In our culture, names are usually nothing more than labels for identification. The name we use to address a person, for instance, often indicates our relationship to him. According to my upbringing, we tend to call only good acquaintances by their first names. Further, we may address by first name someone whom we consider beneath our station in life, such as an employee, but we would not presume to call a superior by his first name. Nevertheless, we tend to be thrilled when a boss addresses us by our first name, inferring correctly or incorrectly that he really knows and cares about us. I suppose I will never forget the day my principal Old Testament professor and mentor called me “Mike” for the first time. I took that as a sign that I was worthy and capable in his estimation of pursuing my degree. I was such an impressionable kid. We served as colleagues for years and have been friends, but to this day I find it awkward to address him by his first name. I’ll call him by his last name without using his degree title, but that irreverent circumlocution is as far as I can go.
Although our first names are in some way special, their use or nonuse does not depend on what the names may mean etymologically or historically. They’re just labels. They can identify us, but they do not describe us.
Nicknames are something else. Not only do they identify an individual, but they also describe something about him. We assign nicknames to public figures as well as those who are close to us. Husbands and wives often refer to each other with particular and sometimes peculiar names. Terms of endearment like “honey” and “sweetheart” are well-worn and may show little imagination, but they are nonetheless special, communicating something only to each other. Nicknames communicate something about a person. We sometimes refer to people by the position they hold or occupation they perform: Mr. President, Mr. Chairman, Pastor. These are not exactly nicknames, but the titles effectively reveal something about the person.
There is a point to all this. The names of God are more than simply labels: they are means by which God reveals something about His person, His perfections, and His work. They both identify and describe. What is true about the names of God generally is true about the names of Christ specifically. The Old Testament contains many names or titles of Christ that draw attention to some particular aspect of His person or His work. The use of these special titles for Messiah was an effective way for advancing knowledge about Him in the Old Testament dispensation and an effective way for teaching us about Christ in this dispensation, because He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
I call them special titles because they are not proper names in the technical sense. Many of them are just common nouns or expressions that are used for personal designation. The technical term for this is an appellative, a common noun used as a descriptive name. Because many of these messianic titles are common nouns, they are not always immediately recognizable. The Authorized Version helps at times by capitalizing the expressions, but it does not do so consistently. For instance, one of the key titles is “branch.” Twice in Zechariah, the Authorized Version has “BRANCH,” twice in Jeremiah it has “Branch,” and yet in Isaiah it simply has “branch.” In each instance it is the same word in the original, referring each time to the same Messiah. Recognizing it as a title for Christ is easy enough when we come across it in Jeremiah and especially easy in Zechariah, but it requires a bit more attention in Isaiah because the translation does not give us any obvious clue. That’s fine, because the Hebrew text never distinguishes words in that way. It does not use what we would call capital or lowercase letters; all the letters are the same size.
We need to be able, then, to identify these descriptive “names” even when the words do not appear to be names. When we see personality or personal traits or activity associated with what seems to be a common noun or expression, we should pause to consider whether this could actually be a title for Christ. So when I see “wisdom” in Proverbs speaking and acting, I need to compare what wisdom says and does with what I know Messiah says and does to see if there may be some connection. This analogical method— or “analogy of Scripture” principle of interpretation—will often suggest and justify identifying certain common nouns as titles for Messiah.
Although there are many specific titles, I want to focus on the two I’ve mentioned: Christ as the Branch and Christ as Wisdom. Both of these are rich and instructive.
Branch
This is one of the most significant of messianic titles, occurring in five passages: Isaiah 4:2; Jeremiah 23:5 and 33:15; and Zechariah 3:8 and 6:12. Its import is augmented not only by the imagery suggested by the word itself, but also by the specific contexts that heap up important information about the identity and mission of the Branch. At first consideration, this does not appear to be a particularly flattering expression. This common noun is based on a root verb that means to sprout or bud. It refers to a new shoot that buds on a stump or in unexpected and unwanted places.
Although Ezekiel does not use the word with messianic significance, he illustrates the basic sense of the term in his allegory of the two eagles and the transplanted cedar branches (Ezek. 17). The verb form occurs at the beginning of verse 6. Not long after the cut-off branch was planted, it “sprouted,” showing signs of new life. The noun form occurs in the middle of verse 9, where the Lord asks whether the leaves on this new sprout will wither. There was a sign of new life, but it was so fragile that survival seemed unlikely. It is not referring to the large, strong boughs that extend majestically from a well-rooted tree; it refers to something that is tender and fragile yet full of promising life in an unlikely place.
General Significance
This imagery underscores each of the messianic references in two ways. First, that the Messiah is a “Branch” vividly pictures His humiliation. The Messiah would not and did not appear with all the pomp, circumstance, and manifest glory that He deserved and that inherently and eternally was His. On the contrary, He humbled Himself, becoming man and becoming obedient as a humble servant unto the death of the cross (Phil. 2:6-8). There was nothing about Christ that to natural sight would identify Him as the eternal Son of God; He appeared as an ordinary man. Using different words but the same imagery, Isaiah prophesied, “He shall grow up before him as tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him” (Isa. 53:2). So many who saw Christ with their natural eyes during the years of His earthly life saw nothing that convinced them that He was the Messiah. He was despised and rejected of men (Isa. 53:3); He came unto His own and they did not receive Him ( John 1:11). What condescension it was for God to become manifest in flesh!
Second, that the Messiah is a “Branch” vividly testifies to God’s faithful fulfilling of the covenant promise. This title has a special link to the Seed promise that reached its Old Testament climax in the covenant promise to David. Remember that in the Davidic covenant, God promised that David’s Seed would sit forever on the throne, ruling a universal and everlasting kingdom (2 Sam. 7). King after king sat on David’s throne, each one disqualified to be the ultimate and unconditional fulfillment of the promise. When the Seed finally came, there was no king at all from David’s family, and there had not been for hundreds of years. From every natural perspective, it appeared that David’s dynasty was defunct and the promise passé. But from the stump of David’s fallen kingdom, there appeared a new green shoot of life. There was life in the promise; the Ideal King had arrived. Summed up in the title “Branch” is Paul’s declaration, “For all the promises of God in him (that is in Christ) are yea, and in him Amen” (2 Cor. 1:20). The title “Branch” discloses the real humanity of Messiah by linking His lineage to David’s. As we look briefly at the specific Branch passages, keep in mind that in addition to the particular focus of the text, each reference declares the humble humanity of Christ as the fulfillment of the covenant promise.
The Branch As God
Isaiah 4:2 is the first messianic reference: “In that day shall the branch of the LORD be beautiful and glorious.” Although the Authorized Version does not capitalize the word, I believe that it is used here as a title of Messiah. The temporal statement “in that day” that begins the verse marks this as a Day of the Lord. The Day of the Lord designates those special, epochal times when God interrupts the affairs of history to directly accomplish His purpose, either in judging the wicked or in blessing the righteous. The Day of the Lord is eternity breaking into time. The Old Testament speaks of many different days, some now past (e.g., the destruction of Edom, Babylon, and Jerusalem; the blessing of Pentecost) and one climactic day still to come in the eschatological future. The essence of the blessing of that day is the beautiful and glorious presence of the Branch of the Lord. The special contribution this text makes to Branch theology is the association between the Branch and Jehovah. There is always an interpretation challenge presented by this “X of Y” relationship between words. I suggest an appositional relationship here: the Branch who is Jehovah. Given that the humanity of Messiah is declared by the term “branch,” and that Jehovah is the unique name of the one true and living God, the full expression “Branch of the Lord” declares the Messiah to be the God/ Man. He is one person with two distinct natures. This is singularly true of Christ. Traditionally, interpreters have paralleled Isaiah’s affirmation of the deity of the Branch to John’s particular emphasis in his Gospel of Christ as the Son of God.
The Branch As King
Jeremiah 23:5 and 33:15 constitute a single context; these texts say virtually the same thing. Like Isaiah, Jeremiah sets this text within the framework of the Day of the Lord. But the Scripture in one way or another weds blessings—whether spiritual, historical, or eschatological —to Christ. The saving of Judah and safety of Israel that Jeremiah foresees are possible only because of the Branch. Jeremiah, more explicitly than Isaiah or Zechariah, links the Branch title directly to David: “I will raise unto David a righteous Branch” (23:5); “will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David” (33:15). Two features about the Branch stand out in Jeremiah’s description: the Branch will be righteous, and the Branch will be King. His kingship is expected as the natural descendant (Seed) of David. His righteousness marks Him as the fulfillment of the Ideal Kingship promised to appear in the tribe of Judah and perpetuate in the family of David.
David himself understood this. In his last words, the sweet psalmist repeated God’s word to him: “He that ruleth over men must be just [i.e., righteous], ruling in the fear of God.” He then confessed, “Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow” (2 Sam. 23:3, 5). The delay in the coming of that King did not dissuade David from seeing in Him the fulfillment of God’s requirements for Kingship and God’s promise of that King who would be both the salvation and the desire of His people. What David anticipated, Jeremiah in this context describes. Traditionally, interpreters have paralleled Jeremiah’s Branch to Matthew’s presentation of Christ as King.
To understand the full beauty of the text, we have to know what righteousness means. I am going to use a couple of words that may be unfamiliar, but I will define what I mean. The concept of righteousness can be either stative or fientive. Stative refers to a condition of existence; fientive refers to activity. In other words, righteousness refers either to what someone is or to what someone does. The essential idea of righteousness is straightness or conformity to a standard. It is an absolute term. There is no such thing as “almost righteous.” The slightest deviation from the standard renders someone unrighteous. Further, the standard determines the significance of righteousness. Although the righteousness of Christ extends to every single aspect and element of God’s perfect law, in this context the standard is the requirements of God for the King. Jeremiah draws particular attention to the active sense of the word; the Branch always does the right thing (“He does justice and righteousness in the earth”). The Branch actively behaves according to the demands of God, accomplishing everything God has promised and purposed in the Davidic covenant. He is the ideal, messianic King. No other son of David ever came close or ever could come close to doing everything demanded by the law of God. Such statements that transcend mere human application are clues to messianic identification.
Jeremiah removed all doubt concerning the identity of the Branch when he said, “This is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS” (23:6). It is little wonder that the translators capitalized that whole title. What a name! I can only be suggestive here, but I want you to think about two great truths in this name. First, the Branch is Jehovah, an explicit declaration of His deity. Second, the Branch is the justification of His people. Encapsulated in this statement is the doctrine of justification. The stative sense of righteousness is in view here: God regards us to be in a state or condition of perfect conformity to His standard not on the basis of our acts, but on the basis of Christ’s acts. Christ’s acts of righteousness result in our state of righteousness. Jeremiah’s subtle variation of the statement in 33:16 suggests this: “This is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness.” Notice that the word “name” is italicized in the Authorized Version, and it says “she” instead of “he.” The “she” refers to the nation of Israel representing God’s people that will be gloriously saved. What the text says about her is true for believers in every age. Whereas Jeremiah named the Branch in chapter 23, in chapter 33 he declared that name as having reference to and benefit for His people. The literal translation is “and this will be called for her—The Lord our righteousness.” Rather than being the name of the people, it is the message of the gospel that will be preached to them whereby they will be saved. That Christ is our righteousness is the everlasting gospel. How much Jeremiah declared in that name!
The Branch As Servant
Zechariah 3:8 identifies the Branch as the servant of the Lord. Traditionally, interpreters have paralleled Zechariah’s naming of the Branch as servant with Mark’s presentation of Christ as the Servant of the Lord. The significance of the title “servant” is itself far-reaching, warranting its own discussion. But for now, let’s focus on how Zechariah uses the title “Branch.” It is important to note that Zechariah did not employ the title without factoring in all the preceding revelation. We must keep this in mind when we interpret what Zechariah says. It is also a good example for us to follow when doing our Bible study: we must factor in what God has already said about a matter when considering the topic in the context being studied. By Zechariah’s time (sixth century BC), the “Branch” was part of official and inspired messianic vocabulary. No doubt Zechariah knew well the prophecies of Isaiah (eighth century BC) and Jeremiah (seventh–sixth centuries BC). He knew that the Branch was the God/Man who is the ground of the justification of all believers. It is particularly Jeremiah’s special name of the Branch as “the Lord our Righteousness” that Zechariah builds upon in this text. I regard Zechariah’s vision in this chapter to be one of the most vivid pictures anywhere of God’s gracious act of justifying sinners.
Four things stand out in this text. First is the need for justification. The passage begins with a judicial scene in which Joshua, the high priest, is standing before the Angel of the Lord and is being accused by Satan. As the high priest, he is serving as man’s representative, an accurate picture of how every man on his own stands before God. He stands silently, dressed in detestably filthy garments with no self- defense before the Judge. This scene vividly and graphically pictures how man appears before God in all the filthy rags of his own righteousness. Because of unrighteousness, all men are guilty before the just God.
Second is the act of justification. Seemingly out of the blue, God rebukes Satan and rescues Joshua as a brand plucked from the burning. Joshua was accepted before the Lord and allowed to stand in His presence. The text highlights two essential elements of that acceptance. First, the Lord graciously pardoned sin. This is pictured by the removal of the filthy garments and explained directly: “I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee” (3:4). The guilt and, therefore, the liability for punishment and penalty were removed. Second, the Lord provided righteousness. Not only were the filthy garments removed, but they were replaced with costly and glorious clothes. This represents that robe of righteousness, the garment of salvation, that renders the wearer presentable before the Lord. In justification, God both pardons sin and imputes the righteousness of Christ.
Third is the grounds of justification. God’s pardoning sinners is gracious, but it is not capricious. This brings us to the Branch. It is the Lord’s sending the Branch that would be the meritorious grounds by which He justifies sinners. That the Branch is called the servant, charged with all Isaiah’s theology, speaks of His humble obedience both in life and to death. I would suggest the reference to iniquity’s being removed in one day (3:9) points to His cross, the only place where iniquity was effectively removed.
Fourth is the demand of justification. Zechariah makes it clear that a change in legal standing demands a change in moral behavior. Justification always issues in sanctification; position always effects experience. Grace never leaves a man where it finds him. Those justified are to persevere in godliness by walking in God’s ways, keeping His charge, and maintaining justice (3:7). Those justified are to be like Christ; they are to imitate and represent Him. Zechariah described Joshua and his fellows as “men wondered at” (3:8). Literally, they were “men of a sign,” men who were to be types of something else; they were to signify the Branch.
The Branch As Man
Zechariah 6:12 is the last reference to the messianic Branch: “Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH.” Traditionally, interpreters have paralleled Zechariah’s identification of the Branch as man with Luke’s presentation of Christ as the Son of Man. The particular focus of this text is the uniting of the offices of priest and king in the person of the Branch. Remember the important dichotomy between these two mediatorial offices. It is an inviolable messianic clue that whenever these two offices are united in a single person, it must be referring to Christ. As an object lesson of the coming Priest/ King, Joshua the high priest is crowned with a splendid royal crown (6:11). That visible picture prophecy of a priest wearing a crown led to the declaration that the man named Branch would come, build the temple of the Lord, and “sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon this throne” (6:12-13). The significance is obvious. Inherent in the term “Branch” is the identification with the royal line of David. That the Branch is identified as man helps establish the priestly connection with Joshua because a priest had to be one of those he represented. Humanity is an essential qualification for messianic priesthood. The evidence is overwhelming in this context: the Branch is the Ideal Messiah.
One More
Although translating a different Hebrew word from the one we have been considering, the Authorized Version uses the word “Branch” one other time to designate the Messiah. Although it is a different word, the imagery and theology are the same. In fact, the text contains several words that suggest the Messiah’s unpretentious lineage to the line of David. Isaiah 11:1 says, “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots.” The word translated “rod” designates either a switch or a shoot, neither of which would seem to have much substance. Since the word “stem” is actually the stump of a tree, the rod most likely pictures that new sprout that shoots from what is left of the tree. Similarly, the “branch” is just a tender shoot that springs forth from the rootstock. Both lines of this text emphasize the humanity and humble origin of the Messiah. Bypassing the connection to royal David by linking the Branch to pre-royal Jesse intensifies the lowly, unassuming, unobtrusive life of the messianic descendant.
Matthew plays on both the significance and the sound of this word “Branch” in his explanation of Christ’s dwelling in Nazareth (Matt. 2:23). That Nazareth was regarded as the “boondocks” of Israel is suggested by Nathaniel’s telling question to Philip when he was introduced to Jesus of Nazareth: “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46). Apparently, no one of any reputation would ever live in Nazareth; it was a village without honor. Consequently, Matthew said Jesus’ living there fulfilled the prophecy, “He shall be called a Nazarene.” You will look a long time to find any prophecy in the Old Testament that identifies Nazareth as the home of Messiah. In fact, the Old Testament makes no reference to Nazareth at all. However, the word “Branch” in Isaiah 11:1 is netser. With theological and linguistic insight, Matthew puns, playing on the sound of words. (The more narrow, technical word for this device is “paronomasia.”) Nazareth was an insignificant, unlikely place for the Messiah; the netser was an insignificant sprout growing on a stump, an unlikely place. Matthew saw in Christ’s living in Nazareth a fulfillment of the prophet’s description of the Messiah’s humiliation in terms of the Branch. Translating rather than transliterating the word in Matthew 2:23 would transmit this idea. Christ dwelt in Nazareth “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Branch.” Matthew certainly knew the significance of names.
Wisdom
This title occurs in the book of Proverbs and highlights one of the essential divine perfections that characterize the person of Christ. Remember that God is a spirit: infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Wisdom is one of the communicable attributes, but it is nonetheless an essential attribute of God. That Proverbs calls the Messiah “Wisdom” is not much different from Isaiah’s calling God “the Holy One of Israel.” Both titles use one of the Lord’s perfections to designate Him. Not all agree, however, that Wisdom is a messianic title; therefore, I must provide some explanation and defense of my interpretation.
The Meaning Of Wisdom
Essential to understanding the significance of this title is an understanding of the meaning of the word “wisdom.” The word simply refers to skill or ability. The sphere of application of that skill or ability is defined by the context in which the word occurs. For instance, God called Bezaleel to be the foreman in the construction of the Tabernacle, filling him with His Spirit and thereby giving him the necessary wisdom or skill to do the work (Ex. 31:3). Similarly, Solomon hired Hiram as his chief craftsman because “he was filled with wisdom, and understanding, and cunning to work all works in brass” (1 Kings 7:14). Joseph instructed Pharaoh to look for a wise man who had the necessary administrative skills to govern; he chose Joseph (Gen. 41:33). The point is simply that whatever someone was good at was considered his wisdom. So when Jeremiah said that Israel was “wise to do evil” (Jer. 4:22), he claimed that they were skillful at sinning—that they were really good at it. Wisdom, as a divine perfection, highlights God’s infinite ability to do whatever is appropriate for God to do. It is obviously related to His infinite knowledge, omniscience, in that He knows all things. In His infinite wisdom, God uses the best possible means to achieve the best possible ends; He is all-wise. To put it plainly but reverently, God is good at everything He does.
Essential to understanding how Solomon uses “Wisdom” as a messianic title is a knowledge of how wisdom functions in the book of Proverbs. The book defines wisdom in terms of morality and ethical behavior. In Proverbs, wisdom is the skill of behaving properly according to the will of God; it is the ability to do those things that are pleasing to the Lord. It is safe to say that in Proverbs a wise man is a saved man because only believers have any heart or any ability to do those things that are pleasing to God. Proverbs is a thorough “how to” book in explaining how to apply religion to every sphere of life. It teaches that there is no part of life unaffected by one’s relationship with God.
Although most of the uses of “wisdom” in Proverbs define the proper conduct for believers, in three chapters Wisdom appears as a person rather than an experience: Proverbs 1, 8, and 9. This brings us to the interpretation problem: whether or not this person Wisdom is Christ. Some contend that it is a personification of the divine attribute. Personification is a literary device whereby something abstract or impersonal is described in personal terms. Others interpret this not as a literary device but as a designation of the Second person of the Trinity, the Son of God. I want to take you through some of the reasons for the “name” interpretation in order to show you Solomon’s gospel logic and theology in Proverbs and to illustrate how to employ some of messianic clues in finding Christ in the Old Testament revelation. Before going any further, let me take care of the surface problem of Wisdom’s representation in the feminine gender. This is a grammatical, not theological, issue. The word “wisdom” in Hebrew is a feminine word, as abstract words tend to be. Consequently, any pronouns associated with the word are going to be feminine as well. That the Authorized Version translates all these pronouns as feminine is grammatically correct and does not militate against the messianic interpretation, nor does it suggest any feminine characteristics about the Messiah. Grammar and reality often have little to do with each other.
Part of finding Christ in the Old Testament is knowing what we are looking for. When we use our checklist of who Christ is, what He does, and what He is like to ascertain what Wisdom stands for, we find ample support for interpreting this title as a reference to Christ. In addition, the analogy of Scripture (comparing Scripture with Scripture) justifies our seeing Christ in this title. Other passages in the Old Testament that are indisputably messianic say about Christ what Solomon says about Wisdom. In addition, New Testament evidence sanctions the identification of Wisdom with Christ. Consider these New Testament texts that identify Christ as Wisdom: Matthew 11:19, 25-30; Matthew 23:34; Luke 11:49; 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30; and Colossians 2:3. Three strands of evidence in Proverbs 8 point to Wisdom as a title of Christ.
Wisdom As God
First is the fact that Wisdom, although distinct from God, yet possesses divine perfections and performs divine operations. For instance, in verses 27-30, Wisdom speaks of God in the third person. Read these verses and note the contrast between “he” and “I.” It is clear that a distinction exists. Yet there are statements that demand that Wisdom be God. At least ten statements in the chapter suggest that Wisdom existed prior to creation (vv. 22-30). To be prior to creation is to be prior to time and therefore eternal. Eternity is one of those incommunicable perfections of Deity. Three verbs, however, seem to suggest a beginning to Wisdom’s existence. Before rejecting the messianic interpretation on the basis of these statements, note that whether Wisdom is here the Messiah or just the personification of a divine attribute, it is theologically impossible to say either had a beginning. All the perfections of God, including wisdom, are infinite, eternal, and immutable. Certainly, if the term designates the Son of God, He is co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Let me give a brief explanation of the problem words.
The first problem is verse 22: “The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way.” The word translated “possess” is the difficulty. The Hebrew root word is qanah. There is a question whether it is a general word that is used in a wide range of contexts or whether there are two different words, homonyms, between which the interpreter must choose. Homonyms are words that sound the same but have different meanings. The general word qanah has the idea of possessing something, regardless of the means of or reason for the possession (get, acquire, purchase, etc.). The other root (spelled the same) means to create. It is beyond our scope at this point to do a thorough word study or to enter into the argument as to whether two different roots even exist. Personally, I am not particularly convinced that the root “create” occurs in the Hebrew Scripture. In all the texts where the supposed root occurs, the more general term fits equally well. In other words, no context in which this word occurs demands the meaning “create.”(If you are interested, the standard references for the word “create” are Genesis 14:19, 22; Exodus 15:16; Deuteronomy 32:6; Psalm 78:54; and Psalm 139:13. The Authorized Version translates the word as “possess,” “purchase,” or “buy,” all of which make perfectly good sense in the respective contexts). I believe the translation of the Authorized Version conveys the proper idea. The word emphasizes a relationship of some sort between the subject and object; “possess” conveys something of that relationship idea. Admittedly vague in this statement, Wisdom simply declares that there has been an eternal relationship between Him and God.
The historic problem with Proverbs 8:22 really comes from the Septuagint, the old Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. This version dates from between 250-150 BC; it was the principal version of both New Testament times and the early church. It translated the word “possess” as “create.” Your guess is as good as anyone’s whether this represents the ancient translator’s knowledge of a root meaning “create” or whether it reflects a mistake in either interpretation or translation. My guess is that it is a mistake. What is interesting is that the early church recognized Proverbs 8 to have messianic reference. In one of the early theological controversies attempting to “define” Christ, the Arians appealed to this verse as evidence that Christ was not eternal and therefore not God. They based their argument on a mistranslation. The Arians were rightly condemned as heretics.
The second problem is verse 23: “I was set up from everlasting.” On the surface, this sounds again like wisdom’s confession of an inception of its being. However, a proper definition of the word “set up” strengthens the messianic interpretation. The verb literally means “to pour out” and has the idea of being consecrated, exalted, or anointed. It is the same word that occurs in the undeniably messianic Psalm 2 when the Lord declares, “Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion” (v. 6). I would suggest that Wisdom’s being poured out from eternity refers to that “time” in eternity when the eternal Son of God was chosen to be the Mediator (cf. Isa. 42:1). Wisdom was ordained to be the Messiah. Interestingly, in Isaiah 42:1, the Lord declares concerning the chosen Servant that He is the one “in whom my soul delighteth.” Compare that with verse 30 of this passage when Wisdom declares, “I was daily his delight.” The analogy of Scripture points to Wisdom as Christ.
The third problem concerns the statement in verses 24 and 25: “I was brought forth.” Since this word describes the giving of birth, it, too, suggests the beginning of existence. However, that this word typically refers to the mother’s role in giving birth prohibits this from being a literal statement of birth. It would be ludicrous, indeed blasphemous, to attribute to the Heavenly Father such activity, regardless of the object of the birth. Part of the interpretive process is ruling out what a text cannot mean when seeking to determine what it does mean. This cannot mean that Wisdom was literally born of God. Rather than focusing on the inception or establishing of a parent/child relationship, the word stresses the existence of such a relationship. Wisdom says that before anything was created, He existed in an eternal relationship with God as parent and child, theologically and specifically as Father and Son. I believe we see in this statement at least a hint of the eternal Sonship of the Second person of the Trinity. These problem verses are not really problems at all but rather further confirmations of Wisdom’s identity as the Christ of God.
We have been necessarily digressing, but let me at this point return to the second part of the first strand of evidence. Not only does Wisdom possess a divine perfection (eternity), but He also performs uniquely divine works. Specifically, Wisdom creates. One of the search criteria for Messiah in the Old Testament is that we can tell who someone is by what he does. Creation is something only God does. Therefore, if someone creates, He is God. Verse 30 is a key text. Let me give a more literal rendering of the Hebrew text: “And I was beside Him, an Artisan.” This is the climax of a series of verses that detail aspects of creation. In verse 27, Wisdom said simply, “When he prepared the heavens, I was there.” Verse 30 suggests that it was not a passive presence; He was a craftsman participating in the whole creative process. There was a joint participation in creation between Wisdom and the Lord. Theologically, we know that creation is the work of the Godhead; now it all fits together. The parallel between Wisdom’s presence with God and Wisdom’s participating in creation and the Word’s presence with God and the Word’s participating in creation is too close to ignore or regard as coincidental. John opens his Gospel with the explicitly clear statement, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… all things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:1, 3). It seems that the only difference between Solomon and John is that Solomon uses the word “Wisdom” and John uses the word “Word.” If we can understand John as declaring the deity of Christ, the Word of God, it would seem that we ought to be able to understand Solomon as declaring the deity of Christ, the Wisdom of God.
Wisdom As Messiah
The second strand of evidence for identifying Wisdom as a messianic title is the fact that messianic descriptions and operations are assigned to Wisdom. In other words, what is said about Messiah in other contexts is said about Wisdom in Proverbs 8. This is particularly true in verses 1-21. If Wisdom performs messianic activity, we have good reason to identify Wisdom as Messiah. One of the mediatorial operations of the Messiah is the execution of the office of prophet. As Prophet, He represents God to man and reveals God’s Word and will to man. Proverbs 8 begins with Wisdom’s preaching. The words of Wisdom are described as excellent, right, true, righteous, without perverseness, and plain to him who understands (vv. 6-8). That sounds like prophetic activity. Kingship is another function of the messianic office. Wisdom expresses absolute authority over lesser sovereigns: “By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth” (v. 16). The credentials attributed to Wisdom correspond remarkably to the credentials of the Messiah. Compare Wisdom’s claim to have wisdom, counsel, understanding, knowledge, and strength (vv. 12-14) with Isaiah’s description of the messianic Branch’s having “the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord” (Isa. 11:2). It follows that if these are descriptions of Messiah in Isaiah, they could be describing the same Messiah in Proverbs.
Wisdom As The Object Of Faith
The third strand of evidence is the fact that man’s eternal destiny is linked to his relationship with Wisdom. Proverbs 8 ends with Wisdom’s admonition: “Whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death” (vv. 35-36). This sounds similar to John’s declaration: “He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life” (1 John 5:12). The invitation of Wisdom in Proverbs 1 makes the same promise: “Whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil” (v. 33). Throughout Proverbs 8 it is clear that those who love and choose Wisdom share in His riches and receive the benefits of salvation (particularly verses 17-21). Just as Christ promised that He would not cast out any who came to Him, so Wisdom declares, “I love them that love me,” and promises, “Those that seek me early shall find me” (compare John 6:37 with Proverbs 8:17). “Seeking early” means to seek diligently; it is an exercise of faith. Saving faith always and only has Christ as its object.
That this book of practical wisdom begins with an invitation to believe Wisdom is good gospel preaching. There is no way a man can do anything that is pleasing to God (the practice of wisdom) without first having a saving relationship to Christ who pleased God in every way (the person of Wisdom). Theologically, sanctification follows regeneration and justification. That is the order of Proverbs. In this way, Solomon’s theology sounds Pauline. Paul said, “But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30). It is only in union with Christ, who is Wisdom, that all the benefits of salvation flow. Perhaps we could say that Paul’s theology was Solomonic. Better yet, let’s admit that they were preaching the same Christ and the same gospel.
Notes
- This article is adapted from Beginning at Moses: A Guide to Finding Christ in the Old Testament, and retains its popular style.
No comments:
Post a Comment