1

Jinkyu Kim, Ph.D. (Associate Professor of Old Testament, Baekseok University)

2013 Annual Meeting (Nov 23-26; Baltimore, MD)

Society of Biblical Literature

Overcoming the Limitations of Grammatical-Historical Interpretation

in the Exegesis of Purely Predictive Prophecy

I. Introduction

The goal of this paper is to find out the limitations of grammatical-historical interpretation in

the exegesis of a certain type of biblical text, namely, purely predictive prophecy.1 A proper

remedy for this method will be suggested with the aid of lexical semantics. Up to the present

time, grammatical-historical interpretation has been regarded as the absolute norm of biblical

exegesis. Almost all commentary writers start by finding the original meaning of a text

regardless of its literary genre. They assume that the original, historical meaning always denotes

a particular referent at the time of its composition. However, rigid use of grammatical-historical

interpretation may inherit difficulties in interpreting a future-predictive prophecy, for example,

the Second Coming of the Christ (e.g., 1Thess 4:15-17). The parousia of the Christ refers to the

future event which will happen when he comes again.

1 Some may jeer at the notion of the ‘purely predictive’ prophecy. However, an obvious example is the second

coming of Jesus Christ, which was directly or indirectly prophesied hundreds of times in the Bible. Daniel also

prophesied about the fates of nations, which were fulfilled in history hundreds years later. In Isa 41:22-23, the power

of God’s word is described in terms of the capacity of future prediction: “Let them bring them, and tell us what is to

happen. Tell us the former things, what they are, that we may consider them, that we may know their outcome; or

declare to us the things to come. Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods; do good, or

do harm, that we may be dismayed and terrified” (ESV). It is my conviction that the misunderstanding about the

purely predictive prophecy began with the assumption that there must be no difference between the biblical text and

the secular writing in the application of grammatical-historical interpretation. This issue will be discussed further

later on. The biblical witness itself demonstrates that there is a stark difference between the biblical text and secular

writing. One of the major differences of the biblical revelation from other secular writings is its power of predictive

prophecy.

2

As linguistics develops, biblical exegetes are beginning to realize that there is a distinction

between sense-making and referent-finding. In this paper, I will utilize Ogden-Richards’s

renowned triangle, which has revolutionized the study of linguistic semantics.2 The triangle

reveals the problem of the ‘word-and-thing’ method. Ogden-Richards’s study stresses the indirect

relationship between ‘symbol’ and ‘referent.’3 They also distinguish between ‘sense’ and

‘referent’ in meaning. Sense-making does not necessarily mean grasping the concrete object of

the referent. This distinction will greatly contribute to one’s understanding of predictive

prophecies like Isa 52:13-53:12. As a test case, I will apply Ogden-Richards’s triangle to the

interpretation of this text. If the referent of the servant in this text is not clear in its original,

historical context, one may become complacent about the sense-making of the passage. As

redemptive history unfolds, the interpreter will later realize who the real referent is. If an exegete

is determined to find the referent of the text within the immediate historical context under the

name of grammatical-historical interpretation, he or she will inevitably fall into the trap of

distorting its true meaning.

II. Limitations of Grammatical-Historical Interpretation

It is commonly accepted as fact that there is an original, historical meaning in all biblical

texts no matter what their genres may be.4 It is regarded as a natural process for an exegete to

2 C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards, The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of The Influence of Language upon Thought

and of The Science of Symbolism (4th

ed.; New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1936), 11.

3 Ibid., 11-12.

4 Cf. B. K. Waltke, “A Canonical Process Approach to the Psalms,” in Tradition and Testament: Essays in Honor of

Charles Lee Feinberg (ed. J. S. Feinberg and P. D. Feinberg; Chicago: Moody, 1981), 9; V. S. Poythress, “Divine

Meaning of Scripture,” WTJ 48 (1984): 267-68.

3

find the original meaning of the text whenever he or she approaches it. In this paper, I raise a

serious question about the majority of biblical scholars’ approaches to predictive prophecy like

Isa 52:13-53:12 under the assumption of grammatical-historical interpretation.5 They assume

that there must be an original, historical meaning of the text in the sense that the text refers to

something or someone around the time of its composition. This kind of approach is usually

undertaken under the guise of the scientific objectivity of the so-called grammatical-historical

interpretation.6 Here, however, I do not deny that it is still a valid and very important

methodology in the interpretation of the Scriptures. It is true that grammatical-historical

interpretation has greatly contributed to one’s scientific approach to the biblical texts after the

Reformation. In spite of that, still, one must be aware of some wrong presuppositions behind the

method of grammatical-historical interpretation.

Before examining the presuppositions and limitations of grammatical-historical exegesis,

one needs to observe its validity and importance in biblical interpretation. According to

Poythress, grammatical-historical exegesis is the kind of approach “which self-consciously

focuses on each biblical book as a product of a human author, in a particular historical setting.”7

The following are benefits of this method:

(1) Grammatical-historical interpretation prevents mystical interpretation, uncontrolled

allegorization, forced eisegesis, and unchecked spiritualization. Although the term ‘grammatical-

5 We need to pay attention to P. D. Hanson’s warning against historical-critical study: “Once the importance of

historical-critical study is recognized, it is equally important to recognize that it by no means exhausts the

interpretive process” (“The World of the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 40-55,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant:

Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins [ed. W. H. Bellinger, Jr. and W. R. Farmer; Harrisburg: Trinity, 1998], 10).

6 V. S. Poythress, “The Presence of God Qualifying Our Notions of Grammatical-Historical Interpretation: Genesis

3:15 as a Test Case,” JETS 50/1 (2007): 89-91.

7 Poythress, “Divine Meaning,” 277.

4

historical exegesis’ was adopted later, it played an important part in the Reformers’ assertion of a

simple and literal interpretation, particularly in the case of Calvin.8

(2) God communicated with the human authors in their cultural contexts, using their

languages, their ways of expressions, and their historical circumstances; hence, it is necessary to

dig into their historical and cultural backgrounds first of all.9

(3) It will also help one see the progressiveness of divine revelation in history by allowing

one to observe the mode and nature of revelation.10

One’s faith will greatly be strengthened

when one observes the reality that the diverse institutions, persons, and events eventually merge

and center on the person and work of Christ typologically or prophetically as divine revelation

unfolds gradually in history. Progressive revelation, unveiled in each stage of epochs, makes one

sure that God is the author of history.

(4) Among the many benefits of valid grammatical-historical interpretation are the three

mentioned above. In fact, valid grammatical-historical interpretation helps one clearly see the

essential message of the text in each stratum of meaning, and moreover, enables one to open the

door for developing the message along with the other strata of meaning in the progress of

revelation.

In spite of these benefits, however, there are potential pitfalls when one absolutizes or

idolizes the grammatical-historical method. First of all, one must recognize that this method

8 W. G. Kümmel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of its Problems (trans. S. M. Gilmour and H.

C. Kee; NY: Abingdon, 1972), 108.

9 Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of

Knowledge (NY: Anchor Books, 1966), 47-128.

10 Poythress, “Divine Meaning,” 277.

5

itself originated from the human mind in the history of interpretation.11

It also has its own

assumed presuppositions which sometimes seem to be incompatible with a fuller or deeper

revelation of God, by limiting the meaning of a text to the narrow historical context as some

scholars show in their exegetical practices. In particular, there are obvious limitations to this

method in dealing with purely predictive texts.

(1) The root of grammatical-historical exegesis was the renaissance of humanism in the

Middle Ages, which influenced almost every area of studies including literature, philosophy,

politics, religion, and so on.12

The study of ancient Greek literature provided a way of

interpreting ancient texts, which eventually affected the frame of thought of the Reformers as

well as the medieval humanists (e.g., Erasmus). One should not forget the fact that Calvin had

written a commentary on Seneca’s De clementia, secular literature, with secular humanistic tools

before he wrote his commentaries on the Bible.13

However, Calvin sanctified in a great measure

these secular tools with great piety, a reforming mind, and a keen perception of the inner

dynamics of the holy literature of the Bible. Nevertheless, not a few modern thinkers recognize

Calvin’s humanistic tendencies in exegeting some of the predictive texts of Scripture,

11

Kümmel, The New Testament, 51-119.

12 Barnabas Lindars, “The New Testament,” in The History of Christian Theology: The Study and Use of the Bible

(ed. Paul Avis; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 295-96.

13 David L. Puckett, John Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament (Columbia Series in Reformed Theology;

Louisville: Westminster, 1995), 52-53. Puckett asserts, “His approach to Seneca was very much what one might

expect of a humanist interpreting an ancient writer. He corrected the text; analyzed the structure, vocabulary, idioms;

and sought to understand the text in its original historical and cultural context. In short, he studied the text

historically. . . . If Seneca’s De clementia was to be understood, it must be understood as a work by an author who

intended his words to have meaning for his contemporaries. When Calvin later took up the work of biblical

interpretation, he did not depart from his early historical approach. Scripture, like the corpus of classical literature, is

a collection of ancient human writings and demands to be interpreted as such. His historical sensitivity deeply

affected his approach to the Old Testament.”

6

particularly in the OT.14

The humanism of the Renaissance started the process of suppressing the

divine intent of the Bible while gradually heightening its human side.15

The autonomous human

spirit of the Enlightenment further accelerated this process of suppressing the divine side of

biblical authorship. Finally, the product of this Enlightenment spirit, historical criticism, virtually

erased God’s intention and the inspiration of the Bible.16

(2) Together with the autonomous humanistic spirit of the Renaissance, the dialogue with the

Jews in the Middle Ages also began to bind the interpretation of the OT to a past-centered

exegesis.17

And this trend gradually removed the Christian presupposition that the whole canon

of the OT and the NT is the normative rule for life.18

Even Calvin, influenced by the great flow

of interpretation at his time, sometimes attempted to connect predictive prophecies (e.g., Isa 61:1)

14

Cf. J. I. Packer, “Infallible Scripture and the Role of Hermeneutics,” in Scripture and Truth (ed. D. A. Carson, et

al.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 333.

15 Lindars, “The New Testament,” 295-96.

16 Kümmel, The New Testament, 62-205.

17 John Rogerson, “The Old Testament” in The History of Christian Theology: The Study and Use of the Bible (ed.

Paul Avis; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 67. Rogerson asserts, “The discussion of the literal meaning of the law,

together with a renewed interest in ‘literal’ exegesis in general, seems to have typified the 12th

and 13th

centuries.

This interest was caused, among other things, by contacts between Jewish and Christian scholars and by the

emergence of a literal form of interpretation among Jews, exemplified in the work of Rashi.”

18 Rogerson, “The Old Testament,” 67-87. Among the great Victorines (12

th A.D.), for example, Hugh often

consulted with Jewish scholars and began to question “whether messianic prophecies referred to the historical

circumstances in which they were given, or whether they merely looked forward to the coming of Christ” (67-68).

Hugh preferred to interpret prophecies in their historical contexts except in cases like Joel 2:28(68). Finally, another

Victorine, Andrew, who was mentored by Hugh, came to assert that Isaiah 53 refers “entirely to the Babylonian

captivity of the Jews, the ‘man of sorrows’ being a collective term for the Jews in captivity” (69). Later it will be

examined whether this interpretation is valid or not. As time went on, the literal historical sense was taken for

granted around the time of Aquinas (72). The literal sense was no longer regarded as second best around this time

(73). Calvin, while not going to the extreme exegesis of the Victorine Andrew, guarded Christian interpretation as

was exemplified by the Christological interpretation of Isa 52:13-53:12 and Ps 110 (87).

7

with historical meaning of the Jewish situation as actual referents.19

An extreme example is Isa

4:2, which Calvin interpreted solely in light of the Jewish historical situation (Contrary to

Calvin’s exegesis, F. Delitzsch interpreted it solely messianically).20

Here I do not deny the

importance of the historical circumstances of any prophecies, but it seems to be problematic that

all the messages of predictive prophecies (e.g., Isa 53) are to be connected to historical referents.

It will prove to be self-contradictory to lay too much emphasis upon the literal historical meaning

(limiting the author’s intent within the short-sighted historical referent) of the predictive

passage.21

(3) The third presupposition of the grammatical-historical exegesis was derived from the

rationalistic spirit of the Enlightenment. In the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Crane Brinton

describes the impact of the Enlightenment on Christianity as follows:

Enlightened denial of any kind of transcendence of the external world, of personal

immortality, of the whole fabric of Christian sacraments, and enlightened rejection of

the dogma of original sin, as well as much more in the Enlightenment, is quite

incompatible with orthodox Christianity, Catholic and Protestant alike. In fact, most of

our own contemporary world views which reject Christianity for some form of

secularist faith—positivism, materialism (notably Marxism), rationalism, humanism,

“ethical culture,” and the rest—have their origin in the Enlightenment. Even in the

eighteenth century, however, there was a wide spectrum of belief—from conventional

Christianity hardly touched by the new ideas, through all sorts of compromises, to

deism and unitarianism, which are only marginally theological beliefs. Probably our

model of Enlightenment should include some form of belief in god, and almost

certainly the fashionable deism of Voltaire, a Thomas Paine, or even a Rousseau. This

deist god was himself (or should one say, itself?) a highly rationalistic construct—the

“clockmaker god” who had to exist in order to start this “Newtonian world machine”

19

John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (trans. W. Pringle; 4 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1948), 4:303-5. Calvin seems to be much too conscious of Jewish mockery regarding Christian interpretation.

20 Calvin, Isaiah, 1:152-53; F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commnetary on the Prophecies of Isaiah (trans. James Martin; 2

vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 1:151-53.

21 See the problem of the forced interpretation of the servant in Isa 52:13-53:12 below.

8

running, and guarantee that it would not run down, but who never interfered with it,

and certainly never performed miracles.22

The Enlightenment definitely imposed rationalistic reasoning upon the study of biblical

interpretation. The formulation of ‘grammatical-historical exegesis’ as a hermeneutical principle

originated from around the time of the movement of the Enlightenment. The formulation of

grammatical-historical interpretation did not appear in a day; it took place through a long process

of diverse influences (e.g., pursuit of a scientific method, humanistic studies, Jewish

interpretation, and so on.), with the rationalistic spirit of the Enlightenment. Kümmel succinctly

summarizes the process and influence of the appearance of “the grammatico-historical

understanding” as follows:

Ernesti had demanded that the grammatical interpretation should concern itself only

with the New Testament texts themselves; Semler, going further, had required that the

texts should be studied in light of their historical circumstances; and Gabler had added

historical and philosophical criticism to the task of exegesis as his predecessors had

defined it, in order that it might include also an explanation of the content of the

texts. . . . As early as 1788 the Leipzig theologian, Karl August Gottlob Keil, in a

program whose fundamental principles he reiterated in a textbook on hermeneutics of

1810, advanced the thesis that there is but one method of understanding all writings of

whatever sort, including therefore the Bible: namely, the grammatico-historical

understanding, which attempts to think the author’s thoughts after him. In interpreting

the New Testament books the fact that they are divinely inspired is to be left out of

consideration; the exegete must not ask whether the text he has explained is right or

wrong in its assertions.24

According to this statement, K. A. G. Keil evidently expresses the presuppositions of the

grammatical-historical understanding. First, he absolutizes this tool as the only method. Second,

he does not differentiate between secular writings and the inspired Bible (“all writings of

22

C. Brinton, “Enlightenment,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. P. Edwards et al.; 8 vols.; New York:

Macmillan Publishing Co., 1967), 2:521-22.

24 Kümmel, The New Testament, 108. Emphasis mine.

9

whatever sort”). Third, he pays attention solely to the human author (“the author’s thoughts after

him”). Finally, he disregards divine meaning and inspiration (“divinely inspired is to be left out

of consideration”).

In sum, the effects of this kind of autonomous humanistic spirit, originated by Renaissance

humanism and bolstered by Enlightenment rationalism, and married to the disguised objectivity

of the historical critical method, gave birth to a rationalistic religious hybrid of rigid

grammatical-historical exegesis, which resulted in belittling the inspiration of the Bible,

relegating the biblical truth to a past-centered historical reality, disregarding the organic unity of

the Scriptures (thus disabling systematic theology), and finally erasing the deeper and fuller

meaning of the text. One of the greatest problems that a strictly past-centered interpretation

brings about by employing a rigid grammatical-historical method is inseparably related to the

interpretation of the predictive or messianic prophecies in the OT. Historical interpretation limits

the referent of the predictive text of the OT to the immediate historical context of the human

author, which thereby gives an impression that the NT author imposes a meaning on the text

which was not originally intended by the OT author. This is an example of the invalid use of

grammatical-historical exegesis. Rigid grammatical-historical exegesis has ‘historicism’ as a

fundamental presupposition, which shuts out any future or eschatological referential function of

the predictive texts.25

This presupposition even suppresses or distorts the plain sense of a given

text to fit into the exegete’s pre-established pattern of approaching the text.

25

Searching for ‘historical meaning’ is a kind of divine mandate; however, ‘historicism’ has as its basis a

philosophy which is conditioned by a modern, secular view of history. Likewise, scientific inquiry should be

pursued, but scientism (e.g., evolutionism) is a philosophical view which should be replaced by the biblical world-

view. ‘Grammatical-historical exegesis’ is a scientific exegetical method that we have to refine, but the

presuppositions of ‘rigid grammatical-historical exegesis’ must be searched out and laid bare in light of biblical

teaching.

10

Therefore, one needs to remedy the limitations of the grammatical-historical exegesis by

removing the presuppositions mentioned above and by adopting a methodological tool which can

accommodate both the historical meaning and the entire significance of the text in its fullness

and depth.

III. Distinction between ‘Sense-making’ and ‘Referent-finding’ in Meaning

What is the major problem of the grammatical-historical method in the exegesis of a purely

predictive text like Isa 52:13-53:12? The problem is largely derived from one’s misunderstanding

of the concept of ‘meaning’ in the sense that it refers to something at the time of the composition

of the text.26

Here I do not deny the importance of the original meaning of the text for majority

of the biblical texts. However, my focus is upon a certain type of text that specifically predicts a

future event like Christ’s parousia or Daniel’s prophecy on the Son of Man (Dan 7:13-14). This

type of text is what Bock calls “directly prophetic.”27

The many conflicting interpretations of Isa

52:13-53:12 listed by North reveal that the traditional understanding of grammatical-historical

interpretation is inadequate for the exegesis of a directly predictive prophecy like this text.28

26

According to Thiselton, there are diverse theories of ‘meaning’ such as the referential theory of meaning,

semantic theories of meaning, ideational theories of meaning, functional theories of meaning, and de facto theories

of meaning (A. C. Thiselton, “Meaning,” in A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation [ed. R. J. Coggins and J. L.

Houlden; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990],436-38). Each of these theories has its own weaknesses

and strengths. In this study I have chosen a theory best suited for my study of purely predictive prophecy.

27 D. L. Bock, “Single Meaning, Multiple Contexts and Referents,” in Three Views on the New Testament Use of the

Old Testament (ed. S. N. Gundry et al; Books in the Counterpoints Series; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 118.

Bock classifies Dan 7:13-14 as the “directly prophetic” category because it was fulfilled solely in the person of Jesus

Christ. Franz Delitzsch (Biblical Commentary on the Psalms [trans. F. Bolton; 3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1952], 1:66) also has a similar view and believes that Psalm 110 belongs to the directly prophetic psalm. He says,

“among all the Davidic psalms there is only a single one, viz. Ps. cx, in which David (as in his last words 2 Sam.

xxiii. 1-7) looks forth into the future of his seed and has the Messiah definitely before his mind. . . .”

28 See n. 66.

11

The problem of a misuse of grammatical-historical interpretation lies in one’s

misunderstanding of the concept of ‘meaning’ by taking it for the sense of a ‘word-and-thing’

relationship.29

The ‘word-and-thing’ method is based on the old-fashioned “referential theory of

meaning” which originated from the time of Plato and Augustine.30

It has its own obvious

limitations in dealing with the depth of the meaning of the Scriptures. Anthony Thiselton says,

“[this] theory applies effectively only to a limited segment of language-uses and types of

words.”31

Fortunately, thanks to the progress of the study of the lexical semantics and other

related disciplines, the meaning of meaning is no longer regarded as a simple ‘word-and-thing’

concept.32

Especially, Ogden-Richards’ study on the triangle of meaning has revolutionized our

understanding of the meaning of meaning.33

The triangle of meaning is composed of symbol,

thought (or reference), and referent.34

Silva refined their triangle and produced the following

29

M. Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

1994), 103. This view of a ‘word-and-thing’ relation in meaning was inherited from Palto, who thought words are

‘names’ for things. Refer to F. R. Palmer, Semantics: A New Outline (London: Cambridge University Press, 1976),

19.

30 Thiselton, “Meaning,” 436. The referential theory of meaning has many difficulties in handling the abstract nouns

(such as love, hate, nonsense, inspiration) and other higher levels of meaning like a sentence (Palmer, Semantics, 21-

25).

31 Thiselton, “Meaning,” 436. Especially, this theory entails many problems in the interpretation of metaphor as

Thiselton points out (436).

32 The concept of ‘meaning’ has been studied by diverse disciplines including semantics, semiotics, philosophy,

psychology, linguistics, and biblical hermeneutics.

33 Ogden and Richards, The Meaning of Meaning, 11. In the field of linguistics, Ogden-Richards’s famous triangle

revolutionized the study of linguistic semantics and also had considerable impact on philosophical and literary

thought. Especially, the triangle revealed the problem of the ‘word-and-thing’ method.

34 Ogden-Richards’s use of the term ‘reference’ is confusing because scholars use it in different senses depending

on their disciplines. For example, J. Lyons uses it in a sense close to what Ogden-Richards calls ‘referent.’ Lyons

uses the term ‘sense’ in the sense of meaning. Refer to J. Lyons, Semantics (2 vols.; London: Cambridge University

Press, 1977), 1:174-75, 197-98.

12

triangle.35

sense

(the mental response)

symbol referent

(the word three)

He defined “symbol” as meaning “the word in its phonetic or written form,” “sense” as

denoting “the mental content called up by the symbol,” and “referent” as referring to “the

extralinguistic thing denoted.”36

The discovery of this triangle makes a significant contribution

to our understanding of the biblical text. Ogden-Richards, Ullmann, and Silva all called attention

to “the danger of positing a direct relation between symbol and referent (denotatum).”37

They

thought that there is an indirect relationship between the symbol and the referent.

Between the symbol and the referent there is no relevant relation other than the

indirect one, which consists in its being used by someone to stand for a referent.

Symbol and Referent, that is to say, are not connected directly (and when, for

grammatical reasons, we imply such a relation, it will merely be an imputed, as

opposed to a real, relation) but only indirectly round the two sides of the triangle.38

35

Silva, Biblical Words, 102-3. Silva transformed Ogden-Richards’s symbol-thought-referent into symbol-sense-

referent, adopting Ullmann’s idea of “sense.” Ullmann employs these terms for the triangle: name-sense-thing

respectively (S. Ullmann, Meaning and Style: Collected Papers [New York: Harper & Row, 1973], 6). Even though

Ogden-Richards, Silva, and Ullmann use different terms, their concepts are basically the same.

36 Silva, Biblical Words, 102.

37 Ibid., 105: S. Ullmann, Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962),

54-64; S. Ullmann, Language and Style: Collected Papers (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964), 18.

38 Ogden and Richards, The Meaning of Meaning, 11-12. Ogden-Richards’ discovery will give us a warning if we

hurry to find an original referent of the text in the sense of its meaning. According to Palmer, Ogden-Richards’s

theory “avoids many of the problems” of the ‘word-and-thing’ method but he warns against belittling of the

13

Even though this study is mainly related to the study of a word, the basic idea of this triangle

can be applicable to one’s understanding of the meaning of a text as well.39

The interpreters’

problem usually arises from the simple identification of the meaning of a text with its referent,

like the error originating from a word-and-thing method. However, if one uses Silva’s model in

one’s interpretation, the meaning of a text should first be understood in the level of “sense.”

Poythress also points out the order of understanding in one’s interpretation. “All referents are,

ultimately, completely comprehended by sense. Of course, the finite understanding of sense by

human beings does not exhaustively grasp referents.”40

In short, the interpreters’ pursuit of the

original, historical meaning within the immediate historical circumstances is mainly derived

from their failure to distinguish between “sense” and “referent.”41

In many cases understanding

of “sense” is different from that of “referent.” Making sense does not necessarily mean grasping

the concrete object of the referent (e.g., Dan 8:27).

There is a great difference between the question of “What does it refer to?” and that of

“Does it make sense in a situation?” If a discourse is to be meaningful, the communication

referential function of language (Semantics, 26, 30-34). He asserts that we “must allow that there is no absolute line

between [reference and sense], between what is in the world and what is in language” (34). Here Palmer uses

‘reference’ in the sense of ‘referent.’

39 Some distinguish between words, sentences, and texts in the application of the theories of meaning but in this

study I do not treat them separately, following J. J. E. Gracia’s study (“Meaning” in Dictionary for Theological

Interpretation of the Bible [ed. K. J. Vanhoozer; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005], 492).

40 Vern S. Poythress, God-Centered Biblical Interpretation (New Jersey: P & R, 1999), 208.

41 Caird also detects the importance of the distinction between ‘sense’ and ‘referent.’ He states, “The distinction

between sense and referent is so indispensable to any discussion of meaning, and so self-evident once it has been

pointed out, that it is a shock to find learned writers ignoring it.” Refer to G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of

the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 54.

14

should take place within the socio-cultural boundary of the language.42

For example, if my paper

is meaningful to English-speaking people, I have to use English as the medium of

communication, not Korean as the medium. And I have to express my ideas in the way in which

English-speaking people can understand. These elements are socio-culturally conditioned if the

communication is to be meaningful to a specific culture. However, the referential boundary of a

discourse goes beyond the sense-making boundary of the language. Even though an American

does not know Korean, he or she can talk about the Korean language, culture, history, and so

forth. Any language can express an idea that refers to future things beyond the socio-cultural

context of the language.

The referent, of course, may not be crystal-clear, especially as the time span between the

referent and the historical circumstances in which the discourse was pronounced grows wider

and wider. For example, if one says, “The year after next, he will come back.”, we understand

what this statement means because we not only know what it means in English but also

understand what the expression “the year after next” means in American culture. In this case, the

referent of the statement stands for the action that the person ‘he’ will take two years from now.

What about this statement, “Two thousand years later, he will come back.”? We simply

understand what this communication means in our socio-cultural context for the same two

reasons. But what about the referent of this statement? The referent goes far beyond one’s socio-

cultural context. One may ask, “Will he live such a long time?” A rationalist will say that a

human being cannot live such a long time; so this statement is either wrong or we have to seek

the meaning behind the statement. Another type of rationalist will say that this kind of language

42

Berger and Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality, 47-92.

15

is not understandable to modern human beings; so such an expression is mythical. He or she may

say that we need to demythologize it and then remythologize it in our understandable language

(e.g., Bultmann). Now, what would we think if a statement like this was made by Jesus himself?

“Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the

truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened” (Matt

24:33-34).43

Jesus’ disciples understood what this kind of statement meant to them. Hence,

many of them expected an imminent parousia of Christ. However, its referent goes far beyond

the historical plane of their socio-cultural context. Even Jesus himself did not know the referent

of the time of parousia. “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor

the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt 24:36; cf. 1 Thess 4:15-17). Nobody knows when he will

come back. The referent of this communication is not confined within the immediate historical

context of the author. The point is that there is, in the case of predictive prophecies, a definite

distinction between the conditioning of language in the historical circumstances in which the

communication takes place (i.e., sense-making) and the actual referent of the communication

that the predictive prophecy points to (i.e., referent-finding). It is certain that language is

conditioned by its cultural and historical context. However, the referent of the communication,

though expressed in a specific socio-cultural context, can go beyond the immediate historical

circumstantial context.44

43

Regarding the meaning of evggu,j evstin evpi. qu,raij , D. A. Hagner comments, “With the immediately preceding

context of this parable referring so unmistakably to the parousia of the Son of Man, the most natural understanding

of ‘he (it) is near, at the doors’ . . . is that it refers to the coming of the Son of Man” (Matthew 14-28 [WBC 33B;

Dallas, Tex.: Word Books, 1995], 715).

44 However, we should know that the sense and the referent are so closely interrelated that without understanding

the sense we cannot understand the referent correctly and vice versa. We should keep in mind Caird’s advice: “sense

16

One of the major deficiencies of rigid grammatical-historical exegesis is that this method,

based on rationalistic presuppositions, usually seeks to find the referents of predictive prophecies

within the immediate historical and cultural contexts of the human authors. This kind of problem

is caused by failing to separate the historical conditioning of the language (i.e., sense-making)

from the actual referent in communication (i.e., referent-finding).45

Moreover, a rigid

grammatical-historical method kills the supernatural meaning of biblical prophecy by confining

the meaning of a text within a short-sighted historical context.46

How many times modern

scholars have run about seeking the referent of a predictive text within an immediate historical

context!47

All these problems simply originate from their failure to distinguish between sense-

making and referent-finding in meaning.

IV. Application of This Theory to the Interpretation of ‘a Little Horn’ in Dan 8:9

According to Dan 8:1, Daniel had a vision in the third year of King Belsharzzar’s reign.48

In

and referent are so intimately linked that failure to identify the referent is bound to diminish our understanding of the

sense, which is then left hanging in the air” (The Language and Imagery of the Bible, 55).

45 Regarding the referential function of communication, I am indebted to Poythress’ three articles: “A Framework

for Discourse Analysis: The Components of a Discourse, from a Tagmemic Viewpoint,” Semiotica 38 (1982): 277-

98; “Hierarchy in Discourse Analysis: A Revision of Tagmemics,” Semiotica 40 (1982): 107-37; “Divine Meaning,”

248-52.

46 Poythress, “Divine Meaning,” 255-56. The NT authors’ consistent assertion is that Jesus became incarnate,

ministered, died, was resurrected, and ascended “kata\ ta\j grafa/j” (1 Cor 15:3). Paul intends by this phrase the

supernatural predictive power of the word of God concerning the person and work of Christ.

47 Caird observes the same problem in modern scholars’ interpretation of “the cosmic language of myth and

eschatology,” asserting “we shall find overwhelming reasons for being dissatisfied with the conventional notion that

biblical writers took such language literally to refer to the beginning and end of the world” (The Language and

Imagery of the Bible, 56).

48 Because Belshazzar began coregency with his father, Nabonidus, in 553 B.C., the third of his reign would have

been around 550 B.C. Refer to S. R. Miler, Daniel (NAC 18; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 220.

17

his vision, Daniel saw a ram with two horns standing beside the canal, charging toward “the west

and the north and the south” (v. 3-4).49

Daniel also saw “a goat with a prominent horn between

his eyes” attacking “[this] ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering his two horns” (v. 5-7).50

At the height of his power, however, the goat’s large horn was broken off and four prominent

horns grew up in its place (v. 8).51

At this point out of one of these four horns came ‘a little horn’

(hr"_y[iC.mi tx;Þa;-!r<q<)), “which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward

the glorious land” (v. 9).52

Daniel saw this particular horn continue to grow until it reaches

~yIm"+V'h; ab'äc. (the host of heavens) (v. 10).53

It threw down some of the host and some of the stars to

the earth and trampled on them (v. 10). It even challenges ab'ÞC'h;-rf:) (the Prince of the host) and

takes away dymiêT'h; (the daily sacrifice) from him (v. 11).54

This horn carries out blasphemous

49

E. J. Young, A Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 167. The ram with two horns

symbolizes the kings of Media and Persia as the angel explains in v. 20.

50 L. Wood, A Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 210; Young, Daniel, 168-69. A goat with

a prominent horn symbolizes the Grecian Empire as the angel explains in v. 21. The prominent horn represents

Alexander the Great.

51 Cf. L. F. Hartman and A. A. Dilella, The Book of Daniel (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1978), 235. The “four

prominent horns” are likely to refer to the four generals of Alexander the Great: “Cassander ruling over Macedonia

and Greece; Lysimachus controlling Thrace; Antigonus holding Asia Minor, northern Syria, and the remaining

eastern portion of the former Persian empire; while Ptolemy Soter became master of Egypt and southern Syria.”

52 Young, Daniel, 170-72; T. Longman, III, Daniel (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 206-7; A. E.

Steinmann, Daniel (Concordia Commentary; Saint Louis: Concordia, 2008), 401-3; Miller, Daniel, 225. There is

scholarly consensus that ‘a little horn’ represents Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-163 B.C.), the eight ruler of the

Seleucid Empire. A little horn symbolizes his insignificant beginning but his power grew and conquered “the south”

(Egypt), “the east” (Persia, Parthia, Armenia), and “the glorious land” (Palestine).

53 Young, Daniel, 171. Young interprets “the host of heavens” as representing “the people of God, the saints.”

Miller also has a similar view (Daniel, 226), saying that ‘host’ here refers to the saints of God as interpreted in v. 24.

Trampling on the saints means the severe persecutions that the Jews underwent under the reign of Antiochus IV.

54 N. W. Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), 125; Miller, Daniel, 226-27. In v. 25,

‘Prince’ here is identified with “Prince of princes,” which refers to God. In this context, dymiêT'h; refers to the morning

and evening sacrifices that the priests offered every day at the temple (cf. v. 14).

18

deeds against God and his people. It defiles even the place of his sanctuary (Av*D"q.mi !Akïm.) (v. 11).55

The Angel Gabriel explains to Daniel what the ram, the goat, and the horns in the vision

mean. The two-horned ram represents the kings of Media and Persia (v. 20). The shaggy goat

refers to the king of Greece (v. 21). The prominent horn between his eyes denotes the first king

(i.e., Alexander the Great) (v. 21).56

That the prominent horn was broken off when it was strong

symbolizes the premature death of Alexander the Great.57

The four horns which replaced the

first horn represent “four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation” (v. 22). In v. 23, this

particular king (called ‘a little horn’), who came out of one of the four kingdoms, is identified as

~ynIßP'-z[; %l,m, (a king of bold face).58

The angel said that he appears in the latter part of the reign of

the four kings. This king causes “astounding devastation,” destroying the holy people and even

challenging ‘~yrIf'-rf; (the Prince of princes) (v. 24-25).59

But he will be destroyed at the end (v.

25).

Did Daniel understand what Gabriel explained to him? Daniel’s response was !ybi(me !yaeî (there

was no understanding) (v. 27).60

What does it mean by !ybi(me !yaeî? Does it mean that Daniel did not

55

A rare word !Akïm. was used for ‘place’ instead of a common word, ~wqm. The former is especially used for God’s

abode (J. A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,

1950], 336). “The place of his sanctuary” seems to denote the temple (Miller, Daniel, 227).

56 Young, Daniel, 178; Porteous, Daniel, 122-23; Miller, Daniel, 223.

57 Alexander died at the age of thirty-two (323 B.C.) (Miller, Daniel, 224).

58 This term seems to be borrowed from Deut 28:50: “A nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the

person of the old, nor show favour to the young” (Young, Daniel, 179). “A king of bold face” symbolizes the harsh

character of Antiochus IV, who relentlessly oppressed those who opposed him (Miller, Daniel, 23).

59 Refer to n. 54.

60 J. J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 342. Collins commented, “although Daniel had

heard the interpretation, it does not make sense to him, as well it should not, since it supposedly refers to events and

people in the distant future.” Collins’s comments mean that Daniel did not understand what the vision meant in the

19

understand anything about the vision Gabriel explained to him? It is probably not the case. It is

likely that Gabriel’s explanation did make sense to him. Gabriel began his explanation with the

word, "Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time of the end" (v. 17).61

Even

though Daniel did not understand the specific time of its fulfillment, he was able to know that

this would happen in the distant future. Even though Daniel did not know who the king of bold

face was, he was able to know who he would be by observing his abominable deeds that he

would execute against God, his people and his sanctuary. Ginsberg has recognized the obvious

discrepancy between the word that Daniel did not understand and the point of the previous verse

(v. 26), “that he should understand but not broadcast.”62

The problem of the apparent

contradiction between Daniel’s understanding of the vision and his incomprehension of it will be

solved by applying the triangle of meaning to our interpretation.

We will understand the vision Daniel saw in terms of two levels of meaning, i.e., sense-

making and referent-finding. Daniel may have understood what Gabriel explained about this

particular king called ‘a little horn’ because the angel specifically described what the ram, the

goat, and the horns meant. The angel’s explanation does make sense to us as well. Hence, we

may say that we understand the vision in terms of ‘sense-making’ even before the actual referent

of the horn appears in history. But what about the referent of this particular horn, that is,

sense of finding its referent. Here, Collins’s understanding of meaning represents referent-finding, that is, the idea

based on the ‘word-and-thing’ method.

61 Young comments, “This vision, it is said, has to do with the time of the end, and must, therefore, be understood”

(Daniel, 176). Gabriel presupposes Daniel’s understanding of the vision by means of his explanation.

62 As quoted by Collins, Daniel, 342. Refer to H. L. Ginsberg, Studies in Daniel (NY: Jewish Theological Seminary

of America, 1948), 32. Steinmann holds a balanced view regarding what Daniel understood and what he did not

understand. Steinmann says “[Daniel] understood that this vision predicted severe persecution against his people,”

but his reaction in v. 27 “probably indicates that he did not understand how it would be fulfilled in future history”

(Steinmann, Daniel, 417).

20

~ynIßP'-z[; %l,m,? We cannot understand who this figure refers to until the actual referent appears in

history. Or we may guess who the referent refers to around the time when parts of the prophecy

are fulfilling in history. With the appearance of this wicked king, various signs of the prophecy

will be coming true as time goes on. The signs include cession of the daily sacrifice and the

surrender of the sanctuary for “2,300 evenings and morning” (v. 13-14).63

If one observes, along

with these signs, his haughty behavior challenging God, they will be obvious indications of the

appearance of this king. The significance of this prophecy is related to the time it is fulfilling in

history so that the people of God may prepare for the time of suffering.

In the case of purely predictive prophecy, therefore, one should not hurry to find its referent

if one does not see evident signs of its fulfillment. As the history of redemption unfolds, the

referent will be evident at or around the time of its fulfillment. History has revealed that this

wicked king refers to Antiochus IV Ephiphanes (175-162 B.C.), who severely persecuted the

Jews and defiled the Temple of Jerusalem.64

To Daniel’s point of view, it was beyond his

understanding. It was impossible for Daniel to know who the referent of ~ynIßP'-z[; %l,m, is. However,

the angel’s explanation is clear enough to understand who the wicked king will be by dint of the

signs accompanied with his coming. In short, we may conclude that Daniel understood the

meaning of ‘a little horn’ in the nuance of sense-making but he did not understand its meaning in

the nuance of referent-finding.

63

There are two views regarding the interpretation of “2,300 evenings and morning.” One takes it as 1150 days; the

other takes it as 2300 days. The second view is preferred by most scholars including Keil (Daniel, 302-8), Young

(Daniel, 173-75), and Miller (Daniel, 228-30).

64 Young, Daniel, 180; W. S. Towner, Daniel (IBC; Atlanta: John Knox, 1984), 122; Miler, Daniel, 219, 225.

21

V. Interpretation of ‘the Servant’ in Isa 52:13-53:12 as a Test Case

What is the original meaning of Isa 52:13-53:12? The key issue is ‘Who is the servant in this

text?’ Is he a historical individual, the collective Israel, the Messiah, or someone else?65

According to North’s analysis, some fifteen historical individuals—Isaiah, Uzziah, Hezekiah,

Josiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Job, Moses, Jehoiachin, Cyrus, Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, Meshullam,

Nehemiah, and Eleazar—were suggested for the referent of the servant in Isaiah 40-55.66

To

these suggestions Watts adds another interpretation by identifying Darius as the servant and

speaker of 53:7-9 and 12.67

Why are there so many conflicting interpretations of the servant for

this text? Harrison points out that there are difficulties in any of these views:

If the servant is to be identified with Israel, the picture of the nation that Isaiah presents

is quite different from that encountered in the historical writings of the OT. If the

description of the servant is in any significant sense that of an ideal individual, it cannot

be represented by a historical personage such as Hezekiah, Cyrus, or the like. Even the

notion of a “corporate personality” . . . fails to be entirely satisfactory as an explanation

of the relationship between the nation, the servant, and the Messiah; it does not delineate

the functions of the servant over against those of the nation, and thus it does not show

how the servant’s functions could be transmitted from Israel the nation to an

individual.68

65

According to R. K. Harrison, there are four views of the interpretation of the servant: “an individual, a corporate,

and ideal, and a historical interpretation” (Harrison, “Servant of the Lord,” ISBE 4:422-23). Recently, a mixed view

which contains both ‘individual’ and ‘corporate’ was suggested by H.-J. Hermisson, who identified the servant both

“the prophet who preaches God’s word” and “Israel who receives it” (“The Fourth Servant Song in the Context of

Second Isaiah,” in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources [ed. B. Janowski and P.

Stuhlmacher; trans. D. P. Bailey; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004], 16-47). But his view is similar to the other views

based on the ‘word-and-thing’ method.

66 C. R. North, The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah: An Historical and Critical Study (London: Oxford

University Press, 1948), 192.

67 J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34-66 (WBC 25; Waco: Word, 1987), 227.

68 Harrison, ISBE 4:423.

22

It is well known that the referent of the servant changes here and there in Isaiah 40-55.69

Once it refers to Yahweh’s chosen one in whom he delights (Isa 42:1).70

Next it refers to the

blind one (Isa 42:18-19). Another time it refers to the collective Israel (Isa 41:8, 9; 44:1, 21; 45:4;

48:20; 49:3, 5). In the context of Isa 52:13-53:12 it is difficult to identify who “my servant” (Isa

52:13) is because it is not easy to find who the antecedent of the servant is.71

It is disappointing to see that many scholars attempt to come up with what the original

meaning of the text is in the historical context of its composition but end up adding another

interpretation to the text without producing a convincing explanation for it. Behind this kind of

approach to the text, there is a strong conviction that there must be an original meaning in the

sense that the text refers to someone specific to the immediate historical situation.

It seems that any figure listed by North or suggested by Watts does not match with the

contents of Isa 52:13-53:12. According to this text, the most prominent mission of the servant is

69

There are twenty-one times of occurrence of the term ‘servant’ in Isaiah 40-55. J. N. Oswalt classifies these into

two broad categories, which all belong to the nation Israel. One of the servants is the “blind, deaf, and rebellious”

one; the other is the “responsive and obedient” one. Oswalt further explicates, “In chapters 40-48, all the references

except one (42:1) are to the first servant, the nation. In chapters 49-55 the situation is exactly reversed. Here all the

references but one (54:17) are to the servant who suffers in order to bring Yahweh’s people back to himself”

(Oswalt, “Isaiah 52:13-53:12: Servant of All,” CTJ 40 [2005]: 88). However, Oswalt cannot help proposing a third

figure, “an ideal Servant,” to compromise the conflicting identities of the servant.

70 Matthew identified Yahweh’s chosen one with Jesus Christ (Matt 12:17-20).

71 In the Book of Isaiah, the term ‘servant’ is used for many different people including Isaiah himself (20:3),

Eliakim (22:20), King David (37:35), the Jewish nation (41:8-9; 44:1-2; 45:4; 48:20), the proselytes (56:6), and

other unidentifiable individuals (42:1, 19; 43:10; 49:3-6; 52:13; 53:11). Observing the various referents of the

servant in Isaiah, Treves asserts that there is little sense in asking who the servant is in the Book of Isaiah, but he

rather suggests that we should ask “who is the servant in each of the verses where this phrase occurs” (M. Treves,

“Isaiah LIII,” VT 24/1 [1974]: 99). Clines suggests that there is an intentional ambiguity about the identity of the

servant in Isaiah 53 (D. Clines, I, He, We and They: A Literary Approach to Isaiah 53 [JSOTSup 1; Sheffield: JSOT

Press, 1976], 33).

23

to bear ‘our’ iniquities and transgressions by his sufferings.72

His mission of the substitutionary

bearing of our sins was repeatedly stated many times in this text (vv. 5, 6, 8, 11, 12).73

The

servant’s sin-bearing for ‘us’ is the most prominent theme in this text.74

Does any figure in the

immediate historical context match with the mission like this? The interpretation of the collective

Israel is not compatible with the sin-bearing theme of the text. Why did the nation Israel suffer?

The prophet’s message was clear. They suffered for their own sins (Isa 1:18-25; 3:8-9; 6:9-13;

40:2). They were exiled because of their sins (Isa 5:1-30; 27:8-10; Jer 16:10-13; 17:1-4; 13:8-

72

Some deny the servant’s substitutionary suffering but this view evidently suppresses the plain sense of the text (cf.

H. M. Orlinsky, “The So-called ‘Servant of the Lord’ and ‘Suffering Servant’ in Second Isaiah,” in Studies in the

Second Part of the Book of Isaiah [VTSup 14; Leiden: Brill, 1967], 1-133). Recently a similar view was proposed

by H. Spieckermann, “The Conception and Prehistory of the Idea of Vicarious Suffering in the Old Testament,” in

The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources (ed. B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher; trans. D. P.

Bailey; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 1-15. However, B. Janowski proposed an idea of a delayed recognition by

the part of Israel in understanding the servant’s vicarious sufferings for them. He acknowledged the fact that the

servant suffered for the sins of Israel but they understood it later after observing the servant’s success (“He Bore Our

sins: Isaiah 53 and the Drama of Taking Another’s Place,” in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and

Christian Sources [ed. B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher; trans. D. P. Bailey; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004], 48-74).

Janowski identified the servant as the Second Isaiah, which means he is using the ‘word-and-thing’ method, too. M.

Hengel studied the influence of Isaiah 53 in the pre-Christian period and concluded that “traditions of suffering and

atoning eschatological messianic figures were current in Palestinian Judaism, and that Jesus and the earliest Church

could have known and appealed to them” (“The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the Pre-Christian Period,” in The

Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources [ed. B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher; trans. D. P.

Bailey; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004], 75-146). Arguing against the view of temporal punishment for sin (by

Orlinsky and Whybray), Oswalt emphasized, “it is by no means as serious as spiritual punishment: alienation from

God. . . It is only through substitution that fellowship between humans and God is possible” (Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66,

385).

73 E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah (3 vols.; NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 3:348. Commenting on v. 5,

Young makes it clear that the servant suffering was vicarious: “When the Servant bore the guilt of our sins, we are

saying that he bore the punishment that was due to us because of those sins, and that is to say that he was our

substitute. His punishment was vicarious. Because we had transgressed, he was pierced to death; and being pierced

and crushed was the punishment that he bore in our stead.”

74 Delitzsch comments that “we” abruptly introduced in the midst of a prophecy always refers to Israel including the

prophet himself (F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah [trans. J. Martin; 2 vols.; Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954], 2:310). Oswalt, basically following Delitzsch’s view (Isaiah 40-66, 381), compares the

servant’s sin-bearing for ‘us’ to that of the scapegoat (Lev. 16:22) (J. N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66

[NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 377). Cf. H. G. Reventlow, “Basic Issues in the Interpretation of Isaiah

53,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins (ed. W. H. Bellinger, Jr. and W. R. Farmer;

Harrisburg: Trinity, 1998), 27-29.

24

19).75

Any historical figure listed by North is not comparable with this mission of the servant.

Especially, who can be qualified for the servant’s mission as is described in v. 6: [:yGIp.hi hw"hyw:

WnL'Ku !wO[] tae AB (the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all)?76

Hence, any effort to find the

identity of the servant in the immediate historical context will inevitably fail because none of

them can bear our sins. This is why I classify this text into the category of a purely predictive

prophecy.

What then is the solution for the problem of identifying the servant? Here we can apply the

theory of sense-making to this text. Any hurried application of the ‘word-and-thing’ method to

find the identity of the servant will result in a wrong interpretation of the text. Did Darius suffer

for the sins of us all? Not at all! This kind of a ‘word-and-thing’ approach in the immediate

historical context will produce a forced interpretation that does not match with the actual

contents of the text.

Instead, one has to be satisfied with sense-making of the text in its original historical context.

There is not so much difficulty in understanding Isa 52:13-53:12 in terms of the sense-making of

the servant. We understand that his suffering will be beyond description (52:14).77

We know that

75

In the song of the vineyard the prophet enumerates the sins Israel and Judah have committed. Then he proclaims

that they will be exiled because of these sins (esp., vv. 9, 10, 13). Refer to J. A. Alexander, Commentary on the

Prophecies of Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1953), 131-32, 134.

76 The servant’s vicarious suffering for ‘us’ was initiated by God according to v. 6. Who can bear our sins by the

preordained plan of God? V. 6 gives an answer to why the servant suffered. He was stricken, smitten, and afflicted

by God (v. 4) not because of his sins but because of our sins. Cf. C. Westermann, Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary

(OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 263-64; Young, Isaiah, 3:349-50; J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah:

An Introduction & Commentary (Downers Grove: IVP, 1993), 431.

77 The servant’s sufferings were expressed with an extremely strong word like disfigurement (tx;v.mi) of his face

(Young, Isaiah, 3:337-38). Following Clines’s view, Oswalt says this term means all suffering including physical,

mental, and spiritual (Isaiah 40-66, 379-80).

25

he will not have any attractions from the worldly perspective (53:2).78

He will be despised and

rejected by human beings (52:3).79

He will bear our infirmities and sorrows (53:4).80

He will

suffer for our transgressions and iniquities (53:5, 8).81

It is the Lord who lays on him “the

iniquity of us all” (53:6). When he is afflicted and oppressed, he will keep silent and he will not

open his mouth (53:7).82

After his suffering, he will be greatly satisfied (53:11).83

The righteous

servant will justify many people by bearing their iniquities (53:11).84

He not only bears the sins

of many people but also makes intercession for sinners (53:12).85

Is there any idea that we

cannot understand regarding these descriptions about the servant in terms of sense-making?86

They do make sense to us.87

We can just be satisfied with this level of understanding.

78

H. Bultema, Commentary on Isaiah (trans. C. Lambregtse; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1981), 506-9. Westermann

interprets the servant’s lack of beauty as meaning lack of blessing and attraction (Isaiah 40-66, 261). The

descriptions about the servant in this verse indicate that he does not have the qualities of leadership that are required

in the world (Young, Isaiah, 3:342).

79 R. N. Whybray, Isaiah 40-66 (NCB; Frome and London: Butler & Tanner, 1975), 174-75.

80 As regards bearing our sicknesses, according to Young, it doesn’t mean that “he became a fellow sufferer with us,

but that he bore the sin that is the cause of the evil consequences, and thus became our substitute” (Isaiah, 3:346).

81 Delitzsch, Isaiah, 2:317-20; Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 262-64; Young, Isaiah, 3:347-49.

82 Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66, 391-92. This verse implies the servant’s willing submission to the will of God.

83 Young translates it into “he shall see with abundant satisfaction.” There is no object in this translation but Young

regards the implied object as “the fruits and rewards of his Messianic suffering” (Isaiah, 3:356).

84 Young comments, “The servant bears the iniquities of the many that he may expiate them, and they in turn

receive his righteousness” (Isaiah, 3:357-58).

85 Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 268-69; Young, Isaiah, 3:358-59.

86 Scholars’ minor differences in interpreting textual issues do not hinder one from understanding its obvious sense.

87 Oswalt expressed an idea similar to my understanding of sense-making. He states, “. . . we may not say that we

do not know what is being said. Thus it is possible to describe in considerable detail the character and work of the

Servant. How and to whom this should apply may be a matter of inference and deduction, but the intention of the

material itself is clear enough” (Isaiah 40-66, 377-78).

26

What about the referent of the servant? As previously stated, the referent will be found as the

history of redemption makes progress gradually. Later with the dawn of the time of its fulfillment

we realize that all these descriptions of the servant match perfectly with the person and work of

Jesus Christ.88

We find the true referent of the servant in Jesus Christ.

VI. Conclusion

In spite of the many benefits of grammatical-historical interpretation, we have seen that its

rigid use incurs many problems in interpreting a purely predictive prophecy. As stated above,

first of all, we should acknowledge that there is a literary genre of purely predictive prophecy

(e.g., 1 Thess 4:16-17; Daniel 7, 8; Isa 52:13-53:12; possibly, Ps 110). For a proper interpretation

of purely predictive prophecy, our use of grammatical-historical interpretation should be fine-

tuned so that our understanding of its original, historical meaning does not encroach upon the

real meaning of the prophecy. To overcome the limitations of grammatical-historical

interpretation, it has been suggested that a distinction between sense-making and referent-finding

should be made in this study. The best way to interpret purely predictive prophecy in its original,

historical context is just to be satisfied with its sense-making without aiming to find out the

referent of the text. Its real referent will be revealed as the history of redemption makes progress

as ordained by God.

88

Delitzsch, Isaiah, 2:301-342; Young, Isaiah, 3:359; Oswalt, Isaiah 40-66, 408.