BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 78
October, 1995
Copyright 1995, Biblical Horizons
Higher critics have, for a long time, posited a Second Isaiah to account for the structural and tone differences in the book from chapter 40 on. Now, we do believe in a Second Isaiah, but believe that the form critics have generally suffered from a lack of imagination both in dealing with the capacities of Isaiah Number One and in discerning who in truth Number Two really was. Isaiah Number Two, and the Greater Isaiah, was most assuredly Jesus.
Jesus taught parabolically and in hidden, almost riddle form for most of His ministry. His disciples questioned Him as to why, and His response was (to interpret), "I teach this way because I am the second and greater Isaiah." When Isaiah was called and commissioned, God told him to preach to this end: the utter destruction of Israel. Isaiah was to preach
Until cities waste without inhabitant,
and houses without men,
and the land is utterly desolate (Is. 6:11),
which points forward beyond the time of Isaiah to the Diaspora into Babylonia. And, in a sense, Isaiah was called to be an ironist. His very preaching, which would render the people irreversibly guilty, would be unnoticed and unheard.
Go and say to this people:
Hear and hear, but do not understand;
see and see, but do not perceive (Is. 6:9).
Jesus too was an ironist, a preacher crying aloud, who, while speaking the language of the people, was utterly incomprehensible to the nation’s leadership. These people, too would go into captivity, and Israel would be destroyed for the second time, because of the Second Isaiah’s preaching.
Hence, Jesus was both the fulfillment of these prophesies in Isaiah (since He was the Holy Seed that was left in the stump in Is. 6:13), and the typological fulfillment of Isaiah himself.
The background to Isaiah 6:9-10, and of Jesus’ subsequent quotation of it in His own ministry, is enlightening. The first place we encounter language of this sort is in two of the Psalms: 115 and 135. (For some of what follows, I owe much to Owen Barfield in his book, Saving the Appearances.) The intention of these Psalms is to contrast the living Jehovah with the dead idols.
Why should the nations say,
"Where is their God?"
Our God is in the heavens;
He does whatever He pleases.
Their idols are silver and gold,
the work of men’s hands.
They have mouths, but do not speak;
eyes, but do not see.
They have ears, but do not hear;
noses, but do not smell.
They have hands, but do not feel;
feet, but do not walk;
and they do not make a sound in their
throat.
Those who make them are like them;
so are all who trust in them.
(Psalm 115:2-8)
The borrowing of language in Isaiah is very clear. He is accusing Israel of being no different from the nations. They are makers of idols. And beyond that, all of the consequent spiritual afflictions that plague the heathen are now the sicknesses of Israel. The Invisibility of the God of Abraham, which was such a stumbling block to the heathen, is now a scandal to Israel too. God’s invisibility has been transformed into unfindability and unknowableness. But this unknowableness does not have its roots in God Himself; it is a moral consequence of making and worshipping idols. If one worships a stone, one will become a stone. The consequence will be blindness in the face of the obvious, the hearing of cacophony instead of the word, paralysis on the highway of holiness, and a mouth that can only roar with folly. Israel has blinded and deafened herself with idols, and Isaiah’s preaching (which will render Israel inexcusable) will never be heard. Israel must go into captivity.
Now we know that a part of God’s purpose in sending Israel into captivity was precisely to cure them of their addiction to idols. And this He did. "And the idols shall utterly pass away." "Then you will defile your silver-covered graven images and your gold-plated molten images. You will scatter them as unclean things; you will say to them `Begone!’" (Is. 2:18, 30:22). After the captivity, Israel was never again troubled with this sin. This is what makes Jesus’ quotation of the passage so interesting. What would be the relevance?
In Matthew 12 and Luke 11, Jesus tells a parable of an unclean spirit that goes out of a man and, unable to find rest, returns to the swept and clean home with seven other spirits more evil than himself. The context of this is interesting. In Isaiah 35:5-6, Isaiah prophesies of the coming age as being exemplified by the following miracles: The blind will see, the deaf will hear, the lame will walk, and the dumb will sing. In other words, they will be miraculously healed of idols and the afflictions of idols. Of the major classes of miracles performed by Jesus, these exact miracles are amongst them. Immediately prior to Jesus’ telling the above mentioned parable, He healed a blind and dumb demoniac. This prompts the Pharisees to accuse Him of doing this by the power of Satan. Jesus gives a stinging rebuke to this, whereupon the Pharisees have the temerity to ask Him for a sign. This is astonishing. They have eyes but do not see. Then Jesus tells the parable. The meaning is this: Israel in captivity was cured of external idolatry, but, not then being filled with the Spirit of God, and not loving God, they have now become something seven times worse. The Scribes and the Pharisees now worship their own works and their own righteousness.
With the Scribes and the Pharisees and the Sadducees, we have the beginnings of modern man, the beginnings of the worship of self. If you worship yourself in any form, your disease is seven times worse than ancient idolatry, and the results are precisely the same. Self-worship will turn men into stones, render them blind, deaf, and dumb, and paralyze them on the highway of holiness. These men will, like the heathen, say "Where is your God?", and will declare Him dead or absent.
Now there is a last curious fact. The Book of Acts likewise ends with this same quotation from Isaiah (Acts 28:25-28). Paul applies it to the stubborn and unbelieving Jews, and now tells them he is going to go to those very heathen that Psalms 115 and 135 were written about in the first place, and they will listen. A full circle has been made. This is the third application of these original Psalms to Israel. It has passed through Isaiah, to Jesus, to Paul. In each instance, there are some who are saved and others who are further hardened. This is now a three-fold hardening that has come upon Israel, and God is done with Israel.
Where are we in this cycle? America is surely at least two-fold hardened, and perhaps we are moving toward the third. About this I do not know. But what is clear is that, more than ever, America is Self-Intoxicated, and it is harder than ever to get any hearing for the Gospel. Any man who attempts evangelism with an Arminian theology is bound to be deeply disillusioned in the contemporary world. For men to be saved it is increasingly clear that a purely supernatural miracle is required so that the blind can see, the deaf hear, and the dumb sing for joy. And, it is clear that we are in danger of losing our Gospel privileges. In many places in the third world, the Gospel is heard with great joy. Romans 11:7-8 is very liable to become our legacy:
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 78
October, 1995
Copyright 1995, Biblical Horizons
A couple of the most serious mistranslations in our Bibles are found in the book of Leviticus. The main reason these errors have gone unreformed, I believe, is because Leviticus is simply not studied often enough, so the problem has never been fully addressed.
The first mistranslation is found right away in Leviticus 1, where the Hebrew word `olah is mistranslated "burnt offering." While it is true that the offering is (usually) burned, the word `olah does not mean "burnt." It means "ascend." Jacob Milgrom, in his Anchor Bible commentary on Leviticus (1991), writes, "`ola literally means `that which ascends,’ . . ." (p. 172). Milgrom does not like the translation "ascension," however. He writes: "`Ascending offering,’ the name suggested by the root meaning of the verb `ala, is meaningful only if it refers to the incineration of the sacrifice on the altar" (p. 173).
This is not very persuasive. By associating the `olah with burning instead of with ascending, Milgrom misses all kinds of important connections, and thus is forced to misinterpret to some extend the meaning of the offering itself. The verb `alah is used for the arising of the morning, the arising of blossoms from plants (consider Aaron’s rod), going up on God’s holy mountain, going up into the holy land, going up to a rooftop, going up to Jerusalem, going up by steps to God’s altar, angels ascending and descending upon a ladder to heaven, God’s Glory Cloud ascending from His throne in the Tabernacle to lead the people, and animals bringing up the cud to chew. These are but a few of the many kinds of ascensions one finds in a Hebrew concordance.
Once we see that the proper translation is Ascension Offering, we realize several things. First, when the animal is put onto the fire of the altar, this is not a sign of judgment. It is the killing of the animal that is the substitutionary death of the animal for the sinner. The fire represents God’s presence, and the animal is given to God, and then ascends into heaven. This is a type of Jesus’ own ascension.
Thus, second, the Ascension Offering speaks of Jesus’ ascension into heaven, and our ascension with Him. This means that Jesus’ ascension has a greater meaning than we usually give it.
Third, the Ascension Offering ties in with all the other ascensions of people in the Bible: going up on a mountain, going up to an altar, going up to a rooftop or upper room, and going up to Jerusalem. These are all pictures of approaching God, who dwells in heaven, above the firmament.
Fourth, a proper translation may answer a long-standing question: Why do clean animals have to bring up the cud? (Leviticus 11:2-8). Clean animals must wear sandals, and thus avoid the curse-prosecuting soil, but their hooves must resemble those of the altar-cherubim (Ezekiel 1:7). The symbolism may well be that these clean animals image the throne of God. The animals bring up their food into their heads and chew it. The fiery cherubim bring up the sacrifices to God, the Head, for Him to "chew" in the sense of purifying the offering. Thus, God brings us up into his mouth to "chew" us, sanctifying and purifying us (compare Revelation 3:16). Note that the first face of the cherubim is the ox-face, representing the sacrificial system of the Mosaic era.
Finally, though we could go on further, a proper translation settles once and for all Jephthah’s vow in Judges 11:29-31. The Holy Spirit compelled Jephthah to promise to offer as an ascension the first person who greeted him from his house after the battle. That person was his daughter. Clearly, the Holy Spirit did not impel Jephthah to promise to burn anyone up! Rather, Jephthah’s daughter was sent up to God’s house, and served Him for the rest of her life.
The second serious mistranslation is found in Leviticus 2, and associated passages. Here we have the minchah offering. Minchah means "gift" or "tribute," and so the offering should be called a Tribute Offering. It is true that the offering consisted of grain, though it also included oil and incense, and later, wine. It is simply a mistranslation to call it a Cereal, Grain, Meal, or (in the older English of the King James) a Meat offering.
The Tribute Offering is something we give to God. It can only be given on top of the Ascension Offering, because only in Christ can we offer anything to the Father.
Once we have this translation correct, we can see clearly the following matters. First, we can get the order of the sacrifice clearly in mind. 1. The animal is slain and its blood displayed before God. This atones for sin. 2. The animal is cut up, and the clean head and inner parts ascend to God. This foreshadows the ascension of Christ. 3. The unclean feet and inner parts are washed. This points to our baptism. 4. The baptized parts are sent up to God. This points to our ascension into the heavenlies in union with Christ, our Head. 5. Now we bring our own tribute to God, which is sent up to Him in the fire also.
Second, we can understand the meaning of the Tribute Offering. No matter how the grain is prepared, it is always broken up, and a "memorial portion" is sent up to God. Then a libation of wine is put with it (Num. 15). This ties directly to the Lord’s Supper. The bread is broken, and then the wine is served, and these are done "In memory of Me," or better, "As My memorial." The breaking of the bread displays the death of Christ to the Father. Our gift, which we offer the Father, is Jesus Himself. We offer Him Jesus’ death. We remind Him ("memorial") of Jesus’ death. When we eat the bread, we show the Father that we accept Jesus into ourselves, and when we drink the wine, we show that we accept Jesus’ death, so that we die more and more to sin and live more and more to righteousness.
Third, we can see that the Tribute Offering comes before and covers all our other tithes and gifts. We offer Jesus to the Father first, and then everything else in union with Him.
Until such time as we get proper translations of these two words, these truths will be obscured. To my knowledge, every available translation is in error as regards these two terms. Further reformation is, thus, needed.
Biblical Chronology Vol. 7, No. 10
October, 1995
Copyright James B. Jordan 1995
The contents of this article will be published in a commentary. If you wish to be notified when the commentary becomes available, please click the link below and send a blank e-mail to the webmaster. Thank you.
webmaster@biblicalhorizons.com
