Allan
MacRae, Isaiah 7-12, Lecture 11
This is lecture 11 delivered by Dr. Allan MacRae
at Biblical Theological Seminary on Isaiah 7-12:
Now we were looking at chapter 9. We
noticed how it begins in the first verse with pointing to the place where the
Assyrian army would first enter the land, and where therefore the darkness
would first come, beginning in the Northern Kingdom, in the land of Zebulon,
Naphtali and Galilee. While most of this first part of Isaiah where it touches
upon particular areas dealing with Jerusalem or the areas around Jerusalem, here
in this verse, we look particularly to this section of the Northern Kingdom--this
section where the Assyrian army first came in and where the darkness first
began to come, with the horrors of the attacks and sieges and deportations. He
says in that very area, light will first appear. We know that it came through
the preaching of Christ who began his preaching in that area instead of down
around Jerusalem.
Then there is this wonderful passage
about the great joy of people in verse 5. The complete end of war that is to
come and the reason for it all is given in verse 6-- “A child is born, a son is
given”-- which could be just Hebrew parallelism, but on the other hand, it fits
so exactly with what actually happened, that we can take it as a suggestion,
though not a clear indication in advance, of the fact that this one to whom all
these blessing would come would have a dual nature that he would be born a
child of Mary and also a son of God who was given. As I say we don’t want to
say that we could know in advance exactly what was going to happen, but when it
did happen and you see it exactly fit with it, we are quite sure that it was
not just Hebrew parallelism but that it was an actual prediction of what would actually
happen.
Then we have his name and this has
been a great puzzle to the Jews all through the ages. Imagine a child born who
is going to be called "mighty God," who is going to be called "everlasting
Father." How would you apply those names to a child who will be born? Well you couldn’t. It was merely a child who was born, but He’s
a child who is born a son who is given. If you apply all these names to the
promised Messiah, it certainly points very definitely to Christ. In the Jewish
version of the scriptures, it says, “A child is born unto us, a son is given
unto us and the government is upon his shoulder, and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom. So the Jewish
reading that version thinks, “My, what a long name that child is going to have:
Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom. I never knew
anybody who had a name quite that long, although there have been some pretty
long ones.” It would mean nothing to him
unless he happened to look at the footnote. But there is a footnote there which
says, “Wonderful in counseling is God the mighty, the everlasting father, the
ruler of peace.” Now there have been many names which have been like the first
part of that --"Wonderful is God"--that would be, I don’t know
whether there was even one who had exactly that name, but many very similar
names occur not only in Israel but also in all the nations of antiquity.
The greater number, I believe, of
the names that children were given had the name of a god in the name. A great
many of our Hebrew names begin with “Jeho.” As we
pronounce it, which is the name of God, which we translate “the LORD.” In the
King James Version, the LORD is in all upper case for the special divine name
"Jehovah" or more correctly "Yahweh." And many names have
that at the beginning; some have it at the end as “iah,”
like in Hezekiah. Not all names that end in “iah,”
are that, because their ancient names which were shortened, like we would
shorten William to Willy. A long name could be shortened and the end of it
could simply have “iah” just for a short ending form
like the “ee” we put on many names. That occurs in
Babylonian names very frequently. But also we have a great many of the
Babylonian names, and names in other ancient lands that end with the names of
particular gods. This is recognized by all scholars as in most of these names,
at least that end in “iah” as being the name of God.
So the divine name can occur at the beginning or at the end.
So if the name is “Wonderful is God”
or even “Wonderful in Counsel is God,” that would be quite a natural name. But
to give such a long description of God in the course of the name as this does
would be quite without parallel, anywhere else in the Bible, or in any
Babylonian, or Aramaic or other ancient name that I have ever come across. I once spent thousands of hours studying names
of ancient Babylonian and related peoples. I never came across one that had a long
description of the god included in a name like this would be. It would be a
very unusual type of a name. So it is much more reasonable to take it that
rather than being a proper name, as a description of the character of the one
who is to be born. Very often, names
were very descriptive of character.
His name is “wonderful,” and
“counselor.” Now in the King James, I think it has a comma, if I recall
correctly, after “wonderful.” In the NIV, they leave out the comma. There’s an
argument for both ways, whether it’s two names, “Wonderful” and “Counselor,” or
whether it is “Wonderful Counselor.” Anyone who knows Hebrew immediately at looking
at it, says it can’t be “Wonderful Counselor,” it must be “Wonderful” and
“Counselor,” because an adjective in Hebrew follows the noun; it does not
precede it. That is if it precedes it, then you have a verbal sentence. It
would be “Wonderful is Counselor. If
it was "wonderful counselor," the word "wonderful" would
follow in Hebrew. However, this word, “Pele” doesn’t have to be an adjective,
it could be a noun. A noun in the construct, it could be a "wonder of a
counselor." Of course, if you said he was a "wonder of a counselor,"
in English that would be said as "a wonderful counselor." So, a good argument can be made for making it
one phrase parallel with the other phrases here. But the most natural way to
take it is that you have two names, there. He is wonderful, and He is a
counselor.
I think we have a further evidence
that it is two names, in the fact that when Menoah, I
believe he was the father of Samson in Judges 13:18 when the angel came to him
and predicted the birth of his son, he said, “what is your name?” And he said,
“why should I tell you my name, seeing it is wonderful?” that’s the same word,
“Pele.” And the angel of the Lord, which many think is an appearance of the
Lord Jesus Christ, one of the theophanies of the Old
Testament, he there says his name is "Pele." He says his name is "Pele,
yomes, El gibbor," and
so on. We have here two characteristics, probably of Christ, he is wonderful
and he is a counselor. Although, we do not rule out the idea that it is one
name with an adjective, but the other seems to be more likely.
Incidentally, I’m not asking
anybody to take my opinion on anything. I want you to interpret the Scripture
for yourself, to think things out, find your own conclusion. The translation
the Jews give is “wonderful in counsel, is God the mighty, the everlasting
father, the ruler of peace.” I don't think that's what it means.
Well then, we have this name given
of him, and last time we spoke of this verse, there was discussion of the Son
of God being called “God the everlasting father.” And we noticed as far as that
is concerned, there is one God, there are not three, Jesus said “I and the
Father are one.” God is not the father of the son in the sense in which a human
being is the father of a son. It does not express that God the Father was
first, and then God the Son was later, because he is co-eternal with the
father. From all eternity God existed in three persons. And so, the word
“father” is somewhat figurative, it expresses the relation of God, the first
person of the trinity, to the second person of trinity. It shows a certain
relationship, a certain preeminence, in a way, and yet, they are equal and
awesome in a way. There are three persons, but there is only one God. The
characteristics that God the father has, as he shows love, and kindness, and
care for the son, and for all humanity, those same characteristics Jesus Christ
the Son shows toward all of those children whom he has brought into the
kingdom. So it is very proper to call
him the everlasting father, the one who was to be born in Bethlehem. And he is
the Prince of Peace, the one who brings not merely the cessation of
hostilities, but complete end of violence, and not only that, but the coming in
of life that is truly and fully worthwhile.
In Hebrews we read that Christ
brought many sons to glory, that he brought many sons into the kingdom, just as Paul speaks of Timothy as “my son in
the faith.” He was not his son in the physical sense. But he was one to whom
Paul had brought the knowledge of Christ, one whom Paul had brought into the
Kingdom through bringing him the Word of Christ. Similarly Jesus Christ is, in
one sense, the father of all who believe. And so, the term “everlasting Father”
is not out of place as applied to him.
Incidentally, in the King James Version the word “monogenes” is used
of Christ and is translated in the King James Version "the only begotten"
son in John 3:16 and in another place "the only begotten of the Father,"
and the word "monogenes" could be derived
from either of two Greek roots. The “mono”, of course, is "one" or "only"
or "single," but “genes” could either be derived from a verb, "to
generate, to bring into existence" or it could be derived from a noun
which means "class" or "kind." In the third century A.D.,
there were those who took it from the verb instead of from the noun, and therefore
said Christ is the only one that has been produced by the Father. The only one
the Father has begotten, and then the question was since Jesus is from all
eternity, coequal with the Father and coeternal with the Father, how can he be
produced by the Father? Therefore they originated a theory that God the Father
is always generating God the Son. That is a process which has always been going
on and is still going on. Now there is no warrant for any such theory as that
anywhere except from the misinterpretation of this word. The correct
interpretation of the word is to take it from the noun. The "one-of-a-kind son," he is the
only son, he is the one and only, he is "the unique son," that is, he
is the son in the sense in which no one else is the son. We are all sons of God
if we believe in Christ, but he is the son in a unique and special sense.
I saw a criticism of the New American Standard Bible a
few years ago, in which a man made the statement, he said it is terrible that
is says Jesus is the "only son" rather than "the only begotten."
He said no one but God could have an only begotten son. Well, the person who
wrote that article either was not thinking when he wrote it or he did not know
Greek, one or the other. Because the word "monogenes,"
if I remember correctly, is used about seven times in the New Testament, and
about half of them referred to Christ, and the other half referred to human
beings. It is even translated "only begotten" in the book of Hebrews
where it says that Abraham did not hold back from offering his "only
begotten son." So there right in the King James you have Abraham said to
have an only begotten son. Well, of course, he wasn’t Abraham’s only begotten
son. Abraham beget Ishmael before he beget Isaac, so Isaac was never Abraham’s
only begotten son. But Isaac was Abraham’s "one-of-a-kind son." He
was his "unique son." He was the son through whom the promise was to
come. He was the only son of Abraham through Sarah. So it is perfectly clear
from that, that it means his one and only or his "one-of-a-kind, his
unique son." I don’t know any English word which exactly gives it.
So here we have the son described and called the
everlasting father, the prince of peace, and then it goes on to say "of
the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end." Well now
our country is now at peace. How can you increase its peace? You might say you
could get some internal peace as well as external. We have peace with other nations
now, but internally we have more violence every year than ever before, so we do
want to have internal peace in our country. In certain sections of the country we
have a tremendous amount of violence. So internal peace we do not have and we
could increase in the amount of internal peace which we have. But of course
this goes beyond the cessation of violence.
It refers to well being. It refers to all that
makes life worth living.
So "of the increase of His government and peace
there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on
and forever." So here we have the
marvelous prediction of the ongoing work of Christ, and then we read "the
zeal of the Lord almighty will accomplish this." This word the "zeal"
is an interesting word. It is the same word that is used in the first
commandment where it says "thou shall have no other gods before me for the
Lord thy God is a jealous God." He is a jealous God. The word is
translated "jealous" in the greater number of cases. Jealousy is translated
"zeal" in a number. And one asks right away what can the jealousy of
God have to do with the coming of Christ in this way? But the answer is that
this Hebrew word, we don’t have any exact English equivalent for. It is
translated "jealousy" usually and a number of times it is translated "zeal."
It expresses an emotion on the part of God. A desire for recognition of his
exclusive authority over that which is his. It includes his care for that which
is his. His determination to do all that is best and right for that which is his.
So the word as applied to human beings is a word which usually expresses that
which is not desirable in human beings, but in God it represents his very
rightful determination that he will have no other gods before him, that he is
to have the supreme place and his interest in doing everything the very best
for those who belong to him. You can’t
say translated because our English word doesn’t really get it, but it gets the
something of the idea. The word is more commonly translated "jealousy,"
but if we translate it here "jealousy" I’m sure it would confuse most
readers. With it translated "zeal,"
most readers just pass over without getting much idea from it, but the idea of
the Hebrew word is one which is very important in the whole context. God is
sending his son the Lord Jesus Christ in order to vindicate his honor, in order
to put an end to the power of sin, in order to bring salvation and well- being
to all those who are his.
There we have a break as you notice
a very important break at the end of verse seven. It is a far more important break than at the
beginning of verse 9 and incidentally if any of you want to check any of these
things in your Hebrew Bible in this first part of chapter 9 you will
immediately find yourself in difficulty unless you know Hebrew very well. If
you know Hebrew only fairly well you will immediately find yourself in
difficulty, a difficulty which can be easily solved by noting a very small
point. That point is this that in the Hebrew in chapter 9 what we call verse
seven will be called verse six and what call verse six will be called verse 5
and so on. If you look for the verse if you only know Hebrew fairly well you
will immediately find yourself confused but if you look at the number down one
more and you’ll find it right. The reason for that is rather easy to see when
the archbishop rode on his horse looking into his Latin Bible and deciding
where it would be good to make chapter divisions when he came to this place,
the beginning of chapter nine, he may have realized that this was the place
where the Assyrians first brought the darkness and in that very place Jesus
would bring the light and therefore he included verse 1 of our present in
chapter 9 rather than leaving it in the previous chapter as would seem more
natural.
On the other hand the archbishop may
not have fully understood that we do not know whether or not he did but I feel
quite sure that he was familiar enough with the New Testament to realize that
when Mathew says that when describing the preaching of Christ these things were
fulfilled were done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet
and then quotes these two verses that Matthew quotes a part of verse 1 and part
of verse 2 together and therefore it was reasonable to think they belonged
together. Therefore he may have made his chapter division one verse short it
would have been far better if instead of that if he had made his division after
verse seven where we have a really important change of subject that would have
been much more important.
When the Jews saw what the
archbishop had done by adding chapter divisions they felt that he had rendered
a great service to Bible study by making chapter division because it makes it
so easy to find places. They already had verse divisions those were much
earlier but they didn’t have chapter divisions and therefore the Jews felt that
it would be very helpful to put these chapter divisions into the Hebrew Bible
and so they marked them in following what the archbishop had done in the Latin Bible.
But in maybe one case out of seven or eight they thought he hadn’t made a very
good division and there are a good many places that it may be a good eight or
ten verses off in the numeration, in this case they just made it one verse off
by including 9:1 into chapter 8 of the Hebrew Bible. If you didn’t understand the relation to
Christ or if you didn’t know Matthew's quotation if you’re going to make a
division anywhere earlier than verse seven the logical place would be to make
it is where the Jews do, rather than where we do, because you’re talking about
darkness in all the latter part of chapter eight and also in the first verse of
chapter nine and so they made their chapter division one verse late. So if you’re looking up a verse in a Hebrew Bible
keep that in mind.
Now the old so called American Standard
Version which was issued in 1901 many Bible scholars preferred it to the King
James but it did not take off with the mass of the people and so when the Revised
Standard Version came out they stopped printing it. You’ll hardly ever come
across it anymore actually they made a version which was more up to date than
the King James which corrected some of the words in which the meaning had
greatly changed, but in the course of it they did not give us as good smooth
flowing English as the King James had. With
the mass of the people the somewhat jerkiness of some parts of it detracted
greatly from its acceptance. But one thing in that version that I liked very
much was that wherever the Hebrew numeration differs from the English in the
chapter they put a footnote at the bottom and the footnote would indicate what
verse it was in the Hebrew Bible. That’s very helpful unless you know Hebrew
real well if the chapter starts off ten verses from where the English does you
can sometimes be rather puzzled in finding the exact place. So I’m sorry I
don’t think any of our recent translations versions do give us that helpful
note.
About first seven: I would think
that it refers to David. David was the
one Hebrew king who ruled over great numbers of non-Hebrews. He extended his
dominion over the Philistines, the Ammonites, the Moabites and many other
peoples until he had three times as large a territory as Israel had before. When
you speak of the throne of King David you think of him as the great king of the
Jews but you also think of him as the king that ruled a far larger section than
the Jews had ever ruled at any time and I believe that when it refers to
David’s throne here it refers to the promise of the throne that will eventually
cover the whole world all around. I
would think it includes both. I would think that it begins with the going forth
of the message from Jerusalem which led people to be born again into the
kingdom of God and that they who are born again are truly those who are members
of David’s kingdom and look to Jesus Christ as our leader and of this increase
there is to be no end. I would feel it covers eventually a time when the whole
world will be included by it and therefore there will be no violence and no
evil, at least outward acts, done on this earth.
Transcribed by
: Benjamin Hale, Joy Jeon, Betsey Garry, and Sarah
Hickey and edited by Robyn Putney.
Edited by Ted
Hildebrandt
Re-narrated by
Bill Gates