important as the substance of Isaiah's message is the means by which the book communicates it. It doesn't do this by flattening out the concrete entities, by swallowing them up into a schematized drama. Rather, Assyria and Babylon are retained in the historical, geographical particularity. It is only through the literary technique of juxtaposition that the reader is invited to discover the unity that undergirds them. In other words, the unity of the message must be sought through the particularity of the parts and not despite them. On this view, the historical particularity of Isaiah 1:2 ought to be maintained by means of past tense translation, even if the translator wishes his reader to grasp the singular message of the whole. There is a path the attentive, theologically minded reader has to tread, and it is through finite particularity to the universal. This would seem to be the way the book of Isaiah itself wishes to communicate its message.

I invite all and sundry to critique me!