by
Damien F. Mackey
“For to us a child
is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on
his shoulders. And
he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince
of Peace”.
Isaiah
9:6
Some Christians will, due to
ignorance, take an event (or events) literally
fulfilled already in BC time and project it onto a modern (AD) landscape.
And they will take a biblical reference directed to a specific BC personage and
try to make it apply in a literal
sense to Jesus Christ.
There are various recognised levels of scriptural
interpretation and we firstly need to address the literal (“plain meaning”) level, even though this may not be the
most important level of interpretation.
Since the sacred scriptures are relevant for all times, it
may be that, say, a book of scripture has remarkable resonance with our own
times, though its literal aspect is
based wholly in non-contemporaneous events. Many, for instance, try to bend the
data of the Book of Apocalypse, or Revelation, to fit contemporary, or anticipated
near future, events.
But that is a complete waste of time.
The Apocalypse is, for its most part, centred upon events
leading up to, and culminating in, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD
(conventional dating). See e.g. my series:
Isaiah 7, with its famous sign of the child Immanuel,
cannot reasonably be projected, in its literal
sense, to the era of Jesus Christ, because Immanuel was a literal son of the
prophet Isaiah and the era was clearly the Assyrian era.
But, on a higher (spiritual)
level, the text is perfectly applicable to Jesus Christ, who - though not named
“Immanuel” at the time of his birth (Matthew 1:21): ‘you shall call
his name Jesus’ - was, as a divine Person, more perfectly an Emmanuel (“God is
with us”) than Isaiah’s son could ever be.
And this use of double identification is, I believe, the
way that we should approach Isaiah 9. Whilst Christians can try to make the
whole thing apply to Jesus Christ, and to him alone, and some Jewish
commentators, for example, can make it apply to a BC person, say King Hezekiah,
I would take it to apply literally to
a BC person, but spiritually to Jesus
Christ.
And my preference for the former would definitely be King
Hezekiah of Judah – but I would now supplement him with his alter ego (as I see it) King Josiah of Judah.
See e.g. my article:
'Taking aim on' king Amon - such a wicked king of Judah
Now, Grace Song has done exactly this, connected the Isaian
text to both Hezekiah and Jesus:
https://thirdmill.org/magazine/article.asp?link=http:%5E%5Ethirdmill.org%5Earticles%5Egra_song%5EOT.Grace_Song_article.html&at=Hezekiah%20or%20Jesus:%20Who%20is%20the%20Child%20of%20Isaiah%C2%A09:6-7
Reformed
Perspectives Magazine, Volume 10, Number 14, April 2 to April 8, 2006
|
Hezekiah or Jesus:
Who is the Child of Isaiah 9:6-7
by Grace Song
I. Viewpoint One
There are some Christian Old Testament scholars who treat the
prophecy in Isaiah 9 as referring to the birth
of Hezekiah. There are several issues to be considered in interpretation of the
passage.
1) With respect to the child: The issue is whether the
passage is referring to literal birth or royal succession. R. E. Clement
translates the verse 6 as "For to us a child is born, to us a son is
given", and proposes that it should be understood as a reference to a
royal succession and not to a literal birth. Thus, he concludes that the
passage is referring to the accession of Hezekiah after the death of Ahaz. Gray
in The International Critical Commentary also takes the child in verse 6 as
referring to Hezekiah. He writes, "The ideal standpoint of the poet seems
to be shortly after the birth of the prince, after he has been recognized as
prince of Israel, but before the wide extension of his kingdom has begun."
1
Wildberger also points out the usage of the imperfect
consecutive tense and suggests that this birth is not in the distant future but
it has possibly already taken place.And in the same light, Wildberger takes the
phrase "the sovereign authority came upon (cf. the imperfect consecutive)
his shoulder" as that will make most sense in the context of a royal
enthronement: "This sentence does not assert something about enthronement
but must be interpreted as an act of investiture, by means of which the child
is officially elevated to the status of crown prince and is proclaimed the
future ruler." 2
2) With respect to the names: Wonderful Counselor,
Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace: Clement claims that these titles
portray various functions of the king, using the imagery and ideology of
Egyptian origin: "The series of four names which follow, built up in word
couples, almost certainly derives from the Egyptian practice of giving throne
names to the Pharaoh...The Egyptian practice was for a series of five names to
be given, suggesting that this was originally the case here, and that one name
has been lost in the transmission." 3 Clement explains the
titles as follows: Wonderful Counselor describes the king's role as political
guide; Mighty God emphasizes the extraordinary skill and strength of the king
as a warrior. However, Wildberger cautions against watering down the title and
understanding it as anything less than "mighty God". He explains the
title in relation to the ancient Near Eastern idea of kingship, in which the
king was portrayed as the divinity whom he represents; Everlasting Father
should be understood as "father for ever' and expresses the king's
fatherly concern for the well-being of his people. (Gray also understands the
third title as "Father forever" rather than as "Eternal
Father", and takes its meaning as "the benevolent guardian of his
people so long as he and they endure." He supports his view by giving
other instances in which the word "forever" was used in the Old
Testament which do not necessitate understanding the title as equivalent to
"Eternal Father", which implies the eternity of God: Is.47:7: " You said, ‘I will
continue forever -- the eternal queen..."; Dt 15:17: "Then you shall
take an awl and pierce it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your
servant forever..." Gray also directs attention to Job 29:16 and Is 22:21 where "father"
was used figuratively of a protector and benefactor.) ; Prince of Peace
underscores the king's role as the promoter of peace and prosperity.
3) With respect to the nature of the promise
in verse 7:
Clement takes the proclamation in verse 7, "There will be no end to the
increase of His government or of peace..." as a promise of a solid and
independent kingdom under a Davidic ruler rather than a promise of a great
universal kingdom ruling over many nations -- which was fulfilled in the accession
of Hezekiah who provided a reprieve for the dynasty. Gray also takes the
similar approach to the promise in verse 7 and understands the main thought of
the promise to be that Yahweh will establish and secure a righteous and just
government under the new Davidic dynasty. Wildberger finds several motif in
verse 7: the motif of stable order, the possibility of flourishing development,
the steadfastness and permanence of the rule, and the quality of the rule as
that of justice and righteousness. Yet Wildberger also cautions against taking
the motif of duration in the sense of a strict eschatology. His view is
recapitulated in the following: "This section, 9:1-6, is targeted for a
time which addresses a situation full of distress brought on by foreign domination
... The message is thus not about an absolute, unalterable, eternal plan of
salvation wrought by God. Even if it were incorrect to connect this message
with events surrounding the loss of the territory of Israel to the Assyrians,
the ‘darkness' through which the people were traveling would not refer to the
human condition in general...Isaiah is talking about the birth of a crown
prince, from the house of David. It has either already taken place or, if
"child" and "give" in v.5 are to be interpreted as prophetic
perfects, it will happen in the very near future. ... We have already mentioned
that the widespread term ‘messianic' is problematic as a designation for this
present section. There is no place in the OT which speaks of a Messiah as a
savior figure who comes forth out of the transcendent regions and brings world
history to an end. The child, about whose birth Isaiah speaks in this passage,
will sit upon the throne of David in Jerusalem. Yet without a doubt, his birth
is a salvation event; the future ahead of him will be more than just a drawn
out continuation of the present; it is indeed still history in the normal,
earthly-human realm, but it is at the same time fulfilled history. " 4
II. Viewpoint Two
On the other
side are scholars such as John Oswalt and J. A. Alexander who take the birth of
the child in verse 6 as referring to the birth of Jesus Christ. Both Oswalt and
Alexander reject the view that Isaiah 9:6 is simply a recognition
of the birth of the crown prince Hezekiah for the following reasons: 1) Such
view does not accord with the chronology of Hezekiah's birth; 2) The
description of the child cannot be applied to merely a human king; 3) The
nature of the rule promised in verse 7 transcends a normal earthly rule.
According to Oswalt, the titles in verse 6 are above normal and
highlight the ultimate deity of the child.
Against the attempts to understand the titles as reference to
the Egyptian throne names, he gives the following arguments. First, the
customary practice of Egypt was to give five throne-names to the king upon his
accession. But there are only four names in Isaiah 9; and only speculating
some kind of emendation can add fifth. Second, this is a birth announcement and
not an enthronement hymn. Third, the Egyptian throne-names were expression of
their belief that the kings were gods -- a belief that goes against the grain
of Hebrew monotheism. 5
Oswalt also repudiates the attempt to deny divine attributes
inherent in the titles. For example with respect to the rendering of
"Mighty God" as "great hero", he writes, "Apart from
the attempt to deny deity to the person in question, however there is no reason
to depart from the traditional rendering. Wherever el gibbor elsewhere in the
Bible there is no doubt that the term refers to God (10:21; cf. also Deut 10:17; Jer 32:18)." 6
Along with Oswalt, Alexander repudiates renderings with respect
to "Eternal Father"-- such as "benefactor of the people"
and "founder of a new or everlasting age" -- that exclude and
discredit the obvious meaning of "an eternal being". Besides, Motyer
points out that "Father" is not current in the OT as a title of the
kings, and it is used of the Lord in His concern for the helpless and the care
of His people.
Furthermore, the rule promised in verse 7 transcends a normal
and earthly rule. Thus it could not have been applied to Hezekiah whose rule
was confined to Judah, and which was neither progressive nor perpetual. As Alexander
writes, "The reign here predicted was to be not only peaceful but in every
respect prosperous. And this prosperity, like the reign of which it is
predicted, is to have no limit, either temporal or local. It is to be both
universal and eternal..." 7
III. Evaluation
A proper two-fold consideration must be given in interpreting
the Old Testament prophecy: 1) the original meanings in light of their
historical backgrounds; 2) the covenant theology that undergirds prophetic
writings. Frequently, Isaiah speaks to his contemporaries concerning their own
times, and even his eschatological oracles issue from a historical setting.
Isaiah 9:6-7 is a part of Isaiah's
response to the Assyrian crises in the days of Ahaz, in which Ahaz fails to
trust God and makes Judah an Assyrian vassal state. In the oracles of judgment
and hope surrounding the event, Isaiah pronounces the royal hope of Davidide in
9:6-7. The original audience of Isaiah were Ahaz and the Judahites facing the
Assyrian threat.
Thus, that these were the words of hope held out to the people
living in a situation full of distress brought by Assyrians in the eighth
century BC should not be dismissed, but rather should be underscored.
One of the most crucial issues in approaching this passage is
understanding the relationship between messianism and the Davidic dynasty which
entails the following: 1) The messianic thinking in the prophets is frequently
tied up with specific historical events with the following themes: that the
family of anointed kings would be subject to judgment; that however, their line
would be restored after the exile; and that they would take a leading role in
rebuilding the temple. The prophets often show how the Davidic covenant was to
be interpreted in particular, historical circumstances. 2) The messianic aspect
is inherent in the Davidic covenant.
And the messianic concepts attached to David's dynasty brings a
focus to the hopes offered by the prophets in relation to both the present and
future. 3) Thus much of the messianism found in the prophets is a form of
dynastic messianism (i.e., it expresses a hope that all descendants of David
will be the king par excellence). 4) However, there is another side to this
dynastic messianism. It also pointed to the fact that often the ruler on the
throne at the time fell far short of the ideal, and thus needed to be replaced.
In the end, there will be a seed of David who will not fail but bring to full
realization the hopes for eternal peace and world dominion of righteousness
under Davidic dynasty. 8
Furthermore, the approach of dynastic messianism to the text
takes into the account the undergirding covenant theology of the prophets. Isaiah 9:1-7 seems to be a
recapitulation of the Davidic covenant announced in 2 Samuel 7. In Davidic covenant, the
Lord promises that David's dynasty will never be utterly rejected, although
individual Davidic king may be chastised. This promise of God to David was
extended to contemporary Israelites, as well as pointing ultimately to the
ideal king that is to come, the true king of par excellence typified by David,
Hezekiah, and the like. Thus it is God who raises up the Davidic offspring and
guarantees the continuity of the kingdom forever under the Davidic king in both
Isaiah 9 and 2 Samuel 7.
Thus from all these appears that the royal hope pronounced in Isaiah 9:6-7 had its immediate
reference to the Davidic king born in the prophet's own days (i.e., Hezekiah).
However, it also had a farfetching reference (despite the fact that the prophet
himself probably did not have a full understanding of the exact nature of this
more remote reference) to another king that is to come in ultimate and complete
fulfillment of the pronounced hope -- the one who is the antitype that completely
and truly satisfies all the criteria of the king par excellence. As Daniel
Schibler writes, "What is important is to realize that messianism in
general and messianic prophecies in particular all had a beginning, a terminus
quo. and an end, a terminus ad quem., and in between a whole range
or history of fulfillment. But when Jesus of Nazareth had come, the early
church and generations of Christian following it have believed that, ultimately
speaking, every messianic prophecy, every messianism even, found its
fulfillment in Jesus, the ‘Christ' which... means the Messiah." 9
IV. Conclusion
The major
scholarly consensus with respect to approaching Isaiah 9:6-7 has been either messianic
or Isaianic (i.e., that it is reference to Hezekiah as the awaited king), and
not both. However, in light of "dynastic messianism", the most
appropriate approach to Isaiah 9 seems to be that which
embraces both messianic and Isaianic outlook. Hezekiah does play a major role
in the book of Isaiah. He is the king par excellence that replaces Ahaz, and
the first to be the "child" of Isaiah 9:6. Hezekiah was the first Messiah
for Isaiah and the people living in the eight century BC Judah, for Hezekiah's
birth signified God's presence with them in a most precarious circumstance. 10 Moreover, this oracle of
royal hope was to serve as a model for Hezekiah and the ensuing kings to
follow.
However as Provan notes, Hezekiah as well as the rest of the
earthly Davidic kings that followed-- in the total effect within the context of
the entire book of Isaiah -- was only a type and "a paradigmatic king in
whose reign the promises were in fact as yet unfulfilled, and who thus points
beyond himself to another Davidic monarch to come." 11
Thus, the ultimate fulfillment of the royal hope -- announced
with an immediate reference to the prophet's own day, and with somewhat pale
and shadowy understanding of its remote reference -- began with the birth,
death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, is continuing, and will be consummated
with His glorious return.
Notes
1. George B. Gray, The
International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T & T Clark LTD., 1980), 180.
3. R.E. Clements, New Century
Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980), 108.
5. John Oswalt, The International
Commentary on the OT: The Book of Isaiah
1-39(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1986), 246.
6. Ibid., 247.
7. J.A. Alexander, Commentary on
the Prophecies of Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 205.
8. Philip E. Satterthwaite,
Richard Hess, and Gordon Wenham, eds., The Lord's Anointed ( Grand Rapids:
Baker Books, 1995), 97-104.
9. Ibid., 103.
10. Ibid., 98.
11. Ibid., 83.
No comments:
Post a Comment