Allan MacRae, Isaiah 7-12, Lecture 12
This is lecture
12 delivered by Dr. Allan MacRae at Biblical
Theological Seminary on Isaiah 7-12:
When I asked you some time ago to note the importance of
the various divisions you noticed, that this is a far more important division
than the chapter division at the beginning of chapter 9 and still more
important than the one at the beginning of chapter 10. In fact that division at
the beginning of chapter 10, I think the Archbishop, of course, certainly must
have stumbled at that point and he made his mark where he didn’t intend to
because I can’t believe that he would not see that you have four stanzas, each
of them ending with the same phrase and put three of them before and the fourth
one after with a short change of thought before and after this poem of four stanzas.
I can’t believe he would do that intentionally, so I feel that it must’ve been
that something happened to make him move hurriedly or turn his attention away
from care at that particular point. So we have here what should be one chapter
in Isaiah 9:8-10:4--a chapter with four stanzas.
"The Lord has sent a message against Jacob, it will
fall on Israel" (Isa. 9:8). Now
what is "Jacob" and "Israel." We use the term "Jacob"
as the man who was the grandson of Abraham. We speak of "Israel" as
the nation, but actually God changed Jacob’s name to Israel. So, in Genesis,
there are many places where he is called Israel and there are other places
where he still continues to be called Jacob even after God had changed his
name. Later on it is quite common to refer to the nation by the term "Israel,"
but occasionally the nation is referred to by the term "Jacob,"
particularly in parallelism. And so, I believe in the context here it is not
referring to the individual Jacob, but referring to his descendants and that
these two are parallel, as Hebrew parallelism. "If we send a message against
Jacob, it will fall on Israel."
But then another question comes to us, is he here talking
about the Northern kingdom of Israel, which was the greater part of the region
of Israel. What we now call Israel today, was Philistia in ancient times. What
was then Israel included what we refer to as the West Bank because it is
related to the west bank of the Jordan River, just like California is on the
west bank of the Mississippi River. It is the "West Bank," but it
really was Israel in ancient times. When the kingdom was divided in two parts
the larger part was the Northern Kingdom composed of ten tribes with Ephraim at
their head. So it felt it was "Israel" and in order to avoid confusion the southern part is quite generally
called Judah. After the Northern kingdom was destroyed, naturally the Southern kingdom
again would be what you meant if you referred to Israel. But the word "Israel"
here could mean both parts, or it could mean the Northern kingdom. "And
when you go right on to the next verse, "all the people will know it--Ephraim
and the inhabitants of Samaria" that suggests the Northern kingdom in
Isaiah 9:9. Then as you look on through the whole poem, he is referring, in the
first part to the Northern Kingdom and in the later part to the Southern Kingdom
so I was inclined to think that this first part of it, “the message will fall
on Israel” refers to the whole and then he talks first about the northern part
and then about the southern part.
He says in Isaiah 9:8, “the message is sent against
Jacob, it will fall on Israel.” Then he speaks specifically of the Northern
kingdom, “All the people will know it-- Ephraim and the inhabitants of Samaria--who
say”, the next verse, “the bricks have fallen down, but we will rebuild with dressed
stone. The fig trees have been felled, but we will replace them with cedars.” A
wonderful attitude when you have a great flood, when you have an earthquake,
when things are bad, you don’t sit down in discouragement and say, “Isn’t it
awful? What can we do?” You get busy, rebuild. You rebuild it stronger than it was before.
And so, if it were not for the part that I skipped, the last part of verse nine,
we would say this is describing a very fine and commendable attitude of
persistence and diligence, but unfortunately, commendable as it is from one
view point, it is actually an attitude which receives God’s condemnation
because it is said with pride and arrogance of heart.
If we have a natural catastrophe, if something goes wrong
with us because of our own mistakes and we find ourselves crushed, it is
wonderful if we get up and say we are going to rebuild better than before.
We’re going to make something better than we had before we made this mistake or
before this catastrophe came. But if what comes, comes because God has sent it
to us in order to show us the error of our ways, then the thing we should do is
repent before him and to seek his forgiveness rather than to stand up and defy
him and say well, what we had has been injured, but we’re going to rebuild
better than before. So this verse 10, would be a wonderful model for us when catastrophe
comes that is not due to our sin or do to our mistakes, but when it is said
with pride and arrogance of heart then it deserves God’s condemnation.
It goes on to say in Isaiah 9:11-12 how the Lord has
strengthened their foes against them and they come from all sides and there "devour
Israel with open mouth. For all this" or "in all this" I think
would be better, "in all this, his anger is not turned away, his hand is
still upraised" (Isa. 9:12). The
Hebrew simply is, "in all this." The word "in," is
sometimes used to show the means why all this would not be out of place the
most natural translation is, "in all this." The translation "for all this" is a
rather natural guess in the light of context at the end of this first stanza
but it doesn’t fit the succeeding stanzas.
So I wish that the King James had been more literal and the succeeding
versions hadn’t simply followed the King James in this translation. You can’t be exactly literal in any
translation. There are many things that
if you just put word for word into English they don’t make sense. You have to take context into consideration
in any translation. But there is no word
"yet" in the Hebrew at this point and the word they translate “for”
actually means “in”. Well in this
context with the first phrase here “in all this his anger has not turned away”,
is more clearly expressed to us than by saying “for”. Yet for all this God is not satisfied he has
brought these calamities upon them but they have not repented. His anger is
still against them. The “yet for” in
light of context fits perfectly right here, but it does not fit in the later
stanzas. It is more literally “in” or
simply “in all this”.
Then we go on to the second stanza in Isaiah 9:13-17: “But
the people have not returned to him who struck them nor have they sought the
Lord Almighty. So the Lord will cut off
from Israel both head and tail."
Now there is a figurative expression.
The word “head”—how does a nation have a head? An individual has a head,
but how does a nation have a head? It is
a figurative expression! But whether you
should call “head” a figurative expression, there may be differences of
opinion. Because very frequently
figurative expressions come to be used so much, that they come to lose their
sense as figures and become literal ways of expressing an idea. So we speak of the head of a nation, it’s
originally a figurative expression, but the “head” as we use it is simply a
literal expression. “He’s the head of a
nation,” that is a literal expression now. But the word “tail” isn’t. It is
definitely still figurative. “The head
and the tail he will cut off from Israel.”
The Israelite—no individual Israelite had a tail— the nation as a whole
did not have a tail. It’s simply a figurative way of saying top and
bottom. He is cutting off all parts of
Israel. He will cut off both head and
tail.
Then the next two expressions are very clearly
figurative. “Both palm branch and
reed.” The “palm branch” refers to the
beautiful top of the palm tree, like the head it is the beautiful thing that
stands out. But “the reed” is the little
bushes down by the creek and these thousands of little bushes down by the creeks
don’t amount to anything. The point is
nobody will escape God’s wrath. They
will not escape it because they are such great important leaders that they say,
“Oh well nobody will touch me. I will
run away and take my money with me and be perfectly safe in some other country
no matter what happens.” No, he says
they will not escape neither "the head nor the tail, neither the palm
branch nor the reed." The people in
position of leadership, in most every country in which there has been a
revolution or an overturning in recent years, the leaders have escaped and
taken great sums of money with them to live in affluence in other countries. He says that will not happen there. The leaders will suffer as well as the
people.
But then you could look at it from the other viewpoint,
you could say well, they could sweep over the country and destroy the
leaders—the people that have money, that have influence, the people that have
standing, the people that have skill they will be taken into captivity, but the
rank and file of society will be content with whatever leadership they have. They are not going to suffer. But he says they will suffer too. Both the head and the tail, both the palm
branch and the reed. So there are four
expressions all of which were originally figurative expressions but the head
has become at this time a literal
expression but the other three are definitely figurative.
A literal expression is using a word that is commonly
used to point to the thing we are referring to.
A figurative expression is a comparison usually not expressed as a
comparison but actually substituting for the thing which you are referring
to. Anybody who says he takes the whole
Bible literally is of course talking nonsense because the Bible is full of
figures of speech. But very often a
figurative expression is clearer and more understandable than a literal
expression would be. So to say you don’t
take the Bible all literally doesn’t mean you don’t take it all as true and
doesn’t mean it is necessarily harder to understand. There may be places where figures are very
difficult to understand or there are different possibilities of
interpretation. I like to think of
figures of speech as like salt that is sprinkled over a dish and it
tremendously improves the dish to sprinkle a little salt over it. Every writing of importance has figurative
speech! But if you pour a whole
bucketful of salt on it, you ruin the thing.
So when people take a part of the Bible as entirely figurative, they are
reducing it to nonsense. As I read what
one man said about the book of Revelation, he said, “We should remember it is a
symbolic book and everything in it is a symbol and nothing in it stands for
what it says.” Well that’s reducing its
nonsense. It is a wonderful book of symbols it has many wonderful symbols but
at least three fourths of it has got to be literal or anybody can make it mean
anything he wants to if it is all figurative.
Question from Mr. Kim “What’s the difference between
figurative and allegorical?” Allegorical is carrying the figurative idea to a
much further point. A figure is a word or a single expression that represents
something else. An allegory is where you have a whole story in which all of it
represents something entirely different from what is originally presented
there. An allegory can mean anything and if you know what he’s trying to get
across then the allegory can increase your understanding of it and it would be
very helpful. But if you don’t know what he is trying to get across you may get
something entirely different from an allegory than what was intended if you are
not careful.
Question Mr. Liken, “On the third and forth
days it says ‘in one day God made the final day’, they somehow broke through
the wall and on the twelfth, the city was taken on in one day, in twenty four
hours.” Yes, it’s just a question how literally you’re to take that. I saw a very intelligent man, a man who has
written some very good books about the Scripture; wrote an attack on people for
taking a stand on inerrancy and I was amazed at that and he said in it ‘people
who stand for inerrancy of the Scripture have to do all kinds of a twisting
such as saying that the "days" in Genesis are not "days." Well, what do we mean by "a day"?
The common idea that people have is that a "day" is a period of
twenty-four hours, but if you would write down every time you used the word
“day” for the next month I would be surprised if one of them referred to a
twenty-four hour period. A day does not mean a twenty- four hour period, a day
means a period of activity and is used in Genesis as “there was a day between
darkness and darkness, a period of light between two periods of darkness.” If I
meet you tonight at 11 o’clock somewhere and I say, “Isn’t this a lovely day?”
you’d say, “What are you talking about? This isn’t day at all!” We don’t use
the word “day” to mean twenty-four hours unless we are figuring interest on a
loan or we are making airplane time tables. Otherwise, we never use it to mean
twenty-four hours. It means a period of activity. When Jesus said, “Abraham saw
my day and was glad.” He didn’t mean Abraham saw a particular
twenty-four hour period, he meant that he saw Jesus’ period of activity. So
here where it says "in a single day" in the context clearly it means
a narrow space of time. But I don’t think we can carry it to the point that it
necessarily means between two periods of darkness. Now it might have been but
we don’t know enough about the precise detail of the conquest, to know.
Well then he continues here in chapter 9 verse 15, he
says, “The elders and the prominent men are the head. The prophets who teach
lies are the tail.” That’s a little bit of satire or sarcasm I don’t know which
because these prophets think that they are the people who are giving them true
wisdom and telling them what they should follow when actually Isaiah says that
these folks are so really unimportant that they can just be considered as the
tail. He makes his criticism of the prophets but he’s going to take off head
and tail; the Lord will cut off "those who guide this people and mislead them.
Those who guided are led astray. Therefore, the Lord will take no pleasure in
the young men nor will he pity the fatherless and a widow for everyone is
ungodly and wicked, every mouth speaks vileness. Yet for all his anger is not
turned away" (Isa. 9:16-17). That’s utter nonsense! “Yet in spite of their
wickedness his anger is not turned away”—that doesn’t make sense! The passage
before he is going to give them this terrible punishment and “yet in spite of
that his anger is not turned away.” But
this stanza describes their wickedness and in spite of that his anger will not be
turned away. That doesn’t make sense and the Hebrew doesn’t say that. Somebody
long ago translated the first one very well and in the right context, and most
translations simply follow it in the other stanzas but the Hebrew there is no "yet
theirs," “not even” and most lines in Hebrew tend to start with
"and." But this doesn’t even start with that. Rather it just says "in all this his anger
is not turned away; his hand is still upraised" in all this wickedness
that he has just described his anger is not turned away.
Well, we have the other two stanzas that we have to go on
to, but if you can look ahead a little into the rest of chapter 10 and 11 just
to have it in mind as we discuss it, I think it will add to the value of our
next meeting.
Transcribed
by: Becca Lloyd, Ariel Hansen, Kate
Williams with editor Jessica Jenks
Edited by Ted Hildebrandt
Re-narrated by Bill Gates