Isaiah 9:1-7 (Episcopal; Presbyterian and Lutheran Isa. 9:2-7)

The Righteous Reign of the Coming King (Isa 11.1-9)

9:1 But there will be no gloom for those who were in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he will make glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations.

2 The people who walked in darkness

have seen a great light;

those who lived in a land of deep darkness–

on them light has shined.

3 You have multiplied the nation,

you have increased its joy;

they rejoice before you

as with joy at the harvest,

as people exult when dividing plunder.

4 For the yoke of their burden,

and the bar across their shoulders,

the rod of their oppressor,

you have broken as on the day of Midian.

5 For all the boots of the tramping warriors

and all the garments rolled in blood

shall be burned as fuel for the fire.

6 For a child has been born for us,

a son given to us;

authority rests upon his shoulders;

and he is named

Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,

Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

7 His authority shall grow continually,

and there shall be endless peace

for the throne of David and his kingdom.

He will establish and uphold it

with justice and with righteousness

from this time onward and forevermore.

The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this. (Isaiah 9:1-7, NRSV)

On December 19, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the Third Sunday of Advent, Year One), comments were repeated from December 14, 2004, (Tuesday in the week of the Third Sunday of Advent, Year One); the comments are repeated here with revision and supplement:

Yesterday’s comments ended by quoting the beginning of today’s promise, and noting the way Matthew relates it to the opening of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee. Today’s reading begins by repeating the closing verse yesterday. “But there will be no gloom for those who were in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he will make glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations” (Isa. 9:1 NRSV = Heb. 8:23). This verse concludes the mainly prose paragraphs of chapter 8. The continuation resumes poetic style. “The people who walked in darkness / have seen a great light; / those who lived in a land of deep darkness–on them light has shined” (v. 2 NRSV = Heb. v. 1). Matthew explains Jesus move from Nazareth to Capernaum by quoting from these verses:

so that what had been spoken [‘by the Lord,’ understood, cf. Mt. 1:22] through the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:

Land of Zebulun, land of Naphtali,

on the road by the sea, across the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles–

the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light,

and for those who sat in the region and shadow of death

light has dawned. (Mt. 4:15-16, citing Isa. 9:1-2 = Heb. 8:23-9:1)

“You (singular) have multiplied (t!yB9r4h9, hirbîtā ) the nation,” says the prophet, “you have increased its joy; / they rejoice before you / as with joy at the harvest, / as people exult when dividing plunder” (v. 3 NRSV = Heb. v. 2). According to Victor R. Gold and William L. Holladay, “Filled with borrowed phrases referring to the Davidic monarchy, this passage may have originally celebrated the accession of a Judean king, perhaps Hezekiah; in its present context it describes the coming Messiah as the ideal king” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Isa. 9:2-7). Benjamin D. Sommer also calls this passage a description of “the ideal Davidic king” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Isa. 9:1-6 NJPS 1995, 1999 = Heb. = NRSV vv. 2-7). But he notes that “the verbs are in the past tense,” of which he adds, “Some interpreters view them as examples of the ‘prophetic past,’ which predicts future events using the past tense because they are as good as done” (ibid.; cf. E. Kautzsch and A. E. Cowley, edd., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 2^nd English ed., 1910, 18^th impression1985, sec. 106 n). Note the verbs in bold print in the quotations above and in what follows. With reference to the liberated peoples, the prophet continues. “For the yoke of their burden, / and the bar across their shoulders, / the rod of their oppressor, / you have broken as on the day of Midian” (v. 4 NRSV = Heb. v. 3). For the words “the day of Midian” Joseph Blenkinsopp refers to “Judg. 7:15-25” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Isa. 9:4; cf. J. J. M. Roberts, HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Isa. 9:4), the account of Gideon’s victory over the Midianites. For the fate of the enemy warriors, Isaiah reverts to the future tense–Hebrew perfect tense with the waw consecutive, thus imperfect (i.e., future) in meaning: “For all the boots of the tramping warriors / and all the garments rolled in blood / shall be burned (hp!r2W4l9 ht!y4h!v4, w^ehāy^ethāh liśrē phāh) as fuel for the fire” (v. 5 NRSV = Heb. v. 4). But the perfect (= past) tense returns in the birth announcement. “For a child has been born for us, a son given to us” (v. 6a, b NRSV = Heb. v. 5a, b). This passage has been interpreted as messianic and a reference to Christ, not the least in the chorus, from George Frederick Handel’s Messiah. When Handel set this passage to music, he used the language of the Authorized (King James) Version: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder . . .”

Following his comment about the perfect tense in Hebrew in the sense of the “prophetic past,” that is, future in meaning, Sommer says,

Thus it is not clear whether the Davidic king whose birth and rule are described (vv. 5-6) has already been born (if the verbs are a regular past tense) or will be born in the future (prophetic past). If the former, the v. probably refers to Ahaz’s son Hezekiah, as many modern and rabbinic commentators believe (though other possibilities exist depending on the date of the passage). Most later readers (both Jewish and Christian) understand the passage to describe an ideal future ruler, i.e., the Messiah. (op. cit., on Isa. 9:1-6 NJPS = Heb. = vv. 2-7 NRSV)

The promise about the coming king continues: “authority rests upon his shoulders; / and he is named / Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, / Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (v. 6c, d, e, f NRSV). The recent Jewish translation says, “And authority has settled on his shoulders. / He has been named / ‘The Mighty God is planning grace; / The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler’ ” (v. 5c, d, e, f NJPS = Heb.). Sommer, commenting on the latter, says,

‘The Mighty God . . . ruler’: This long sentence is the throne name of the royal child. Semitic names often consist of sentences that describe God; thus the name Isaiah in Hebrew means ‘The LORD saves’; Hezekiah, ‘The LORD strengthens’; in Akkadian, the name of the Babylonian king Merodach-baladan (Isa. 39:1 means ‘the god Marduk has provided an heir’ these names do not describe that person who holds them but the god whom the parents worship. Similarly, the name given to the child in this v. does not describe that child or attribute divinity to him, contrary to classical Christian readings of this messianic verse. (ibid.)

Sommer here clearly represents a Jewish perspective, not that of a Christian. Blenkinsopp agrees to some extent, but makes room for the Christian interpretation, at least in reference to “Prince of Peace”:

The conferring of throne names is reminiscent of Egyptian practice. As in many Israelite personal names, the deity, not the person named, is being described. Wonderful Counselor, see 5:19; 25:1; Mighty God, see 10:21; Everlasting Father, i.e. God as the eternal creator, see 40:28; Prince of Peace, a messianic title in Judaism and early Christianity. (op. cit., on v. 6 NRSV)

Of this king Isaiah continues: “His authority shall grow continually, / and there shall be endless peace / for the throne of David and his kingdom. / He will establish and uphold it / with justice and with righteousness / from this time onward and forevermore. / The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this” (v. 7 NRSV = Heb. v. 6). Blenkinsopp explains “justice and . . . righteousness, the maintenance of which is preeminently the task of the ruler (11:3b-5; Ps. 72:1-2).

2 Peter 1:12-21

12 Therefore I intend to keep on reminding you of these things, though you know them already and are established in the truth that has come to you. 13 I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to refresh your memory, 14 since I know that my death will come soon, as indeed our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15 And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.

Eyewitnesses of Christ’s Glory (Mt 17.5; Mk 9.7; Lk 9.35)

16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” 18 We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain.

19 So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (2 Peter 1:12-21, NRSV)

On December 4, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year Two), comments were repeated from December 19, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the Third Sunday of Advent, Year One), when comments were combined with revision and adaptation from December 14, 2004, (Tuesday in the week of the Third Sunday of Advent, Year One), and from November 29, 2005 (Tuesday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year Two). Some use was also made of material from an Email message sent December 1, 2003, for ‘December 2, 2003. The combined comments are repeated here.

Peter, speaking directly, or perhaps through a close follower, reminds his readers of his teaching, “the truth that has come to you” (2 Pet. 1:12), referring to the promises and admonitions of the previous paragraph (discussed in yesterday’s comments). Anticipating his death (v. 14), he says, “And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things” (v. 15). “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths,” he says, “when we made known to you the power and coming (parousiva, parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty” (v. 16). He refers briefly, as an eyewitness, to the Transfiguration and the voice from heaven, “This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased” (Mt. 17:1-8; Mk. 9:2-8; Lk. 9:28-36), “For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased’” (2 Pet. 1:17). “We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven,” he says, “while we were with him on the holy mountain” (v. 18). Through this apostolic witness to the majesty of Christ, prophecy is confirmed (v. 19).

Patrick A. Tiller sums this passage up as “Three Solemn Appeals. The writer makes a solemn appeal to Peter’s final words before his death, the Transfiguration of Jesus, and prophetic scripture to reinforce the reliability of the message” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., on 2 Pet. 1:12-21). He adds that “The reference to Peter’s death transforms the letter into a kind of testament in which the speaker gives ethical exhortations and warnings about the future based on his own past experience” (Tiller, on vv. 12-15). The message is not “cleverly devised myths” but the report of “eyewitnesses” (v. 16). The emphasis upon prophecy (v. 19) is characterized as public, not private (v. 20), because of its origin as “men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (v. 21). Prophecy is not merely the human voice of the prophet (v. 20), but the voice of God speaking through the prophet who is “moved by the Holy Spirit” (v. 21). So Peter reminds them/us that, “Since prophecy is inspired by the Spirit, its interpretation must be in accord with God’s intention” (Warren A. Quanbeck and Pheme Perkins, NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on 2 Pet. 1:20-21). Peter speaks here of the Hebrew Bible and its prophetic message about Christ. But later he includes the writings of Paul (2 Pet. 3:15-16) as writings “which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures” (v. 16, my emphasis). Even though “There are some things in them hard to understand” (v. 16), the writer views Paul’s writings as scripture.

Luke 22:54-69

Peter Denies Jesus (Mt 25.69-75; Mk 14.66-72; Jn 18.15-18, 25-27)

54 Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest’s house. But Peter was following at a distance. 55 When they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat among them. 56 Then a servant-girl, seeing him in the firelight, stared at him and said, “This man also was with him.” 57 But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know him.” 58 A little later someone else, on seeing him, said, “You also are one of them.” But Peter said, “Man, I am not!” 59 Then about an hour later still another kept insisting, “Surely this man also was with him; for he is a Galilean.” 60 But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about!” At that moment, while he was still speaking, the cock crowed. 61 The Lord turned and looked at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the cock crows today, you will deny me three times.” 62 And he went out and wept bitterly.

The Mocking and Beating of Jesus (Mt 26.67-68; Mk 14.65)

63 Now the men who were holding Jesus began to mock him and beat him; 64 they also blindfolded him and kept asking him, “Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?” 65 They kept heaping many other insults on him.

Jesus before the Council (Mt 26.57-68; Mk 14.61-64; Jn 18.12-14, 19-24)

66 When day came, the assembly of the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, gathered together, and they brought him to their council. 67 They said, “If you are the Messiah, tell us.” He replied, “If I tell you, you will not believe; 68 and if I question you, you will not answer. 69 But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” (Luke 22:54-69, NRSV)

On July 2 and 3, 2007 (Monday and Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year One), comments on Luke 22:52-62, and Luke 22:63-7, respectively were repeated from June 27 and 28, 2005 (Monday and Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year One), with comparison with comments of December 19, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the Third Sunday of Advent, Year One). Relevant comments are repeated here.

After Jesus rebuked the use of swords by his disciples to defend him from arrest and healed the ear of the high priest’s slave (Lk. 22:50-51), he points out the irony of the secret arrest: “Have you come out with swords and clubs as if I were a bandit? When I was with you day after day in the temple, you did not lay hands on me. But this is your hour, and the power of darkness!" (vv. 52-53). Then Luke turns to the matter of Peter’s denial. For parallel accounts of Jesus’ arrest (part), Peter’s denial, of the Mocking and Beating of Jesus, and of Jesus before the Council in a table based on the sequence in Luke’s Gospel, see the separate file Arrest, Denial, Mocking and Beating, Council.

Luke’s account of Peter’s denials (Lk. 22:54-62) is similar to those of Matthew (26:69-75) and Mark (14:66-72) with minor variations. The others report the denials after the trial before Caiaphas and before Jesus was delivered to Pilate, but Luke reports the denials before the trial before Caiaphas. John’s parallel account is separated into two accounts, a negative response to the woman’s question (Jn. 18:15-18) and two further denials (vv. 25-27) with a hearing before Annas (vv. 19-23), who sent Jesus to Caiaphas (v. 24) sandwiched between. According to Obery M. Hendricks, “Annas, though deposed as high priest by the Romans in 15 CE, was still the leading influence among the religious authorities through his son-in-law Caiaphas . . . and five sons who succeeded him” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Jn. 18:13). “Caiaphas,” he adds, “was high priest 18-36 CE” (ibid., on Jn. 11:49).

According to Luke, Jesus “was following at a distance” as Jesus was led away to the high priest’s house” (Lk. 22:54). It was in the courtyard of that house, around the fire (v. 55), that he was pointed out as one who was “with him” [i.e. with Jesus], first by a “servant-girl” (v. 56), then by another (v. 58), and later by another (v. 59). Matthew and Mark report the accusations of Peter by bystanders, addressing the hearers in the second person, “You also were with Jesus” (Mk. 14:67; Mt. 26:69), third person, “This man is one of them” (Mk. 14:69; cf. Mt. 26:71), and second person, “Certainly you are one of them” (Mk. 14:70; cf. Mt. 26:73), in that order. Luke reverses this pattern, using third person (Lk. 22:56), second person (v. 58), and third person (v. 59). These differences don’t appear to represent Luke’s editing, but rather minor differences in the reporting of eyewitnesses. Peter denied these accusations in turn and while still completing the third denial, “the cock crowed” (Lk. 22:60), as Jesus had predicted (v. 34). “Jesus’ turning to face Peter is a detail found only in Luke” (Marion Lloyd Soards, NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on v. 61). Eric Franklin says, “The failure of Peter is made less drastic in both Matthew and Luke by the inclusion of only one cock-crow” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 956, on Lk. 22:64-65). The statement that Peter “went out and wept bitterly” (v. 62; cf. Mk. 14:72 at the end; Mt. 26:75 at the end), “absent from at least one MS. . . .  is more likely to be his own [i.e. Luke’s own] conclusion to his dramatic mention of Jesus’ glance (Lk. 22:61). It marks the beginning of the Lord’s rescue of Peter and the preparation for his strengthening of the others [vv. 31-2]” ibid.). Luke apparently assumes that the trial before the Council did not occur until morning (v. 66; cf. Mk. 14:53-56; Mt. 26:57-59). According to Franklin, “This has the result of removing the mockery of Jesus, which took place during the night, from the members of the council and also of lessening the contrast between Peter’s weakness and Jesus’ steadfastness” (ibid.).

If Peter could deny the Lord as he did, and later find forgiveness and acceptance, those of us who have also failed at times should take heart. As for the accusation of Jesus–Messiah, Son of Man, Son of God, King of the Jews (as they put it in the inscription on the cross)–though Caiaphas and his supporters choked on it, we believe it. We are grateful for the grace that found ways to restore Peter after his denials, and also for the grace available to restore us when needed. Our failures may not be on the order of Peter’s denials, but we are in as much need of God’s grace as he was.

According to Luke, before the Council Jesus is asked, “If you are the Messiah, tell us,” to which he replied, “If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I question you, you will not answer” (Lk. 22:67-68; cf. Mk. 14:61b; Mt. 26:63b). Then Jesus adds, “But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God” (Lk. 22:69), in language which reflects part of Jesus’ answer according to Mark. “I am; and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right and of the Power,’ and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven’” (Mk. 14:62; cf. Mt. 26:64). According to C. Clifton Black, as revised by Adela Yarbro Collins, “The advent of a royal Son of Man combines imagery in Ps. 110:1; Dan. 7:13-14” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Mk. 14:62). They add that “The Power [is] a reference to the deity that may reflect contemporary and later respectful avoidance of pronouncing God’s name” (Ibid.). As Franklin observes,

The council rather addresses directly the question of Jesus’ status. ‘If you are the Christ, tell us’. Jesus’ reply has two parts. vv. 67b-8 point to their total perversity. They will neither believe, nor even acknowledge, the truth. They will not accept him as Christ in the manner that they should, but they would like to hear from him a declaration of messiahship which could be reported to Pilate as subversive. Jesus refuses to fall into their trap but answers in a way that defines his status in terms which transcend their categories. From this point in time ((emphatic in Luke), he will be exalted to the right hand of God. (loc. cit.)

As noted above, Mark’s version of Jesus response refers to the future, when the Son of Man is “seated at the right hand of the Power,” and is “coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mk. 14:62, citing Dan. 7:12 and Ps. 110:1. Luke’s version “makes no mention of a future, visible coming (Mk. 14:62),” says Franklin. “Jesus’ exaltation will be for the eyes of faith alone. It is that event which forms the contents of both his claims and the disciples’ belief” (ibid.). In Luke, the Council’s final question is, “are you, then, the Son of god?” (Lk. 22:70a); compare Mark’s version, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” (Mk. 14:61; cf. Mt. 26:63, with “the Messiah the Son of God” for Mark’s “the Son of the Blessed One”). But in Luke this question comes after the reference to the Son of Man as “seated at the right hand of the power of God.” Franklin says this question “acknowledges the significance of the [preceding] declaration,” for “This [‘the Son of God’] has a deeper significance than ‘Christ’, and Franklin adds:

It recalls the second part of the angel’s declaration to Mary (1:35) and foreshadows the preaching in Acts (9:20; 13:33). In the light of Mt. 26:64, Jesus’ reply seems to be an acceptance of the implications of the question and a witness to their recognition of them. Their perversity however makes them disown him and refuse their own insights. Their accusations before Pilate reveal just how great that perversity is (23:2). (ibid.)

Luke thinks like a historian and emphasizes elements of the story that have implications for the longer perspective.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net