Would value input because just this past weekend I was reading some posts (elsewhere), where the focus of the discussion is that, "ALL IS" God's ordained will.I believe that everything that happens in our world, the good and the bad, are all God's will. Having said that, God also gives us the opportunity to make choices.
Genesis 4:6 So the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”It's never God's will for anyone to commit sin, but God knows when people will commit sin and uses it for his purpose,
Concerning this scripture about how God is warning Cain about his anger and how sin (temptation) is lying at his door and that Cain should rule over the sin. Cain doesn't and kills his brother Abel.
Is this murder an example of God's will or is an example of His permissive will?
Is resisting the sin God's will but Cain transgressed God's will?
The main question then, is God's will "always" followed?
Would value input because just this past weekend I was reading some posts (elsewhere), where the focus of the discussion is that, "ALL IS" God's ordained will.
It's never God's will for anyone to commit sin, but God knows when people will commit sin and uses it for his purpose,
ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. Gen.50:20
I've met brothers who believe everything is God's will. In one sense, everything is God's will, such as the division of light and darkness, good and evil, etc, but to commit sin is never God's will. The action of Cain killing Abel was not God's will. Peter said of Jesus and those who killed him,It's never God's will for anyone to commit sin, but God knows when people will commit sin and uses it for his purpose,
ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. Gen.50:20
Out of curiosity, have you met any brethren whom insist ALL done is God's will? I ask because I have and when I raise the Cain example (I begin with this example), then they seem to switch from sticking to their insistence that ALL done is God will and turn to... God meant it for good, so it's still in His will.
OK, I fully understand "still" in His will but that is not what I raise. I raise, was the ACTUAL action that a person had done, His will?
This shows the division God determined from the beginning, but this in no way means that God wanted his Son murdered.I thought that was the whole point.
]I thought that was the whole point.The whole point was, he was greatly sinned against, but withheld his wrath as his Father often did,
The whole point was, he was greatly sinned against, but withheld his wrath as his Father often did,
You said "This shows the division God determined from the beginning, but this in no way means that God wanted his Son murdered." I said, I thought that was the whole point: Jesus dying for mankind's sins. And you just went and changed the topic.I didn't change the topic. The Father was very pleased by how his Son displayed God's love for people who sinned greatly against him. God is not pleased by people who sin against him.
I didn't change the topic.You changed the topic. The whole reason that Jesus came to earth was to die for the sins of mankind. Or have I misunderstood the thousands of discussions I've had on the topic?
You changed the topic. The whole reason that Jesus came to earth was to die for the sins of mankind. Or have I misunderstood the thousands of discussions I've had on the topic?That depends on how you understand the Lord's sacrifice. If you mean that he turned his wrath away while enduring sinful treatment, so that sinners would consider the sinful way they've treated him and repent, then yes. If you mean that he exacts justice on the innocent for what the guilty do, then no.
If I believe the Gospel narrative, then I have to believe that Jesus was not murdered, but that He willingly laid down His life.Actually, it's both.
If I believe the Gospel narrative, then I have to believe that Jesus died for me stealing chewing gum, looking at women with lust in my heart, and wanting to set myself of the throne of my life.So you would repent, yes. To be punished in place of you, no.
Again, I am apparently failing to track the issue properly.It's not difficult,
That depends on how you understand the Lord's sacrifice. If you mean that he turned his wrath away while enduring sinful treatment, so that sinners would consider the sinful way they've treated him and repent, then yes.What. You're inventing a new religion here. Tell me how that works out for you.
God sendng prophets so people would repent isn't a new religion,That depends on how you understand the Lord's sacrifice. If you mean that he turned his wrath away while enduring sinful treatment, so that sinners would consider the sinful way they've treated him and repent, then yes.What. You're inventing a new religion here. Tell me how that works out for you.
God sendng prophets so people would repent isn't a new religion,The way you're explaining it is a new religion. Traditional Christian doctrine is that Jesus suffered and died for the sins of mankind. In your new religion, he suffered to show up the people who killed him. What are you calling this new religion?
The way you're explaining it is a new religion.
Traditional Christian doctrine is that Jesus suffered and died for the sins of mankind.He did, but not in place of sinners,
In your new religion, he suffered to show up the people who killed him.He sure did show up the demonic realm which influenced the people who killed him, when he rose from death,
What are you calling this new religion?The real faith of Israel.
He did, but not in place of sinners,
as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin. 2Chr.25:4
every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Deu.24:16
Traditional Christian doctrine is that Jesus suffered and died for the sins of mankind.He did, but not in place of sinners,
Well, and traditional Christian doctrine is that Jesus took on the sin of the world (i.e. all human sin). New Gospel indeed!An additionally amusing factor is that he's now trying to sell his religion to me, even as his religion isn't even Christianity in the normative sense of the word. If I was interested in converting to another religion (which I am not), I wouldn't adopt a religion as practiced by one individual over a religion practiced by a very large number of people. Especially when that individual doesn't even know what's in the holy writ of their religion.
Genesis 4:6 So the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”
Concerning this scripture about how God is warning Cain about his anger and how sin (temptation) is lying at his door and that Cain should rule over the sin. Cain doesn't and kills his brother Abel.
Is this murder an example of God's will or is an example of His permissive will?
Is resisting the sin God's will but Cain transgressed God's will?
The main question then, is God's will "always" followed?
Would value input because just this past weekend I was reading some posts (elsewhere), where the focus of the discussion is that, "ALL IS" God's ordained will.
The way you're explaining it is a new religion.
I've said nothing new. The Bible says throughout how God is gracious and forgives the repentant, no matter how we have sinned against him. The Messiah demonstrated this,
Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven Lk.7:47Traditional Christian doctrine is that Jesus suffered and died for the sins of mankind.He did, but not in place of sinners,
as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin. 2Chr.25:4
every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Deu.24:16In your new religion, he suffered to show up the people who killed him.He sure did show up the demonic realm which influenced the people who killed him, when he rose from death,
having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Col.2:15What are you calling this new religion?The real faith of Israel.
But what did John have to say?I'm not being unclear Nazianzus.
1 John 2:2, "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."
Hey Peter, do you have any thoughts on this?
1 Peter 2:24, "He himself bore our sins" in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness;' by his wounds you have been healed.'"
Paul, surely you oh great apostle will disagree?
2 Corinthians 5:21, "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
Of course, you're misapplying Moses so an appeal to the NT isn't even strictly necessary. Well, and traditional Christian doctrine is that Jesus took on the sin of the world (i.e. all human sin). New Gospel indeed!
Unless you're just being unclear? If we've misunderstood, can you clarify?
I...what? Of course he died for the sake of sinners. That was the whole point. Seriously, how do I understand your religion, which I do not believe and do not practice, better than you do?!!For the sake of sinners, yes. In place of sinners, no. That's why the Messiah preached repentance. And our Lord Jesus knows the OT better than you do.
Can a Christian here please set him straight please?
God forgives the repentant because Jesus died for their sins. No blood, no forgiveness.God forgives the repentant period.
Hebrews 9:22 According to the law, nearly everything is cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission.Heb.9 is speaking of OT sacrifice, which was to produce repentance. 1st, Moses enjoining the law, then Jesus confirming the truth of it, neither of which teach that God punishes the righteous in place of the wicked.
Romans 3:23 for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; 24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God sent to be an atoning sacrifice, through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his righteousness through the passing over of prior sins, in God’s forbearance; 26 to demonstrate his righteousness at this present time; that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him who has faith in Jesus.Yes, Jesus passed over the sins being committed against him, as a demonstration of God's righteousness.
God did not always require a sacrifice from the sinner when he forgave the repentant because He was planning to sacrifice Jesus for them in the future.God didn't always require a sacrifice from sinners because God can forgive sins without sacrifice.
Jesus' death demonstrates God's righteousness, i.e. justice by punishing the sin instead of just passing over them.Punishing an innocent man for what the guilty do doesn't demonstrate righteousness.
If someone did some horrible things to other people, and the judge just forgave him, that judge would be unfair to the victims and should be called corrupt.The Judge is the one being sinned against,
God is not a corrupt judge because He punished Jesus for the sins. We each are personally responsible for our own sins (each man shall die for his own sin), but Jesus voluntarily took our place and our punishment. Jesus is allowed to do that.A corrupt judge punishes the innocent for what the guilty do. Jesus demonstrated the longsuffering of God, patiently enduring the sins of mankind, without bringing sinners into judgement.
Would value input because just this past weekend I was reading some posts (elsewhere), where the focus of the discussion is that, "ALL IS" God's ordained will.I believe that everything that happens in our world, the good and the bad, are all God's will. Having said that, God also gives us the opportunity to make choices.
So let's look at examples in the bible.
A question had been asked by the rabbis. Why did God punish the Egyptians for enslaving the Hebrews? Didn't God tell Abraham that his descendants would be enslaved for 400 years? Weren't the Egyptians carrying out God's will? Maybe God should have rewarded them instead of punishing them?
So the answer is very simple. God simply told Abraham that his descendants would be slaves. God didn't say where or by whom. The Egyptians stepped up and volunteered to do it. In other words, they chose themselves to be the carrying out a bad mission. And for choosing to do a bad mission, they were punished.
Another example may be teased out of the book of Esther. The wicked Haman has manipulated the Persian king into a decree for the annihilation the Jews. The Jewish orphan Esther wins a beauty contest and is the queen. Her uncle, Mordechai, approaches her and tells her to act and save the Jews, even though by doing so she may imperil herself. He uses very deliberate language: “Do not think that because you are in the king’s house you alone of all the Jews will escape. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father’s family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to your royal position for such a time as this?”
Mordechai is saying two separate things here: Firstly, that if it's God's will that the Jews be saved, they will be saved regardless. But if it's God's will that the Jews be saved, why not do your part in carrying out His will? Why not, in other words, choose yourself for a good mission? And secondly, nothing is by chance. God placed you in the palace so that you might have the opportunity to carry out His will.
This line of thinking lends itself to modern day examples as well. I do not doubt that the Holocaust was God's will, for whatever unfathomable reasons He had "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways" (Isaiah 55). But the German people chose themselves for a horrible mission, and so deserve punishment. Similarly, the modern day state of Israel is powerful thanks in part to American support. And so our country chose itself for a good mission and is the recipient of Genesis 12:3.
It even factors into the minor decisions in our life. Giving charity, even the smallest amount, choses us for a good mission. If it is God's will that the person have that help, someone will give it to them. Why not have that someone be you?
Which brings up yet another question I have. If God gave mankind free will, why did God "harden the hearts" of some throughout history?God hardens the hearts of people just by being who he is. For instance, he hardened Pharaohs heart. How much hardening did God do by sending a nobody (Moses) with a demand to one of the most powerful men on earth? That king couldn't stand being told what to do by anybody.
He disallowed that "free will" at times.
I'm not being unclear Nazianzus.
1Jn.2:2 says atonement is made for the worlds sins by our Lord's sacrifice, but the worlds aren't forgiven until they realize they've sinned against God and ask for forgiveness.
1Pet.2:24 says what was done to Jesus on the cross was sinful and he bore it. I have already shown from Pro.6:16-19 that in God's eyes, all those sins committed against the Messiah were an abomination.
2Cor.5:21 says Jesus had no sin, but was made sin, or sinful for us. The only way that can happen is by false witnesses, which it did. God permitted this.
And I understand What Moses was saying very well.
And our great Lord certainly did take on the sins of this world by enduring the mocking of those who beat and crucified him and the hatred of those who convicted him.
Well, and traditional Christian doctrine is that Jesus took on the sin of the world (i.e. all human sin). New Gospel indeed!An additionally amusing factor is that he's now trying to sell his religion to me, even as his religion isn't even Christianity in the normative sense of the word. If I was interested in converting to another religion (which I am not), I wouldn't adopt a religion as practiced by one individual over a religion practiced by a very large number of people. Especially when that individual doesn't even know what's in the holy writ of their religion.
Which brings up yet another question I have. If God gave mankind free will, why did God "harden the hearts" of some throughout history?God hardens the hearts of people just by being who he is. For instance, he hardened Pharaohs heart. How much hardening did God do by sending a nobody (Moses) with a demand to one of the most powerful men on earth? That king couldn't stand being told what to do by anybody.
He disallowed that "free will" at times.
The 'but' is irrelevant with respect to 1 John 2:2. As you knowledge, Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.Atonement, or propitiation, or appeasement, is what our Lord did being one with the Father. Bringing sinners into at-one-ment with God. Our Creator in flesh could have easily destroyed his enemies, but instead turned his own wrath away.
1 Peter 2:4 clearly states that Jesus bore our sins (i.e. took responsibility). The 'our' that Peter has in mind are members of the churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithnyia, and not, as you're suggesting, the sins of those who abused Jesus on the cross (1 Peter 2:23).The sins he bore were committed against him, inflicted on him. Even disagreeing with, or contradicting the Lord is sin, which people do to God every day. Read Pro.6:16-19. Those seven sins are an abomination to God and were all committed against his Son. Read it!
That's not right about 2 Corinthians 5:21, and further to my point, alternative readings of 5:21 might mention Jesus as sin offering.Yes it is right, but I have no objection to seeing "sin offering", because it shows how our Lord suffered unjustly (Cp. Exo.29:14 with Heb.13:11-13) and to bear his reproach. If Jesus was being punished in place of us, how are we going to bear his reproach?
Annddddd no, Jesus didn't take on the sins of the world through the mechanism of enduring mockery and beating on the cross.Oh yes he did and much more, because sin is against God and sin is
I didn't think you were being unclear. ;)I'm glad. :)
True, but I have to wonder if God is "hardening the hearts" of present-day leaders for some divine purpose, as well. Honestly, the things that are happening in the world today seem surreal and even bizarre, contrary to logic, reason and my concept of "reality". Almost like it is supernatural, in nature. Hmm....Leaders don't seem to want anything to do with him. They say they do, but then call each other names and try to belittle one another. They don't seem to want to pray for each other. Instead of acknowledging that we're all sinners, the focus of political leaders in the USA is that the other guy is stupid. It's sad.
God actively hardening people's hearts, then killing, say, their first born children, doesn't seem to jive with how the OT describes God elsewhere.Honestly?
Couldn't God have just done the reverse? Softening their hearts to make them more compassionate toward the plight of the wandering Israelites?
Without incredible mental gymnastics or seriously twisting the text, the Bible plainly assigns responsibility to God in these cases
not the people, for their "hardened hearts," saying that he did so to "rig" events to enable Israel's invasion of Canaan.
And our Lord Jesus knows the OT better than you do.On the other hand, I think I know it better than you do.
On the other hand, I think I know it better than you do.I'm sure you don't, as the King said,
I'm sure you don'tI'm sure I do.
If these rulers had let Israel pass by peacefully it wouldn't have given the Israelites the opportunity to annihilate them for their sin.This is just the old "let me in so I can save you from what I'll do to you if you don't let me in" circular reasoning.
my fuller reply, which you didn't quote.It's not necessary to quote an entire comment when we can just scroll up to read it. I quote small parts to provide context for what I'm replying to.
I'm sure I do.That's what rabbis who disagreed with the Messiah thought.
It's not necessary to quote an entire comment when we can just scroll up to read it. I quote small parts to provide context for what I'm replying to.
God hardened their hearts so they would attack Israel just because he can, so why doesn't he soften their hearts so they would help Israel instead?
That's what rabbis who disagreed with the Messiah thought.And they had a point.
And they had a point.And what was their point Fenris?
And what was their point Fenris?That the messianic prophecies remain unfulfilled. Even you guys are waiting for a second coming.
[That the messianic prophecies remain unfulfilled. Even you guys are waiting for a second coming.They're being fulfilled now and have been since the Messiah came. Nobody should be waiting for him to return to begin teaching the world about God, because he did that already. That's a fact.
God forgives the repentant because Jesus died for their sins. No blood, no forgiveness.God forgives the repentant period.Hebrews 9:22 According to the law, nearly everything is cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission.Heb.9 is speaking of OT sacrifice, which was to produce repentance. 1st, Moses enjoining the law, then Jesus confirming the truth of it, neither of which teach that God punishes the righteous in place of the wicked.Romans 3:23 for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; 24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God sent to be an atoning sacrifice, through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his righteousness through the passing over of prior sins, in God’s forbearance; 26 to demonstrate his righteousness at this present time; that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him who has faith in Jesus.Yes, Jesus passed over the sins being committed against him, as a demonstration of God's righteousness.God did not always require a sacrifice from the sinner when he forgave the repentant because He was planning to sacrifice Jesus for them in the future.God didn't always require a sacrifice from sinners because God can forgive sins without sacrifice.Jesus' death demonstrates God's righteousness, i.e. justice by punishing the sin instead of just passing over them.Punishing an innocent man for what the guilty do doesn't demonstrate righteousness.If someone did some horrible things to other people, and the judge just forgave him, that judge would be unfair to the victims and should be called corrupt.The Judge is the one being sinned against,
Against thee, thee only, have I sinned Psa.51:4God is not a corrupt judge because He punished Jesus for the sins. We each are personally responsible for our own sins (each man shall die for his own sin), but Jesus voluntarily took our place and our punishment. Jesus is allowed to do that.A corrupt judge punishes the innocent for what the guilty do. Jesus demonstrated the longsuffering of God, patiently enduring the sins of mankind, without bringing sinners into judgement.
[/quote]God forgives the repentant because Jesus died for their sins. No blood, no forgiveness.God forgives the repentant period.Hebrews 9:22 According to the law, nearly everything is cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission.Heb.9 is speaking of OT sacrifice, which was to produce repentance. 1st, Moses enjoining the law, then Jesus confirming the truth of it, neither of which teach that God punishes the righteous in place of the wicked.Romans 3:23 for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; 24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God sent to be an atoning sacrifice, through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his righteousness through the passing over of prior sins, in God’s forbearance; 26 to demonstrate his righteousness at this present time; that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him who has faith in Jesus.Yes, Jesus passed over the sins being committed against him, as a demonstration of God's righteousness.God did not always require a sacrifice from the sinner when he forgave the repentant because He was planning to sacrifice Jesus for them in the future.God didn't always require a sacrifice from sinners because God can forgive sins without sacrifice.Jesus' death demonstrates God's righteousness, i.e. justice by punishing the sin instead of just passing over them.Punishing an innocent man for what the guilty do doesn't demonstrate righteousness.If someone did some horrible things to other people, and the judge just forgave him, that judge would be unfair to the victims and should be called corrupt.The Judge is the one being sinned against,
Against thee, thee only, have I sinned Psa.51:4God is not a corrupt judge because He punished Jesus for the sins. We each are personally responsible for our own sins (each man shall die for his own sin), but Jesus voluntarily took our place and our punishment. Jesus is allowed to do that.A corrupt judge punishes the innocent for what the guilty do. Jesus demonstrated the longsuffering of God, patiently enduring the sins of mankind, without bringing sinners into judgement.
They're being fulfilled now and have been since the Messiah came. Nobody should be waiting for him to return to begin teaching the world about God, because he did that already. That's a fact.What about the world peace and universal knowledge of God?
Isaiah 53:4 Surely he has borne our sicknessVerse 5 is not a good translation. The Hebrew reads "...he suffered from our sins" not "for our sins". That's a really big difference, because "for our sins" means vicarious atonement whereas "from our sins" simply means that the speaker sinned and hurt the servant.
and carried our suffering;
yet we considered him plagued,
struck by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions.
He was crushed for our iniquities.
The punishment that brought our peace was on him;
and by his wounds we are healed.
Isaiah 53 describes how Jesus suffered for our sins.
Forgiveness and righteousness is only possible because of Jesus' death (symbolized by His blood) and resurrection. If all you need to do to be forgiven is to repent, then Jesus didn't need to die and resurrect.Thats right. Our Lord forgave sins without sacrifice.. And also came into this world for judgement later.
Acts 13:49 and by him everyone who believes is justified from all things, from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.I never said righteous is by a law that was given to show our unrighteousness. Walking in the light, being honest about oneself, confessing our sins and need of God's mercy is how sin is forgiven. The blood is his life. Look at Fenris response on Isa.53. He's right, except for interpreting it as pertaining to the Jewish people. It's about the Messiah.
1 Corinthians 1:30 Because of him, you are in Christ Jesus, who was made to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption:
1 Corinthians 15:17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins.
Galatians 2:21 I don’t reject the grace of God. For if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nothing!”
Ephesians 1:7 in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us the sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
]What about the world peace and universal knowledge of God?Although the message of the Messiah will be worldwide, only those who come to faith in God are given his peace. The Bible says there will be peace for those in God's holy mountain, not for everyone in the entire world.
Although the message of the Messiah will be worldwide, only those who come to faith in God are given his peace. The Bible says there will be peace for those in God's holy mountain, not for everyone in the entire world.That's...not what the bible says. Isaiah 11: the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. That means everyone. He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth. Jewish exiles haven't been completely gathered yet. Isaiah 2: They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. That hasn't happened yet.
Isaiah 53:4 Surely he has borne our sicknessVerse 5 is not a good translation. The Hebrew reads "...he suffered from our sins" not "for our sins". That's a really big difference, because "for our sins" means vicarious atonement whereas "from our sins" simply means that the speaker sinned and hurt the servant.
and carried our suffering;
yet we considered him plagued,
struck by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions.
He was crushed for our iniquities.
The punishment that brought our peace was on him;
and by his wounds we are healed.
Isaiah 53 describes how Jesus suffered for our sins.
Jews have always seen 53 as being about the suffering of the Jewish people in exile. And contextually it makes sense, because chapters 52 and 54 are about the redemption of Zion in the messianic era. In that time, the nation will look back and realize that the Jews were not "plagued, struck by God, and afflicted." It was the nations treatment of the Jews that made them suffer, not God.
Anyway another way for you to look a it.
Forgiveness and righteousness is only possible because of Jesus' death (symbolized by His blood) and resurrection. If all you need to do to be forgiven is to repent, then Jesus didn't need to die and resurrect.Thats right. Our Lord forgave sins without sacrifice.. And also came into this world for judgement later.Acts 13:49 and by him everyone who believes is justified from all things, from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.I never said righteous is by a law that was given to show our unrighteousness. Walking in the light, being honest about oneself, confessing our sins and need of God's mercy is how sin is forgiven. The blood is his life. Look at Fenris response on Isa.53. He's right, except for interpreting it as pertaining to the Jewish people. It's about the Messiah.
1 Corinthians 1:30 Because of him, you are in Christ Jesus, who was made to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption:
1 Corinthians 15:17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins.
Galatians 2:21 I don’t reject the grace of God. For if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nothing!”
Ephesians 1:7 in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us the sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
True, the word "for" brings some interpretation to the word "from". Do you think "because of" is correct?In Hebrew the prefix מ "mem" means "from". The word in question is "מִפְּשָׁעֵ֔נוּ" which means "from our sins" and not "for our sins".
I see the report given by Isaiah, "he" being Jesus, "our sins" referring to the sins of Israel, and "healing" to mean actual forgiveness of sins by God and the blessings that accompany that.I see the report being given by the startled kings in 52:15 (which really belongs in chapter 53, it's a horrible chapter break). "He" being "God's servant" named some 9 times between Is 40 and Is 50 as being the nation of Israel. The "healing" was the nations misconception that by oppressing and murdering Jews, they were actually 'healing' their nation. It's not crazy hyperbole, the Nazis said exactly that.
If the Gentile kings are giving the report as witnesses looking back at history, the timing would be AFTER the restoration of the kingdom of Israel at the beginning of the Messianic age, after all the nations who attack Jerusalem are destroyed. That doesn't sound like healing.Again, it's their misconception.
That's...not what the bible says. Isaiah 11: the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. That means everyone. He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth. Jewish exiles haven't been completely gathered yet. Isaiah 2: They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. That hasn't happened yet.It has been happening since the Messiah came. No one has to use a plane or boat to get to God's holy mountain. It's entered by faith in him,
What do you think "the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanses us from all sin" in 1 John 1:7 means? You think it is Jesus' life and not his death that cleanses us from sin? If we temporarily set aside "crushed for [from] our iniquities", the latter part of Isaiah 53:5 says "by his wounds we are healed". We are healed (and our sins are forgiven) because Jesus suffered (and died).Yes my friend, but the Messiah is the image of God on earth, enduring the sinfulness of people without immediately bringing evildoers into judgement. We are healed because we see how he patiently endured mankinds unrighteousness treatment against himself. If that doesn't cause humbly coming to God in repentance, nothing will.
It has been happening since the Messiah came. No one has to use a plane or boat to get to God's holy mountain. It's entered by faith in him,I mean, it's fine if you want to believe this. But I don't see anyplace in the bible that it's anything but an actual place.
Believers have been beating their swords into plowshares since the Messiah appeared.And they're being protected by those who kept their swords. Those who, you would say, are less moral than they are, yet risk their lives to protect others. I never got that.
What do you think "the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanses us from all sin" in 1 John 1:7 means? You think it is Jesus' life and not his death that cleanses us from sin? If we temporarily set aside "crushed for [from] our iniquities", the latter part of Isaiah 53:5 says "by his wounds we are healed". We are healed (and our sins are forgiven) because Jesus suffered (and died).Yes my friend, but the Messiah is the image of God on earth, enduring the sinfulness of people without immediately bringing evildoers into judgement. We are healed because we see how he patiently endured mankinds unrighteousness treatment against himself. If that doesn't cause humbly coming to God in repentance, nothing will.
True, the word "for" brings some interpretation to the word "from". Do you think "because of" is correct?In Hebrew the prefix מ "mem" means "from". The word in question is "מִפְּשָׁעֵ֔נוּ" which means "from our sins" and not "for our sins".QuoteI see the report given by Isaiah, "he" being Jesus, "our sins" referring to the sins of Israel, and "healing" to mean actual forgiveness of sins by God and the blessings that accompany that.I see the report being given by the startled kings in 52:15 (which really belongs in chapter 53, it's a horrible chapter break). "He" being "God's servant" named some 9 times between Is 40 and Is 50 as being the nation of Israel. The "healing" was the nations misconception that by oppressing and murdering Jews, they were actually 'healing' their nation. It's not crazy hyperbole, the Nazis said exactly that.QuoteIf the Gentile kings are giving the report as witnesses looking back at history, the timing would be AFTER the restoration of the kingdom of Israel at the beginning of the Messianic age, after all the nations who attack Jerusalem are destroyed. That doesn't sound like healing.Again, it's their misconception.
Isaiah 53:4 Surely he has borne our sicknessVerse 5 is not a good translation. The Hebrew reads "...he suffered from our sins" not "for our sins". That's a really big difference, because "for our sins" means vicarious atonement whereas "from our sins" simply means that the speaker sinned and hurt the servant.
and carried our suffering;
yet we considered him plagued,
struck by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions.
He was crushed for our iniquities.
The punishment that brought our peace was on him;
and by his wounds we are healed.
Isaiah 53 describes how Jesus suffered for our sins.
Jews have always seen 53 as being about the suffering of the Jewish people in exile. And contextually it makes sense, because chapters 52 and 54 are about the redemption of Zion in the messianic era. In that time, the nation will look back and realize that the Jews were not "plagued, struck by God, and afflicted." It was the nations treatment of the Jews that made them suffer, not God.
Anyway another way for you to look a it.
True, the word "for" brings some interpretation to the word "from". Do you think "because of" is correct?In Hebrew the prefix מ "mem" means "from". The word in question is "מִפְּשָׁעֵ֔נוּ" which means "from our sins" and not "for our sins".QuoteI see the report given by Isaiah, "he" being Jesus, "our sins" referring to the sins of Israel, and "healing" to mean actual forgiveness of sins by God and the blessings that accompany that.I see the report being given by the startled kings in 52:15 (which really belongs in chapter 53, it's a horrible chapter break). "He" being "God's servant" named some 9 times between Is 40 and Is 50 as being the nation of Israel. The "healing" was the nations misconception that by oppressing and murdering Jews, they were actually 'healing' their nation. It's not crazy hyperbole, the Nazis said exactly that.QuoteIf the Gentile kings are giving the report as witnesses looking back at history, the timing would be AFTER the restoration of the kingdom of Israel at the beginning of the Messianic age, after all the nations who attack Jerusalem are destroyed. That doesn't sound like healing.Again, it's their misconception.
I mean, it's fine if you want to believe this. But I don't see anyplace in the bible that it's anything but an actual place.It's the place people come to by faith in God,
And they're being protected by those who kept their swords. Those who, you would say, are less moral than they are, yet risk their lives to protect others. I never got that.God is our life. No man made sword preserves our life. And we all have sinned against him.
So it sounds like you are saying that Jesus' death demonstrates love which draws people to repentance and life. That is true, but it is Jesus' death which turns away God's wrath and need to punish our sins.Our Lords sacrifice is God turning his wrath away. People sinning against the Messiah and the Messiah not blasting them into oblivion.
1 John 2:1 And he is the atoning sacrifice[ b ] for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.
[Footnote b: “atoning sacrifice” is from the Greek “ιλασμος”, an appeasing, propitiating, or the means of appeasement or propitiation—the sacrifice that turns away God’s wrath because of our sin.]
The blood typically refers to blood that is outside the body, and symbolizes death. For example, at the first Passover, the Israelites painted blood on the doorposts and lintel of the houses. When God sees the blood, He means blood that is outside of the animal, indicating that the animal was killed.By putting the bloo on their houses, they were identifying themselves with the Messiahs sacrifice,
Exodus 12:13 The blood shall be to you for a token on the houses where you are. When I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague will be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.
Other verses that link Jesus' sacrifice to forgiveness of sins, and not the obedience of people who repent (repentance is necessary, but not sufficient without Jesus' sacrifice).Its our Lords sacrifice that causes repentance. Seeing how sinners (which we all are) have wronged God.
Romans 5:18 So then as through one trespass, all men were condemned; even so through one act of righteousness, all men were justified to life. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one, many will be made righteous.Hes saying Jesus himself was sinless. Because of this, he rose from death,
Hebrews 9:27 ... But now once at the end of the ages, he has been revealed to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. ... 10:10 by which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. ... 14 For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
Let's go to the beginning of the passage, disregarding the "horrible chapter break".This is correct. Now, before you go any further, the servant is identified by name multiple times between Is 40 and Is 52.
Isaiah 52:13 Behold, my servant will deal wisely.
He will be exalted and lifted up,
and will be very high.
14 Just as many were astonished at you—
his appearance was marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men—
15 so he will cleanse[a] many nations.
Kings will shut their mouths at him;
for they will see that which had not been told them,
and they will understand that which they had not heard.
53:1 Who has believed our message?
To whom has Yahweh’s arm been revealed?
Isaiah 52:13 is God speaking about "my servant".
Verse 14 "just as" and Verse 15 "so" indicates a comparison between the servant's "marred appearance" (and associated sufferings)The servant's appearance isn't "marred" because of suffering. The servant is considered disgusting and inhuman and not worth looking upon, as indeed the Jews have been by their haters through history. 53:2 (NIV) He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
and his "cleansing/sprinkling many nations" (and success)."Sprinkling" is probably a bad translation. The Hebrew word יַזֶּה֙ "Yazah" is a verb that means the "sprinkling motion" but in this context I think it means "to cause to shake" (which is the sprinkling motion after all). I've also seen it translated as "to cast down" (although that makes less sense to me. )
Kings will understand -- they do not understand until after the servant is highly exalted, namely in the Messianic era. Do you agree that if the kings gave a report, it would be after the beginning of the Messianic era?Yes. And as I've said, since Is 52 and 54 are both about the redemption of Zion in the messianic era, it should be seen in this context.
You claim that Isaiah 53:1 is the kings speaking. "Who has believed our message?" indicates that there was 1) a message reported in the past which 2) people did not believe. The kings did not understand until now, so 1) they never had this message prior to this late time. At this time when it is clear that the servant is highly exalted, 2) people will believe the message that the servant's suffering was not because the servant was guilty.Yes, this is what I claim. Thank you for summing it up.
Another passage that describes the beginning of the Messianic era (when God destroys the armies of Gog and Magog) indicates that much of Israel's suffering before their deliverance was in fact because of their own sins (as well as others' sins).That's in a different book (Ezekiel) as well as a different discussion, and a different context. Can we stick to Isaiah for now, please?
If on the other hand, Isaiah is speaking in Isaiah 53:1, and the servant is Jesus, the report about Jesus would have been preached before the Messianic era (at Jesus' second coming), many people have not believed the message, and Israel receives both peace and healing at the beginning of the Messianic era.This doesn't makes sense given the context of the surrounding chapters. You're acting as if Is 53 is actually its own book in the bible. It isn't. The servant is named and the time of Is 53 is given.
Here is another passage about the beginning of the Messianic era. Jesus, the pierced God, will provide healing by taking away the people's sins.Again, different book, different context.
Zechariah 12:8 look to me whom they have piercedThis is a bad translation. The Hebrew reads more like "They will look to me regrading those who have been stabbed..." in other words, praying to God and mourning for those Jews who have been killed in battle.
Let's go to the beginning of the passage, disregarding the "horrible chapter break".This is correct. Now, before you go any further, the servant is identified by name multiple times between Is 40 and Is 52.
Isaiah 52:13 Behold, my servant will deal wisely.
He will be exalted and lifted up,
and will be very high.
14 Just as many were astonished at you—
his appearance was marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men—
15 so he will cleanse[a] many nations.
Kings will shut their mouths at him;
for they will see that which had not been told them,
and they will understand that which they had not heard.
53:1 Who has believed our message?
To whom has Yahweh’s arm been revealed?
Isaiah 52:13 is God speaking about "my servant".
41:8-9 But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend. I brought you from the ends of the earth and called you from its farthest corners. I said, 'You are My servant.' I have chosen and not rejected you.
44:1 Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen
44:21 Remember these things, O Jacob, for you are My servant, O Israel. I have made you, and you are My servant; O Israel, I will never forget you.
45:4 For the sake of Jacob My servant and Israel My chosen one
and so on.QuoteVerse 14 "just as" and Verse 15 "so" indicates a comparison between the servant's "marred appearance" (and associated sufferings)The servant's appearance isn't "marred" because of suffering. The servant is considered disgusting and inhuman and not worth looking upon, as indeed the Jews have been by their haters through history. 53:2 (NIV) He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.Quoteand his "cleansing/sprinkling many nations" (and success)."Sprinkling" is probably a bad translation. The Hebrew word יַזֶּה֙ "Yazah" is a verb that means the "sprinkling motion" but in this context I think it means "to cause to shake" (which is the sprinkling motion after all). I've also seen it translated as "to cast down" (although that makes less sense to me. )QuoteKings will understand -- they do not understand until after the servant is highly exalted, namely in the Messianic era. Do you agree that if the kings gave a report, it would be after the beginning of the Messianic era?Yes. And as I've said, since Is 52 and 54 are both about the redemption of Zion in the messianic era, it should be seen in this context.QuoteYou claim that Isaiah 53:1 is the kings speaking. "Who has believed our message?" indicates that there was 1) a message reported in the past which 2) people did not believe. The kings did not understand until now, so 1) they never had this message prior to this late time. At this time when it is clear that the servant is highly exalted, 2) people will believe the message that the servant's suffering was not because the servant was guilty.Yes, this is what I claim. Thank you for summing it up.QuoteAnother passage that describes the beginning of the Messianic era (when God destroys the armies of Gog and Magog) indicates that much of Israel's suffering before their deliverance was in fact because of their own sins (as well as others' sins).That's in a different book (Ezekiel) as well as a different discussion, and a different context. Can we stick to Isaiah for now, please?QuoteIf on the other hand, Isaiah is speaking in Isaiah 53:1, and the servant is Jesus, the report about Jesus would have been preached before the Messianic era (at Jesus' second coming), many people have not believed the message, and Israel receives both peace and healing at the beginning of the Messianic era.This doesn't makes sense given the context of the surrounding chapters. You're acting as if Is 53 is actually its own book in the bible. It isn't. The servant is named and the time of Is 53 is given.QuoteHere is another passage about the beginning of the Messianic era. Jesus, the pierced God, will provide healing by taking away the people's sins.Again, different book, different context.QuoteZechariah 12:8 look to me whom they have piercedThis is a bad translation. The Hebrew reads more like "They will look to me regrading those who have been stabbed..." in other words, praying to God and mourning for those Jews who have been killed in battle.
Yes, Israel is one of the servants mentioned in Isaiah. Here is another servant who brings Jacob again to God (who is not Jacob).
Isaiah 49:5 Now Yahweh, he who formed me from the womb to be his servant,
says to bring Jacob again to him,
and to gather Israel to him,
for I am honorable in Yahweh’s eyes,
and my God has become my strength.
6 Indeed, he says, “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob,
and to restore the preserved of Israel.
I will also give you as a light to the nations,
that you may be my salvation to the end of the earth.”
"shake" many nations? That is what happens at the start of the Messianic age.Again, I like "startle". Yes, it comes in the messianic age.
Haggai 2:7 and I will shake all nations. The precious things of all nations will come, and I will fill this house with glory, says Yahweh of Armies.This is a different Hebrew word, "וְהִרְעַשְׁתִּ", something more akin to "I will make thunderous sound". Could be synonymous with "startle".
1) message was reported in the past. --> 1) Gentile kings had no message in the pastI don't understand what you're saying here. In the messianic era, the kings will be startled.
2) message was not believed --> 2) Message will be believed if it was told after the servant is exaltedYes, the idea was not believed. What idea, specifically? That the despised and downtrodden Jews were correct all along!
Regarding translation of Zechariah 12:10You're putting a question mark in the translation. That alone shows you aren't sure. אֵת אֲשֶׁר is idiomatic for "regarding which" or "about whom".
וְהִבִּיטוּ (and they look) אֵלַי (to me) אֵת (itself?) אֲשֶׁר (whom) דָּקָרוּ (they stabbed)
I don't see "regarding those" in the Hebrew.
It's really a shame for someone to have been a member of the church and not understand what this means,
the one who rejects me rejects the one who sent me. Lk.10:16
You'll notice "agnostics" posts and Fenris' posts all go together and support one another's every word. So whether I'm correct or not, I'm not too sure "agnostic"'s posts aren't Fenris' other account.
OkAnd you think it's funny. Must be my third account. I'm everyone on this forum. Just wait until the Jewish Space Laser (TM) comes online!
Now that’s funny
OkAnd you think it's funny. Must be my third account. I'm everyone on this forum. Just wait until the Jewish Space Laser (TM) comes online!
Now that’s funny
You'll notice "agnostics" posts and Fenris' posts all go together and support one another's every word. So whether I'm correct or not, I'm not too sure "agnostic"'s posts aren't Fenris' other account.For someone who is constantly harping on others to follow "the rules" (guidelines) of the forum, your willingness to resort to a blatant lie/conspiracy theory as the only possible explanation why anyone could disagree with you instead of addressing the substance of what those two people actually said is... well, not that shocking, really.
I could be wrong of course but they do seem kinda like a married couple the way "agnostic" always supports and upholds everything Fenris says.Always (https://bibleforums.us/index.php?topic=118.msg1216#msg1216).
Always (https://bibleforums.us/index.php?topic=118.msg1216#msg1216).I don't agree with everything you say. But your depth of knowledge has very much impressed me.
It may help to give a technical definition of את because it's usage is really clear: this word is a participle used to distinguish an accusative noun of a transitive verb from other nouns (nominative, dative, genitive, vocative) in that context. Hebrew sentence structure can be a little more flexible than English, so this participle always immediately precedes the accusative noun it specifies.
Most of the time it isn't translated, because there's no real way to that wouldn't be cumbersome. In the first verse of Genesis: "God created את the heavens and את the earth." Its use here just means "the heavens and the earth" are the accusative noun modified by "God created."
Since את is used for "the one they've pierced", that person can't be the same person as either "they" or "me". Since "me" is God, then "את the one they've pierced" isn't.
Yes, Israel is one of the servants mentioned in Isaiah. Here is another servant who brings Jacob again to God (who is not Jacob).
Isaiah 49:5 Now Yahweh, he who formed me from the womb to be his servant,
says to bring Jacob again to him,
and to gather Israel to him,
for I am honorable in Yahweh’s eyes,
and my God has become my strength.
6 Indeed, he says, “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob,
and to restore the preserved of Israel.
I will also give you as a light to the nations,
that you may be my salvation to the end of the earth.”
You're missing the first verses of the chapter here, and it's significant.
Start from 49: Listen to me, you islands;
hear this, you distant nations:
Before I was born the Lord called me;
from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name.
He made my mouth like a sharpened sword,
in the shadow of his hand he hid me;
he made me into a polished arrow
and concealed me in his quiver.
He said to me, “You are my servant,
Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”
So the servant is still Israel.
In verse 5 why can't the servant be the prophet Isaiah himself? He even uses "I".Quote"shake" many nations? That is what happens at the start of the Messianic age.Again, I like "startle". Yes, it comes in the messianic age.QuoteHaggai 2:7 and I will shake all nations. The precious things of all nations will come, and I will fill this house with glory, says Yahweh of Armies.This is a different Hebrew word, "וְהִרְעַשְׁתִּ", something more akin to "I will make thunderous sound". Could be synonymous with "startle".Quote1) message was reported in the past. --> 1) Gentile kings had no message in the pastI don't understand what you're saying here. In the messianic era, the kings will be startled.Quote2) message was not believed --> 2) Message will be believed if it was told after the servant is exaltedYes, the idea was not believed. What idea, specifically? That the despised and downtrodden Jews were correct all along!
Which would be more starling to the world? That 1/3 of the world's population, 2.3 billion Christians, were correct all along? Or that the world's 13 million Jews who comprise less than 2 people out of every thousand were correct all along? Think about it.QuoteRegarding translation of Zechariah 12:10You're putting a question mark in the translation. That alone shows you aren't sure. אֵת אֲשֶׁר is idiomatic for "regarding which" or "about whom".
וְהִבִּיטוּ (and they look) אֵלַי (to me) אֵת (itself?) אֲשֶׁר (whom) דָּקָרוּ (they stabbed)
I don't see "regarding those" in the Hebrew.
So it sounds like you are saying that Jesus' death demonstrates love which draws people to repentance and life. That is true, but it is Jesus' death which turns away God's wrath and need to punish our sins.Our Lords sacrifice is God turning his wrath away. People sinning against the Messiah and the Messiah not blasting them into oblivion.
1 John 2:1 And he is the atoning sacrifice[ b ] for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.
[Footnote b: “atoning sacrifice” is from the Greek “ιλασμος”, an appeasing, propitiating, or the means of appeasement or propitiation—the sacrifice that turns away God’s wrath because of our sin.]The blood typically refers to blood that is outside the body, and symbolizes death. For example, at the first Passover, the Israelites painted blood on the doorposts and lintel of the houses. When God sees the blood, He means blood that is outside of the animal, indicating that the animal was killed.By putting the bloo on their houses, they were identifying themselves with the Messiahs sacrifice,
Exodus 12:13 The blood shall be to you for a token on the houses where you are. When I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague will be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.
when ye do well, and suffer for it.....because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example.....1Pet.2:20-21
Look at what he's saying. Jesus suffered for doing good.
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 1Cor.5:7Other verses that link Jesus' sacrifice to forgiveness of sins, and not the obedience of people who repent (repentance is necessary, but not sufficient without Jesus' sacrifice).Its our Lords sacrifice that causes repentance. Seeing how sinners (which we all are) have wronged God.Romans 5:18 So then as through one trespass, all men were condemned; even so through one act of righteousness, all men were justified to life. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one, many will be made righteous.Hes saying Jesus himself was sinless. Because of this, he rose from death,
Hebrews 9:27 ... But now once at the end of the ages, he has been revealed to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. ... 10:10 by which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. ... 14 For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. Rom.5:10
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 2Cor.5:20
We are reconciled to God by confessing our sin against him and living for him,
He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy. Pro.28:13
When Jesus talked about His blood, He emphasized His blood that was shed at His death, not the blood that means He is alive.They drank from his cup. That's the key to understanding all of scripture. By his cup, he put the flesh to death,
Matthew 26:27 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “All of you drink it, 28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins.
By suggesting Isaiah, you are allowing that "my servant" can mean someone other than the whole nation of Israel. We know that the descendants of Israel can be called Israel, and the remnant of the descendants of Israel can also be called Israel, so I suggest that this servant is a descendant of Israel.There's a problem with that. The servant has been explicitly identified multiple times between Is 40 and Is 52, and it is the nation Israel. I'm not going to post all those verses agai.
Similarly, I think when Ezekiel 37:25 mentions "my servant David", it could refer to the Son of David, the Messiah.Different prophet. And you're mangling the context. At least quote the whole verse "My servant David will be king over them". That's obviously one person. Plus we have the wonderful Isaiah 43:10 You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen... Obviously this is national Israel "My witnesses", plural, yet also "My servant", singular. Because the servant is Israel. Even some Christians admit this.
I'm talking about the timing of the message. We understand the message to be told at the Messianic era. At this time, the message will be believed. You are going back in time, as if the message that Israel was correct was not believed in the pastNo. In the messianic era, the nations will admit that they were wrong. That the Jews suffered because they, the nations oppressed them. Not because God did.
If you add a comma after "to me"You can't start adding commas to a translation from another language.
Exodus 8:12 gives an example of crying out to God concerning some matter, and it doesn't use this wording. Do you have an example where look to me, cry to God, or something else happens "concerning" someone or something with "ath ashr"?OK, so here's the thing. In any language, you can communicate the same concept using different words. In English you could say "about", "regarding", "pertaining to", "concerning", etc. The same hold true for Hebrew. So in Zechariah the Hebrew uses the phrase "Et Asher" and in Exodus it uses the phrase עַל־דְּבַ֥ר "Al Dibar" "upon the matter" which is saying the same thing uses different words. Also remember that in many cases the prophets use more poetic language.
Exodus 8:12 Moses and Aaron went out from Pharaoh, and Moses cried to Yahweh concerning the frogs which he had brought on Pharaoh.
When Jesus talked about His blood, He emphasized His blood that was shed at His death, not the blood that means He is alive.They drank from his cup. That's the key to understanding all of scripture. By his cup, he put the flesh to death,
Matthew 26:27 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “All of you drink it, 28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins.
Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. Heb.12:4
Striving against sin is how our Lord lives in us.
By suggesting Isaiah, you are allowing that "my servant" can mean someone other than the whole nation of Israel. We know that the descendants of Israel can be called Israel, and the remnant of the descendants of Israel can also be called Israel, so I suggest that this servant is a descendant of Israel.There's a problem with that. The servant has been explicitly identified multiple times between Is 40 and Is 52, and it is the nation Israel. I'm not going to post all those verses agai.
I agree that Isaiah 43:10 refers to national Israel.QuoteSimilarly, I think when Ezekiel 37:25 mentions "my servant David", it could refer to the Son of David, the Messiah.Different prophet. And you're mangling the context. At least quote the whole verse "My servant David will be king over them". That's obviously one person. Plus we have the wonderful Isaiah 43:10 You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen... Obviously this is national Israel "My witnesses", plural, yet also "My servant", singular. Because the servant is Israel. Even some Christians admit this.
QuoteI'm talking about the timing of the message. We understand the message to be told at the Messianic era. At this time, the message will be believed. You are going back in time, as if the message that Israel was correct was not believed in the pastNo. In the messianic era, the nations will admit that they were wrong. That the Jews suffered because they, the nations oppressed them. Not because God did.
| Before Messianic Era | After Messianic Era Begins | |
| Option 1 | Kings do not report a message. No unbelief as a result. | Kings report a message and people believe because they see Israel in glory |
| Option 2 | Someone else reports a message and no one believes |
וְהִבִּיטוּ (and they look) אֵלַי (to me) אֵת אֲשֶׁר (that which) דָּקָרוּ (they stabbed)
אֵת אֲשֶׁר is better rendered as "regarding that" or regarding whom" .
And your understanding is very tenuous. Let's look at the pronouns. "And they" (the Jews) "will look to me" (God) "who they" (the Romans) "stabbed", "and they" (the Jews, again) "will mourn for him" (God) "as one mourns over a firstborn".
Who "they" is keeps changing; it's the Jews, or the Romans, or whoever it needs to be. And God is sometimes "me" and sometimes "him". This is overly complicated and doesn't make much sense.
"And they (The Jews) will look to me (God) about those (Jews) who have been murdered, and they will mourn for them as one mourns over a firstborn".
Very clean.
This verse also takes place at the cusp of the messianic era, as the rest of the chapter helpfully informs us.
And it shall come to pass on that day that I will make Jerusalem a stone of burden for all peoples; all who bear it shall be gashed, and all the nations of the earth shall gather about it...On that day I will make the princes of Judah as a fiery stove among wood, and as a brand of fire among sheaves. And they shall consume on the right and on the left all the nations round about, and Jerusalem shall still stay in its place in Jerusalem...On that day the Lord shall protect the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the weakest of them shall be, on that day, like David. And the house of David shall be like gods, like the angel of the Lord before them.
Which has yet to happen. (Although the line about the weakest of the Jews will still be as mighty as king David, and the strongest will be like gods does make one think of the modern day IDF).
QuoteIf you add a comma after "to me"You can't start adding commas to a translation from another language.
Yes, of course you can use different words to convey the same meaning of "concerning" or "regarding". You claim that "Et Asher" can mean "regarding" in Hebrew idiom. It is possible that you have used it yourself in that way, but do you have any Bible verse that shows that ancient Biblical Hebrew ever used such an idiom?QuoteQuoteExodus 8:12 gives an example of crying out to God concerning some matter, and it doesn't use this wording. Do you have an example where look to me, cry to God, or something else happens "concerning" someone or something with "ath ashr"?OK, so here's the thing. In any language, you can communicate the same concept using different words. In English you could say "about", "regarding", "pertaining to", "concerning", etc. The same hold true for Hebrew. So in Zechariah the Hebrew uses the phrase "Et Asher" and in Exodus it uses the phrase עַל־דְּבַ֥ר "Al Dibar" "upon the matter" which is saying the same thing uses different words. Also remember that in many cases the prophets use more poetic language.
Exodus 8:12 Moses and Aaron went out from Pharaoh, and Moses cried to Yahweh concerning the frogs which he had brought on Pharaoh.
So you agree that this cup of blood refers to death. And in the passage, the blood results in the remission of sins -- so do you see "remission" of sins to mean "striving against sin" or "forgiving past sins"?Both, because if our Lord had not endured the wrongs being committed against him, the only alternative would have been to judge sinners. People must see how they have sinned against God and repent and nowhere in all of scripture is this more clear than by the evil done to his Son,
So you agree that this cup of blood refers to death. And in the passage, the blood results in the remission of sins -- so do you see "remission" of sins to mean "striving against sin" or "forgiving past sins"?Both, because if our Lord had not endured the wrongs being committed against him, the only alternative would have been to judge sinners. People must see how they have sinned against God and repent and nowhere in all of scripture is this more clear than by the evil done to his Son,
repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name Lk.24:47
And those who believe in him are being conformed to his image,
For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
1Pet.2:19-21
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, Act.2:38
Yes, Christ is our example and we die with Christ. The part you are missing is that Christ took our sin upon Himself.I'm not missing this part my friend. You're misunderstanding what Paul is saying. Our Lord "took our sin upon himself" in the sense of enduring the abuse he suffered at the hands of both Jews and gentiles,
2 Corinthians 5:21 For him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Isaiah 42:1-17 starts with "Behold! My servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him" --- This servant is special and is introduced with "Behold!" to call for your attention. Israel will receive the Holy Spirit in the Messianic era, so either this is another servant, or it is Israel in the Messianic era.Why can't it be the same subject in the entre chapter? Israel.
Isaiah 42:18-25 is another servant who is blind and deaf, who is named Jacob and Israel in 42:24. This is Israel before the Messianic era.
Isaiah 43:1-21 talks about Israel in comforting words, but calls them "blind and deaf" in 43:8 and chosen servant in 43:10. This is "You", the present day Israel, that does not fully understand that God is the only true God.Why does it have to be "present day Israel"? Why can't it be the generation that saw the exile? Verse 14 So said the Lord, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, "Because of you, I sent to Babylon..." The present day Israel wasn't sent to Babylon. The Israel of 586BC was.
Isaiah 43:22-28 talks about Jacob and Israel as evil but does not mention the word servantSo what? The subject of all these chapters is Israel, identified by name. Sometimes called God's "servant", sometimes called God's "witnesses", sometimes called "Jacob" and sometimes called just "Israel".
Isaiah 44:1-5 talks about Jacob as the chosen servant with the Spirit poured on his descendants. This refers to Israel in the Messianic eraOK. And Isaiah 53 is the nations of the world in the messianic era, acknowledging that Israel is God's servant- just as you have done right now. Thank you for proving my point!
Isaiah 49:1-9 talks about the servant, whose identity we have disagreed about.Verse 3: "You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast."
Verse 5 and 6 indicates that it is someone who brings Jacob back to God, so I claimed it was another servant"And now, the Lord, Who formed me from the womb as a servant to Him..." Why can't this be the prophet Isaiah? Isn't that who actually wrote this book?
namely the same servant in Isaiah 42:1-17 and 52:13-53:12. You claim there is no other servant besides Israel mentioned previously. If verse 5 and 6 are sufficient to establish that this is not national Israel, the "light to the Gentiles" in 42:6 and 49:6 identify the servants in the two passages as the same servant.The Jews see their mission as being a "light unto the nations" (the word "gentile" is a bad translation and that word didn't even exist in Isaiah's lifetime).
Isaiah 52:13-52:12 is a servant who suffers before the Messianic era and is exalted during the Messianic era.And why can't this be Israel, who suffers before the messianic era and will be exalted during the messianic era?
I agree that Isaiah 43:10 refers to national Israel.Excellent. This is progress.
You have two options:I don't understand this chart or what you're trying to say here.
Cleaner, in my opinion.You mean it aligns with your theology. Ok.
I agree that it happens at the cusp of the messianic eraOk. So I guess we shall see.
I don't think the Hebrew had commas, so consider the comma an interpretation.Modern Hebrew does. Biblical Hebrew has cantillation marks (for the tune how it's chanted) which does much the same thing.
Yes, of course you can use different words to convey the same meaning of "concerning" or "regarding". You claim that "Et Asher" can mean "regarding" in Hebrew idiom. It is possible that you have used it yourself in that way, but do you have any Bible verse that shows that ancient Biblical Hebrew ever used such an idiom?Yes, the verse in question.
As I pointed out, the Holy Spirit is on the servant in Isaiah 42:1-17, so it could be Israel, but it is not Israel in the pre-messianic era.QuoteIsaiah 42:1-17 starts with "Behold! My servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him" --- This servant is special and is introduced with "Behold!" to call for your attention. Israel will receive the Holy Spirit in the Messianic era, so either this is another servant, or it is Israel in the Messianic era.Why can't it be the same subject in the entre chapter? Israel.
Isaiah 42:18-25 is another servant who is blind and deaf, who is named Jacob and Israel in 42:24. This is Israel before the Messianic era.
You are right. It seems to fit more with ancient Israel with their sacrifices. I guess I can't just lump the entire pre-messianic era together.QuoteIsaiah 43:1-21 talks about Israel in comforting words, but calls them "blind and deaf" in 43:8 and chosen servant in 43:10. This is "You", the present day Israel, that does not fully understand that God is the only true God.Why does it have to be "present day Israel"? Why can't it be the generation that saw the exile? Verse 14 So said the Lord, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, "Because of you, I sent to Babylon..." The present day Israel wasn't sent to Babylon. The Israel of 586BC was.
I was just taking notes here.QuoteIsaiah 43:22-28 talks about Jacob and Israel as evil but does not mention the word servantSo what? The subject of all these chapters is Israel, identified by name. Sometimes called God's "servant", sometimes called God's "witnesses", sometimes called "Jacob" and sometimes called just "Israel".
I did not dispute that some of these references are to national Israel. I just said that some of them were not.QuoteIsaiah 44:1-5 talks about Jacob as the chosen servant with the Spirit poured on his descendants. This refers to Israel in the Messianic eraOK. And Isaiah 53 is the nations of the world in the messianic era, acknowledging that Israel is God's servant- just as you have done right now. Thank you for proving my point!
This was the reason why I quoted the thing about David. I suggested that "Israel" in verse 3 could mean a descendant of Israel, just like David who would be king forever could be the Messiah, the son of David. The reason it can't be national Israel is because I think it is the same servant in verse 3 as verse 5 and 6.QuoteIsaiah 49:1-9 talks about the servant, whose identity we have disagreed about.Verse 3: "You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast."
I mean, what more do you want?
"And now, the Lord, Who formed me from the womb as a servant to Him..." Why can't this be the prophet Isaiah? Isn't that who actually wrote this book?QuoteVerse 5 and 6 indicates that it is someone who brings Jacob back to God, so I claimed it was another servant
Quotenamely the same servant in Isaiah 42:1-17 and 52:13-53:12. You claim there is no other servant besides Israel mentioned previously. If verse 5 and 6 are sufficient to establish that this is not national Israel, the "light to the Gentiles" in 42:6 and 49:6 identify the servants in the two passages as the same servant.The Jews see their mission as being a "light unto the nations" (the word "gentile" is a bad translation and that word didn't even exist in Isaiah's lifetime).
I'm not saying it can't be Israel based on this broad context of timing. I'm just analyzing this text.QuoteIsaiah 52:13-52:12 is a servant who suffers before the Messianic era and is exalted during the Messianic era.And why can't this be Israel, who suffers before the messianic era and will be exalted during the messianic era?
Did you think I thought otherwise? Or that I just didn't know Isaiah 43:10 existed?QuoteI agree that Isaiah 43:10 refers to national Israel.Excellent. This is progress.
QuoteYou have two options:I don't understand this chart or what you're trying to say here.
I mean that there are only two parties involved in the sentence: you and me. No third group of stabbed people need to be referred to.QuoteCleaner, in my opinion.You mean it aligns with your theology. Ok.
yesQuoteI agree that it happens at the cusp of the messianic eraOk. So I guess we shall see.
neat. Do you know what Selah means?QuoteI don't think the Hebrew had commas, so consider the comma an interpretation.Modern Hebrew does. Biblical Hebrew has cantillation marks (for the tune how it's chanted) which does much the same thing.
OK, but that's a circular argument. Do you have any other Bible verse that shows more clearly that ancient Biblical Hebrew used such an idiom?QuoteYes, of course you can use different words to convey the same meaning of "concerning" or "regarding". You claim that "Et Asher" can mean "regarding" in Hebrew idiom. It is possible that you have used it yourself in that way, but do you have any Bible verse that shows that ancient Biblical Hebrew ever used such an idiom?Yes, the verse in question.
As I pointed out, the Holy Spirit is on the servant in Isaiah 42:1-17, so it could be Israel, but it is not Israel in the pre-messianic era.Why not?
You are right. It seems to fit more with ancient Israel with their sacrifices. I guess I can't just lump the entire pre-messianic era together.The people of Israel have their us and downs, but no one verse in the prophets can describe all of Jewish history. Even just look at Lev 26 and Deut 28 have the blessings for obedience and the curses for disobedience, which have variously applied at different times in Jewish history.
I was just taking notes here.That's good, helps keep the mind organized.
I did not dispute that some of these references are to national Israel. I just said that some of them were not.That's fair. But as I posited above, and you agree is sensible, Israel goes through times good and bad. So to for the "servant".
This was the reason why I quoted the thing about David. I suggested that "Israel" in verse 3 could mean a descendant of Israel, just like David who would be king forever could be the Messiah, the son of David.I mean, we know that the Davidic line is sometimes just referred to as "David" because it's obviously spelled out in the text (Ez 37:24, 2 Kings 19:34, 2 Kings 20:6, etc etc.), although sometimes it's just referring to king David himself (1 Chron 17:4 for example). That doesn't mean that "Israel" is some descendant of Israel. It seems more that you would like this to be so, but there's no compelling reason to believe it aside from that.
If we split verses 1-4 and verse 5-8, and we call 1-4 Israel and 5-8 Isaiah/Other, it still results in the existence of a non-Israel servant in a context where national Israel is mentioned in the same chapter. If that is the case, your argument that the context forces Isaiah 52-53 to be about Israel is weakened, because we would have an example where context is not decisive.Correct, although the servant in 53 could be national Israel, and there's nothing in the text makes it impossible to be so.
1) Your point is that the servant is national Israel. You just made an exception for yourself, allowing the possibility of someone else. e.g. Isaiah. That means I can do the same thing while being consistent with your approach to interpretationAgain, you could, and the fact that we are having this discussion means that a large number of people do hold to your interpretation. Having said that, there's nothing textually wrong with the way I'm seeing it, and historically this has been the Jewish perspective on the text.
2) It could be Isaiah or a third servant, but I wouldn't call Isaiah "God's salvation to the ends of the earth"Well, chapter 45 is addressed to Cyrus and uses that phrase. Muddies the waters.
Interesting. Nations and Gentile means different things?The Hebrew word in the verse, "Goy", simply means "nation". Not "gentile" (again that word didn't exist at the time). I will direct your attention to Exodus 19:5-6, where God says, "Now if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, you will be My treasured possession out of all the nations—for the whole earth is Mine. And unto Me you shall be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’". I've bolded the last word because in the Hebrew it uses that same word- "Goy". Everyone translates it as "holy nation" not "holy gentile".
So because Jews believe 42:6 and 49:6 refers to them being the light to the nations, so that is evidence that the Jews are the servant in these passages? Sounds like a circular argument.Well, we've already established that the servant can be Israel, so why not? For certain Jews have adopted this as a mission statement- to lead moral and ethical lives as God's moral pilot project.
Suppose a newspaper boy shouts the result of the NBA finals right after the game. Everyone would believe him. You interpret the kings to be saying a message after the start of the messianic era. Everyone would believe these kings. Isaiah 52:1 is talking about a situation where the messenger is being labeled as a spreader of fake news, which doesn't match the two examples I mentioned. The key is the timing of when the message is reported, before or after everyone knows. The kings are among the last to know.I think you mean 53:1. Using your analogy, it's the newspaper boy expressing shock at the end of the game that the team predicted to lose 100-0 actually won instead. "Who would have believed it?!!"
I mean that there are only two parties involved in the sentence: you and me. No third group of stabbed people need to be referred to.It's not about "need", its about what the text actually says.
Do you know what Selah means?We know the meaning of all but a few obscure Hebrew words, "Selah" being one of them. Nobody has known for certain what that word means since the end of the first temple era.
OK, but that's a circular argument. Do you have any other Bible verse that shows more clearly that ancient Biblical Hebrew used such an idiom?Biblical Hebrew uses lots of idioms. So does biblical Greek for that matter.
Yes, Christ is our example and we die with Christ. The part you are missing is that Christ took our sin upon Himself.I'm not missing this part my friend. You're misunderstanding what Paul is saying. Our Lord "took our sin upon himself" in the sense of enduring the abuse he suffered at the hands of both Jews and gentiles,
2 Corinthians 5:21 For him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? Act.4:25, Psa.2:1
The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. Act.4:26
and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. Psa.69:9
we know that this man is a sinner. Jn.9:24
he ought to die Jn.19:7
the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him. Lk.22:63
the LORD hates.....hands that shed innocent blood Pro.6:16-17
As I pointed out, the Holy Spirit is on the servant in Isaiah 42:1-17, so it could be Israel, but it is not Israel in the pre-messianic era.Why not?
I agree that the servant can go through good times and bad. Have you considered that the Messiah can go through good times and bad too?QuoteI did not dispute that some of these references are to national Israel. I just said that some of them were not.That's fair. But as I posited above, and you agree is sensible, Israel goes through times good and bad. So to for the "servant".
OK, so you understand my analogy of Israel vs David, but you said the reference to the descendant of David was more clear and the reference to the descendant of Israel was less clear. The verses you quoted, 2 Kings 19:34 and 2 Kings 20:6, says that God would defend the city for David's sake. I actually think this means David himself. I have thought about Ezekiel 37:24 and considered the possibility that David is resurrected and ruling as king. The only reason I think it is not David is that the Messiah will be ruling over Israel. Similar logic applies to Isaiah 49:3. The reason I think it is not Israel is because it doesn't match verses 5-6. In other words, the actions of the "David" or "Israel" cause us to find an alternate explanation.QuoteThis was the reason why I quoted the thing about David. I suggested that "Israel" in verse 3 could mean a descendant of Israel, just like David who would be king forever could be the Messiah, the son of David.I mean, we know that the Davidic line is sometimes just referred to as "David" because it's obviously spelled out in the text (Ez 37:24, 2 Kings 19:34, 2 Kings 20:6, etc etc.), although sometimes it's just referring to king David himself (1 Chron 17:4 for example). That doesn't mean that "Israel" is some descendant of Israel. It seems more that you would like this to be so, but there's no compelling reason to believe it aside from that.
So we can continue looking at the text of Isaiah 53.QuoteIf we split verses 1-4 and verse 5-8, and we call 1-4 Israel and 5-8 Isaiah/Other, it still results in the existence of a non-Israel servant in a context where national Israel is mentioned in the same chapter. If that is the case, your argument that the context forces Isaiah 52-53 to be about Israel is weakened, because we would have an example where context is not decisive.Correct, although the servant in 53 could be national Israel, and there's nothing in the text makes it impossible to be so.
OKQuote1) Your point is that the servant is national Israel. You just made an exception for yourself, allowing the possibility of someone else. e.g. Isaiah. That means I can do the same thing while being consistent with your approach to interpretationAgain, you could, and the fact that we are having this discussion means that a large number of people do hold to your interpretation. Having said that, there's nothing textually wrong with the way I'm seeing it, and historically this has been the Jewish perspective on the text.
I looked at Isaiah 45:8 and 17 where "salvation" is used. It seems to be saying God will bring salvation. I don't think it said Cyrus is God's salvation, unless it is interpreted that way.Quote2) It could be Isaiah or a third servant, but I wouldn't call Isaiah "God's salvation to the ends of the earth"Well, chapter 45 is addressed to Cyrus and uses that phrase. Muddies the waters.
They should translate it as nations then.QuoteInteresting. Nations and Gentile means different things?The Hebrew word in the verse, "Goy", simply means "nation". Not "gentile" (again that word didn't exist at the time). I will direct your attention to Exodus 19:5-6, where God says, "Now if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, you will be My treasured possession out of all the nations—for the whole earth is Mine. And unto Me you shall be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’". I've bolded the last word because in the Hebrew it uses that same word- "Goy". Everyone translates it as "holy nation" not "holy gentile".
It's a great mission to live for.QuoteSo because Jews believe 42:6 and 49:6 refers to them being the light to the nations, so that is evidence that the Jews are the servant in these passages? Sounds like a circular argument.Well, we've already established that the servant can be Israel, so why not? For certain Jews have adopted this as a mission statement- to lead moral and ethical lives as God's moral pilot project.
So it looks like I made a argument on Isaiah 53:1 (thanks for the correction) based on the past tense of "Who has believed", but you are suggesting that the meaning of the past tense can be more flexible and mean "Who would have believed". Thanks for understanding my analogy.QuoteSuppose a newspaper boy shouts the result of the NBA finals right after the game. Everyone would believe him. You interpret the kings to be saying a message after the start of the messianic era. Everyone would believe these kings. Isaiah 52:1 is talking about a situation where the messenger is being labeled as a spreader of fake news, which doesn't match the two examples I mentioned. The key is the timing of when the message is reported, before or after everyone knows. The kings are among the last to know.I think you mean 53:1. Using your analogy, it's the newspaper boy expressing shock at the end of the game that the team predicted to lose 100-0 actually won instead. "Who would have believed it?!!"
You propose the third group of people that are stabbed are what the text actually says. If you read Zechariah 12:1-10, you will notice that the only people killed in that passage are the enemies of Judah and Jerusalem. I doubt the people would mourn for the enemies that tried to kill them. It's definitely possible that Jewish people died in the battle too, but they are not mentioned in the passage, so it is a stretch to say that Zechariah 12:10 definitely refers to mourning for these hypothetical Jewish casualties. The mourning in Zechariah 12:11 mentions Megiddo, which reminds us of the mourning when King Josiah was killed at Megiddo (2 Chronicles 35:22-25). So the mourning could refer to the mourning for a Jewish king i.e. the Messiah.QuoteI mean that there are only two parties involved in the sentence: you and me. No third group of stabbed people need to be referred to.It's not about "need", its about what the text actually says.
Look, Christianity doesn't succeed or fail based on that one verse. On the other hand, Christianity's credibility in my eyes certainly hangs on forcing translations when that isn't what the Hebrew text actually says.I hope I'm not forcing translations to say things the Hebrew text isn't saying.
The cantillation marks that you mentioned, were they introduced after they added vowel marks?QuoteDo you know what Selah means?We know the meaning of all but a few obscure Hebrew words, "Selah" being one of them. Nobody has known for certain what that word means since the end of the first temple era.
Yes many idioms are used, but do you have any other Bible verse that shows that this particular idiom "et asher" --> "regarding those whom" was used in ancient Biblical Hebrew?QuoteOK, but that's a circular argument. Do you have any other Bible verse that shows more clearly that ancient Biblical Hebrew used such an idiom?Biblical Hebrew uses lots of idioms. So does biblical Greek for that matter.
Pardon my jumping to another book, but Ezekiel 39:29 says: "I won’t hide my face from them any more; for I have poured out my Spirit on the house of Israel,’ says the Lord Yahweh.”Let's stay with Isaiah 42 for now. Verse 19 says "Who is blind but My servant, and deaf as My messenger whom I will send?" This isn't necessarily an enlightened bunch. But God has put His spirit upon them nevertheless. I don't see why it can't be national Israel.
This is after the Gog and Magog war. I think that this is at cusp of the messianic era. It also sounds like this: if God's Spirit is poured on the house of Israel, then God will not hide His face from Israel any more i.e. they would never be brought into captivity again because of disobedience. So since we see that Israel has suffered much over the centuries, I don't think this event of pouring of God's Spirit on the house of Israel has been fulfilled yet. This is why I didn't think Isaiah 42:1 could refer to national Israel because it says "I have put my Spirit on him".
I agree that the servant can go through good times and bad. Have you considered that the Messiah can go through good times and bad too?But the fact that the servant goes through times good and bad times doesn't disqualify it being Israel. I know, I know. You very much want the servant to be the messiah, especially with chapter 53 so near. But there's nothing compelling about this reading to a Jewish person. The subject of the bible is a national story. It's about Israel. The messiah is a minor figure, who shows up at the end, after all the trials and tribulations are over. Isaiah 40 to 66 is about Israel's redemption. And that comes from God. There's no need to see the messiah in there anywhere.
OK, so you understand my analogy of Israel vs David, but you said the reference to the descendant of David was more clear and the reference to the descendant of Israel was less clear. The verses you quoted, 2 Kings 19:34 and 2 Kings 20:6, says that God would defend the city for David's sake. I actually think this means David himself.It doesn't. David was long dead by that time.
I have thought about Ezekiel 37:24 and considered the possibility that David is resurrected and ruling as king. The only reason I think it is not David is that the Messiah will be ruling over Israel. Similar logic applies to Isaiah 49:3. The reason I think it is not Israel is because it doesn't match verses 5-6. In other words, the actions of the "David" or "Israel" cause us to find an alternate explanation.I apologize for saying this, but you're basically making up the rules as you go. A word means what you need it to mean. There's no consistency in this. If you find it convincing, so be it. But don't expect others people to.
I looked at Isaiah 45:8 and 17 where "salvation" is used. It seems to be saying God will bring salvation. I don't think it said Cyrus is God's salvation, unless it is interpreted that way.Well, the word "salvation" means different things to Christians than it does to Jews. You think it means being saved from sin or eternal damnation. To a Jew it just means being saved from a difficult situation.
They should translate it as nations then.I'll speak to them immediately.
It's a great mission to live for.It is! And the crazy thing is, that of all the near eastern, bronze age peoples, only the Jews remain. In the same land (finally!) speaking the same language, reading the same holy books, and practicing the same religion as our ancestors did more than 3,000 years ago. We believe in the God Who acts through history and this to us explains our continued existence.
So it looks like I made a argument on Isaiah 53:1 (thanks for the correction) based on the past tense of "Who has believed", but you are suggesting that the meaning of the past tense can be more flexible and mean "Who would have believed". Thanks for understanding my analogy.I'm glad we are understanding each other.
You propose the third group of people that are stabbed are what the text actually says. If you read Zechariah 12:1-10, you will notice that the only people killed in that passage are the enemies of Judah and Jerusalem. I doubt the people would mourn for the enemies that tried to kill them. It's definitely possible that Jewish people died in the battle too, but they are not mentioned in the passage, so it is a stretch to say that Zechariah 12:10 definitely refers to mourning for these hypothetical Jewish casualties.Well, this is going outside the text of the chapter itself. Verses 11-14 describe a great mourning throughout the land. Whatever it is, it's some future event. So I guess we shall see.
The cantillation marks that you mentioned, were they introduced after they added vowel marks?It's my understanding they were always there, like musical notes for the Psalms.
Yes many idioms are used, but do you have any other Bible verse that shows that this particular idiom "et asher" --> "regarding those whom" was used in ancient Biblical Hebrew?I don't know. Searching the bible would be exhausting.
The exact words should be "he made to be sin on our behalf". Jesus was made sin (or a sin offering, which is literally "sin" in Hebrew e.g. H4203 "khattawaw" in Leviticus 4:8 ). <-- edited to replace 8 ) emojiAs I pointed out, our Lord was falsely accused, regarded as a sinner,
Let's stay with Isaiah 42 for now. Verse 19 says "Who is blind but My servant, and deaf as My messenger whom I will send?" This isn't necessarily an enlightened bunch. But God has put His spirit upon them nevertheless. I don't see why it can't be national Israel.Isaiah 42:2 seems to be talking about an individual, who walks in the street of a town.
But the fact that the servant goes through times good and bad times doesn't disqualify it being Israel. I know, I know. You very much want the servant to be the messiah, especially with chapter 53 so near. But there's nothing compelling about this reading to a Jewish person. The subject of the bible is a national story. It's about Israel. The messiah is a minor figure, who shows up at the end, after all the trials and tribulations are over. Isaiah 40 to 66 is about Israel's redemption. And that comes from God. There's no need to see the messiah in there anywhere.I think you would agree that Isaiah 11:1-4 is about the Messiah who has God's Spirit on him and he judges the nations, which is very similar to Isaiah 42:1, 4. God is a major figure in Isaiah, so if the Messiah is God (it is God who is judging the nations and rebuking them in Isaiah 2:4), then the Messiah is also a major figure.
Here are a few examples where God did things for David's sake even after David was dead. In the same way, I think 2 Kings 19:34 and 2 Kings 20:6 refer to David himself.QuoteOK, so you understand my analogy of Israel vs David, but you said the reference to the descendant of David was more clear and the reference to the descendant of Israel was less clear. The verses you quoted, 2 Kings 19:34 and 2 Kings 20:6, says that God would defend the city for David's sake. I actually think this means David himself.It doesn't. David was long dead by that time.
1. David normally means David himself. But you allow it to mean his descendant in Ezekiel 37:24. You said it was clear in other passages that David meant his descendant, which I have tried to disprove.QuoteI have thought about Ezekiel 37:24 and considered the possibility that David is resurrected and ruling as king. The only reason I think it is not David is that the Messiah will be ruling over Israel. Similar logic applies to Isaiah 49:3. The reason I think it is not Israel is because it doesn't match verses 5-6. In other words, the actions of the "David" or "Israel" cause us to find an alternate explanation.I apologize for saying this, but you're basically making up the rules as you go. A word means what you need it to mean. There's no consistency in this. If you find it convincing, so be it. But don't expect others people to.
First, you said concerning "You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth" (Isaiah 49:6) something like the exact same phrase was used to describe Cyrus in Isaiah 45. I didn't find that exact phrase. Second, Isaiah 45:8 mentions salvation not necessarily in relation to Cyrus. Third, Isaiah 45:17 talks about everlasting salvation, which Cyrus certainly did not bring.QuoteI looked at Isaiah 45:8 and 17 where "salvation" is used. It seems to be saying God will bring salvation. I don't think it said Cyrus is God's salvation, unless it is interpreted that way.Well, the word "salvation" means different things to Christians than it does to Jews. You think it means being saved from sin or eternal damnation. To a Jew it just means being saved from a difficult situation.
Hallelujah!QuoteIt's a great mission to live for.It is! And the crazy thing is, that of all the near eastern, bronze age peoples, only the Jews remain. In the same land (finally!) speaking the same language, reading the same holy books, and practicing the same religion as our ancestors did more than 3,000 years ago. We believe in the God Who acts through history and this to us explains our continued existence.
I'm glad we are understanding each other.Yes. Let's go back to Isaiah 53:5 again. Bringing this back from Post #66.
Well, this is going outside the text of the chapter itself. Verses 11-14 describe a great mourning throughout the land. Whatever it is, it's some future event. So I guess we shall see.Yes. Time will tell.
Are these in our Bibles? I haven't really noticed cantillation marks in the Psalms.QuoteThe cantillation marks that you mentioned, were they introduced after they added vowel marks?It's my understanding they were always there, like musical notes for the Psalms.
Understood. It's relatively easy to search for single words, but for some reason, it's a lot harder to search for pairs of words.QuoteYes many idioms are used, but do you have any other Bible verse that shows that this particular idiom "et asher" --> "regarding those whom" was used in ancient Biblical Hebrew?I don't know. Searching the bible would be exhausting.
Yes Jesus was falsely accused, but I disagree with your conclusion that Jesus didn't carry our sins. Consider that Jesus needed to pay a price for our sins to be forgiven.The exact words should be "he made to be sin on our behalf". Jesus was made sin (or a sin offering, which is literally "sin" in Hebrew e.g. H4203 "khattawaw" in Leviticus 4:8 ). <-- edited to replace 8 ) emojiAs I pointed out, our Lord was falsely accused, regarded as a sinner,
he was numbered with the transgressors Isa.53:12, Mk.15:28
He wasn't one.
Yes Jesus was falsely accused, but I disagree with your conclusion that Jesus didn't carry our sins.He carried our sins by having them inflicted on himself by sinners.
Consider that Jesus needed to pay a price for our sins to be forgiven.If a soldier dives on a bomb and saves his fellow soldiers from death, he paid the price with his own life.
Mark 10:45 For the Son of Man also came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”Ransomed from death (Hos.13:14) This is God speaking. Our Creator. He doesn't pay any creditors because he owns everything.
1 Corinthians 6:20 for you were bought with a price. Therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.Our bodies and spirits belonged to him before he sacrificed himself.
Ephesians 1:7 in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,His grace was choosing to endure the suffering sinners inflicted on him instead of destroying them.
1 Peter 1:18 knowing that you were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, from the useless way of life handed down from your fathers, 19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish or spot, the blood of Christ,Without spot means he didn't deserve the way sinners mistreated him. We're reconciled to God by realizing the sins committed against him and repenting.
Acts 20:28 Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the assembly of the Lord and God which he purchased with his own blood.Right, bought us, redeemed us. Try it this way,
Revelation 5:9 9 They sang a new song, saying,
“You are worthy to take the book
and to open its seals:
for you were killed,
and bought us for God with your blood
out of every tribe, language, people, and nation,
10 and made us kings and priests to our God,
and we will reign on the earth.”
I think you would agree that Isaiah 11:1-4 is about the Messiah who has God's Spirit on him and he judges the nations,The difference is that Isaiah 11 is very clearly speaking about an individual, who incidentally is not referred to as God's "servant". As an aside Isaiah 11 in the totality remains unfulfilled.
which is very similar to Isaiah 42:1, 4. God is a major figure in Isaiah, so if the Messiah is God (it is God who is judging the nations and rebuking them in Isaiah 2:4), then the Messiah is also a major figure.There's nothing in Jewish theology or the Jewish bible that would lead me to believe that the messiah is anything other than a human being. Obviously followers of the NT have information that suggests otherwise.
1 Kings 11:12-13 Nevertheless, I will not do it in your days, for David your father’s sake; but I will tear it out of your son’s hand. However I will not tear away all the kingdom; but I will give one tribe to your son, for David my servant’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake which I have chosen.”Yeah but the context here is obviously different. It's talking about his son, Solomon. Not king Hezekiah hundreds of years hence.
1 Kings 15:4 Nevertheless for David’s sake, Yahweh his God gave him a lamp in Jerusalem, to set up his son after him, and to establish Jerusalem;
2 Kings 8:19 However Yahweh would not destroy Judah, for David his servant’s sake, as he promised him to give to him a lamp for his children always.
1. David normally means David himself. But you allow it to mean his descendant in Ezekiel 37:24. You said it was clear in other passages that David meant his descendant, which I have tried to disprove.Because saying that the term "Israel" refers to a single descendent occurs no other place in the bible. You're making a single exception because in this one instance it first your theology. And what's more, it doesn't even fit the context of the surrounding chapters, where "Israel" is referring to the entire people.
2. Israel normally means Israel himself or the nation Israel. But I allow it to mean Israel's descendant in Isaiah 49:3.
3. If 2 Kings 19:34 and 2 Kings 20:6 are not about David's descendant, how does my logic differ from yours?
First, you said concerning "You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth" (Isaiah 49:6) something like the exact same phrase was used to describe Cyrus in Isaiah 45. I didn't find that exact phrase. Second, Isaiah 45:8 mentions salvation not necessarily in relation to Cyrus. Third, Isaiah 45:17 talks about everlasting salvation, which Cyrus certainly did not bring.None of this affects the fact that the term "salvation" means something very different to a Jewish reader than to a Christian one.
Hallelujah!:)
Yes. Let's go back to Isaiah 53:5 again. Bringing this back from Post #66.It indicates nothing more than what the speaker believes to be truth.
The speaker had misconceptions, but this is the structure of the verses:
Truth: Isaiah 53:4 Surely he has borne our sickness
Truth: and carried our suffering;
Misconception: yet we considered him plagued,
Misconception: struck by God, and afflicted.
Truth: 5 But he was pierced [from] our transgressions.
Truth: He was crushed [from] our iniquities.
Truth: The punishment that brought our peace was on him;
Truth: and by his wounds we are healed.
Truth: 6 All we like sheep have gone astray.
Truth: Everyone has turned to his own way;
Truth: and Yahweh has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
"Surely" in verse 4 indicates truth.
The misconception in verse 4 is clearly marked by "we considered". The beginning of verse 5 starts the truth statements, where the speaker(s) acknowledges their own transgressions. The healing is in the truth section.No, it doesn't. It's the same speaker sharing their feelings which may or may not be true. Hitler used that exact term- he said to exterminate the Jews would "heal Germany" (I don't have the exact quote, I will find it later).
Are these in our Bibles? I haven't really noticed cantillation marks in the Psalms.They're not even in their original language.
I disagree with your conclusion that Jesus didn't take responsibility for our sins.Yes Jesus was falsely accused, but I disagree with your conclusion that Jesus didn't carry our sins.He carried our sins by having them inflicted on himself by sinners.
Exodus 13:13 uses the word translated ransom in Hosea 13:14 (H6299), and translates it redeem.Consider that Jesus needed to pay a price for our sins to be forgiven.If a soldier dives on a bomb and saves his fellow soldiers from death, he paid the price with his own life.Mark 10:45 For the Son of Man also came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”Ransomed from death (Hos.13:14) This is God speaking. Our Creator. He doesn't pay any creditors because he owns everything.
Yes, we belonged to him before he sacrificed himself, so we doubly belong to him. God still paid a price. It can be a dive bomb example, but it's not free.1 Corinthians 6:20 for you were bought with a price. Therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.Our bodies and spirits belonged to him before he sacrificed himself.
This verse equates "redemption through his blood" with "the forgiveness of our trespasses".Ephesians 1:7 in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,His grace was choosing to endure the suffering sinners inflicted on him instead of destroying them.
A lamb without blemish or spot was one that had no defect, and was fit for being offered as a sacrifice (e.g. Leviticus 1:10). So yes, being without spot means Jesus didn't deserve mistreatment or punishment. But again, the blood of Christ is a payment that is compared with silver and gold.1 Peter 1:18 knowing that you were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, from the useless way of life handed down from your fathers, 19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish or spot, the blood of Christ,Without spot means he didn't deserve the way sinners mistreated him. We're reconciled to God by realizing the sins committed against him and repenting.
Right.Acts 20:28 Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the assembly of the Lord and God which he purchased with his own blood.Right, bought us, redeemed us.
Revelation 5:9 9 They sang a new song, saying,
“You are worthy to take the book
and to open its seals:
for you were killed,
and bought us for God with your blood
out of every tribe, language, people, and nation,
10 and made us kings and priests to our God,
and we will reign on the earth.”
Try it this way,Paul compared himself with the people who wanted people to be circumcised. The false teachers didn't want to be persecuted. Paul, on the other hand, suffered for Jesus' sake.
I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus. Gal.6:17
What does Paul mean by that?
Yes, the shoot from the stock of Jesse sounds like a descendant of Jesse, and is not called a servant in Isaiah 11. I think Spirit is already on him just as the servant had the Spirit in Isaiah 42:1, but the rest of the chapter remains future.I think you would agree that Isaiah 11:1-4 is about the Messiah who has God's Spirit on him and he judges the nations,The difference is that Isaiah 11 is very clearly speaking about an individual, who incidentally is not referred to as God's "servant". As an aside Isaiah 11 in the totality remains unfulfilled.
Compare the branch in Isaiah 11:1 with Jeremiah 23:5. What is his name?Quotewhich is very similar to Isaiah 42:1, 4. God is a major figure in Isaiah, so if the Messiah is God (it is God who is judging the nations and rebuking them in Isaiah 2:4), then the Messiah is also a major figure.There's nothing in Jewish theology or the Jewish bible that would lead me to believe that the messiah is anything other than a human being. Obviously followers of the NT have information that suggests otherwise.
1 Kings 11:12-13 is about David's son, Solomon.Quote1 Kings 11:12-13 Nevertheless, I will not do it in your days, for David your father’s sake; but I will tear it out of your son’s hand. However I will not tear away all the kingdom; but I will give one tribe to your son, for David my servant’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake which I have chosen.”Yeah but the context here is obviously different. It's talking about his son, Solomon. Not king Hezekiah hundreds of years hence.
1 Kings 15:4 Nevertheless for David’s sake, Yahweh his God gave him a lamp in Jerusalem, to set up his son after him, and to establish Jerusalem;
2 Kings 8:19 However Yahweh would not destroy Judah, for David his servant’s sake, as he promised him to give to him a lamp for his children always.
The context of the surrounding verses (Isaiah 49:5-6) strongly suggests someone other than national Israel. The servant was named while still in his mother in Isaiah 49:1. Jacob was named after he was born. Jesus was given His name by the angel before He was born.Quote1. David normally means David himself. But you allow it to mean his descendant in Ezekiel 37:24. You said it was clear in other passages that David meant his descendant, which I have tried to disprove.Because saying that the term "Israel" refers to a single descendent occurs no other place in the bible. You're making a single exception because in this one instance it first your theology. And what's more, it doesn't even fit the context of the surrounding chapters, where "Israel" is referring to the entire people.
2. Israel normally means Israel himself or the nation Israel. But I allow it to mean Israel's descendant in Isaiah 49:3.
3. If 2 Kings 19:34 and 2 Kings 20:6 are not about David's descendant, how does my logic differ from yours?
The Christian view of salvation begins with the forgiveness of sins, but ultimately the Christian is saved from God's wrath at the end of the age.QuoteFirst, you said concerning "You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth" (Isaiah 49:6) something like the exact same phrase was used to describe Cyrus in Isaiah 45. I didn't find that exact phrase. Second, Isaiah 45:8 mentions salvation not necessarily in relation to Cyrus. Third, Isaiah 45:17 talks about everlasting salvation, which Cyrus certainly did not bring.None of this affects the fact that the term "salvation" means something very different to a Jewish reader than to a Christian one.
So you think the speaker is still using the language of his first preconceptions when describing what happened.QuoteYes. Let's go back to Isaiah 53:5 again. Bringing this back from Post #66.It indicates nothing more than what the speaker believes to be truth.
The speaker had misconceptions, but this is the structure of the verses:
Truth: Isaiah 53:4 Surely he has borne our sickness
Truth: and carried our suffering;
Misconception: yet we considered him plagued,
Misconception: struck by God, and afflicted.
Truth: 5 But he was pierced [from] our transgressions.
Truth: He was crushed [from] our iniquities.
Truth: The punishment that brought our peace was on him;
Truth: and by his wounds we are healed.
Truth: 6 All we like sheep have gone astray.
Truth: Everyone has turned to his own way;
Truth: and Yahweh has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
"Surely" in verse 4 indicates truth.QuoteThe misconception in verse 4 is clearly marked by "we considered". The beginning of verse 5 starts the truth statements, where the speaker(s) acknowledges their own transgressions. The healing is in the truth section.No, it doesn't. It's the same speaker sharing their feelings which may or may not be true. Hitler used that exact term- he said to exterminate the Jews would "heal Germany" (I don't have the exact quote, I will find it later).
So they are only in ancient manuscripts?QuoteAre these in our Bibles? I haven't really noticed cantillation marks in the Psalms.They're not even in their original language.
I disagree with your conclusion that Jesus didn't take responsibility for our sins.Our Lord took responsibility this way only,
Exodus 13:13 uses the word translated ransom in Hosea 13:14 (H6299), and translates it redeem.in all these things, the purpose is to produce a heart of repentance, whereby God forgives sin.
Every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem [H6299] with a lamb; and if you will not redeem it, then you shall break its neck; and you shall redeem all the firstborn of man among your sons.
Sometimes the word ransom definitely refers to paying a price. Other times a price does not seem necessary. God does not pay creditors because he owns everything -- but He can pay Himself.
Yes, we belonged to him before he sacrificed himself, so we doubly belong to him. God still paid a price. It can be a dive bomb example, but it's not free.
This verse equates "redemption through his blood" with "the forgiveness of our trespasses".
A lamb without blemish or spot was one that had no defect, and was fit for being offered as a sacrifice (e.g. Leviticus 1:10). So yes, being without spot means Jesus didn't deserve mistreatment or punishment. But again, the blood of Christ is a payment that is compared with silver and gold.
Paul compared himself with the people who wanted people to be circumcised. The false teachers didn't want to be persecuted. Paul, on the other hand, suffered for Jesus' sake.The point is, Paul was being persecuted as his Lord was,
Galatians 6:12 As many as desire to make a good impression in the flesh compel you to be circumcised; just so they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.
More than just paying a price, Jesus was offered as a guilt offering.it pleased the Father to bruise his Son in the sense of correction,
Isaiah 53:10 WEB Yet it pleased Yahweh to bruise him.
He has caused him to suffer.
When you make his soul an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring.
He will prolong his days
and Yahweh’s pleasure will prosper in his hand.
Yes, the shoot from the stock of Jesse sounds like a descendant of Jesse, and is not called a servant in Isaiah 11. I think Spirit is already on him just as the servant had the Spirit in Isaiah 42:1, but the rest of the chapter remains future.So you're splitting Is 11 into different times, one distant past, one yet to come. Unfortunately there's nothing in the chapter itself that suggest such a schism, convenient though it may be for your theology.
Compare the branch in Isaiah 11:1 with Jeremiah 23:5. What is his name?Again, nothing to suggest that this is anything but a human being.
Jeremiah 23:5 “Behold, the days come,” says Yahweh,
“that I will raise to David a righteous Branch,
and he will reign as king and deal wisely,
and will execute justice and righteousness in the land.
6 In his days Judah will be saved,
and Israel will dwell safely.
This is his name by which he will be called:
Yahweh our righteousness.
What does it mean to sit at God's right hand?This is poetry, and probably refers to king David himself. I know that you capitalized the word "Lord" but the Hebrew word "Adonee" doesn't imply anything divine.
Psalm 110:1 Yahweh says to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand,
until I make your enemies your footstool for your feet.”
Compare the usage of the words "high and lifted up":Again, there's nothing divine about saying that a person is "lifted up". Worse, God's "servant" is, in your theology, God Himself. That makes no sense and how can God be "lifted up", He is already God.
Isaiah 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple.
Isaiah 52:13 Behold, my servant will deal wisely.
He will be exalted and lifted up,
and will be very high.
Who is the Psalmist addressing as "you"?Why can't it be kind David? Or any righteous individual for that matter? I don't see why you always run to assume divinity on verses like this.
Psalm 45:6 Your throne, God, is forever and ever.
A scepter of equity is the scepter of your kingdom.
7 You have loved righteousness, and hated wickedness.
Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.
1 Kings 11:12-13 is about David's son, Solomon.Iiiiim confused.
1 Kings 15:4 is about Abijam, not Solomon, and the context in 1 Kings 15:3 talks about his father David.
2 Kings 8:19 is about Jehoram, who also lived more than 100 years after David.
2 Kings 20:6 I will add to your days fifteen years. I will deliver you and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city for my own sake, and for my servant David’s sake.
You = Hezekiah. God didn't clearly say I will defend this city for your sake.
The context of the surrounding verses (Isaiah 49:5-6) strongly suggests someone other than national Israel. The servant was named while still in his mother in Isaiah 49:1. Jacob was named after he was born. Jesus was given His name by the angel before He was born.I mean verse 3 specifically says "You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast." If you don't like that application for verses 1 and 5, why can't it be the prophet Isaiah itself? You're deliberately picking the more convoluted possibility because it supports your theology. That doesn't make it incorrect, but it also doesn't make it compelling for me to believe.
In fact, there is someone else mentioned in Isaiah named Israel.That is the most convoluted translation with archaic English and square brackets no less. I have no idea what it is saying. NIV is much simpler:
Isaiah 44:3 YLT For I pour waters on a thirsty one, And floods on a dry land, I pour My Spirit on thy seed, And My blessing on thine offspring.
4 And they have sprung up as among grass, As willows by streams of water.
5 This [one] saith, For Jehovah I [am], And this calleth [himself] by the name of Jacob, And this [one] writeth [with] his hand, `For Jehovah,' and by the name of Israel surnameth himself.
The Christian view of salvation begins with the forgiveness of sins, but ultimately the Christian is saved from God's wrath at the end of the age.Ok.
So you think the speaker is still using the language of his first preconceptions when describing what happened.Why not?
I think you would agree that Isaiah 53:1-11a is spoken by a different speaker than Isaiah 53:11b-12, that talks about "my" servant again.This seems logical.
I want to focus on the second half of Isaiah 53:11No...the verse doesn't say that the "servant" is "righteous". That's not how the Hebrew reads, although I see most Christians will translate it in this manner. When a Hebrew word is doubled like that in the bible, it's generally a poetic way of making it an imperative. "My servant will surely bring righteousness" in this case. See Genesis 2:17 which uses the word "die" twice in a row, typically translated as "you will surely die" or Exodus 19:5 which uses the word "listen" twice in a row, usually translated as "if you will but listen/carefully listen".
My righteous servant will justify many by the knowledge of himself;
and he will bear their iniquities.
1) The servant is righteous. That's something that Isaiah would not attribute to himself or to his people
Isaiah 64:6 For we have all become like one who is unclean,This quote is loved by Christians for it's supposed theological connotations, but I never thought much of it. Look at the context (a few verses further):
and all our righteousness is like a polluted garment.
We all fade like a leaf;
and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
Though Balaam's prophecy shows God's view of Israel too:Good point. And to add to it, this is the same people who committed the sin of the golden calf and the sins of the spies. And yet "He has not seen iniquity in Jacob" and Bilaam isn't even allowed to curse them "for they are blessed" (Num 22:12)
Numbers 23:21 He has not seen iniquity in Jacob. Neither has he seen perverseness in Israel. Yahweh his God is with him. The shout of a king is among them.
2) Other people will be justified, or declared righteous. So not just the servant, but other people too. Other people will become more righteous than Isaiah's people were in Isaiah 64:6.It doesn't say "more righteous" only that the servant will bring righteousness. Which as I have already said, is about bringing knowledge of God to the world.
3) The servant bears the iniquities of the #2 people who were justified. These iniquities belong to the #2 people who are justified. If the #2 people were just because they didn't commit iniquity, the servant would have no iniquities to bear. If however, the #2 people were just BECAUSE the servant took away their iniquities, then we have vicarious atonement.It doesn't have to be vicarious atonement.
See also Lamentations 5:7 as an example where bearing iniquities means to suffer the consequences of someone else's sins, and not suffering from sins directed towards them."Our fathers have sinned, and are not; and we have borne their iniquities." As above, this could be a cry from a generation that saw exile and not a vast theological statement. However if you want to see it in this way it reads like Ex 20:5 I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me... which doesn't imply vicarious suffering but rather intragenerational suffering from within a single family.
4) If Verse 11b is about vicarious atonement and is part of a recap of Verse 1-11a, then Verses 4-6 also describe vicarious atonement. (Even if Verse 5 means "from" our transgressions, the substitute sin bearer can still suffer "from" our transgressions)But I don't see 11b as vicarious atonement so this point is null.
So they are only in ancient manuscripts?Why is this so important to you?
I thought of something else regarding Zechariah 12:10The Hebrew word in question עָלָ֗יו can mean "on it" or (as you say) "on him". So let's say it means "on him" as a single person. A few days ago, a border policeman in Israel was shot in the head and is in critical condition in the hospital. An amazing thing happened. Thousands of people are outside the hospital, chanting Psalms and praying for his well-being. That's how Israel is. There are millions of people there, and every single one counts. When one soldier is critically wounded, the whole country is suffering.
Notice that they are mourning for someone who is in the singular.
I'm not trying to press any point here. I'm just stating the view from my vantage point that Is 11 may be partially fulfilled, and that I cannot agree heartily with you that ALL of Isaiah 11 is future.Yes, the shoot from the stock of Jesse sounds like a descendant of Jesse, and is not called a servant in Isaiah 11. I think Spirit is already on him just as the servant had the Spirit in Isaiah 42:1, but the rest of the chapter remains future.So you're splitting Is 11 into different times, one distant past, one yet to come. Unfortunately there's nothing in the chapter itself that suggest such a schism, convenient though it may be for your theology.
I know characters in the Bible had part of God's name in their name, but I don't think God's full name was ever part of their name. I thought having God's full name would mean addressing the Messiah as God.QuoteCompare the branch in Isaiah 11:1 with Jeremiah 23:5. What is his name?Again, nothing to suggest that this is anything but a human being.
Jeremiah 23:5 “Behold, the days come,” says Yahweh,
“that I will raise to David a righteous Branch,
and he will reign as king and deal wisely,
and will execute justice and righteousness in the land.
6 In his days Judah will be saved,
and Israel will dwell safely.
This is his name by which he will be called:
Yahweh our righteousness.
I understand God to be sitting on the throne and the Messiah sitting beside God in a very honoured position.QuoteWhat does it mean to sit at God's right hand?This is poetry, and probably refers to king David himself. I know that you capitalized the word "Lord" but the Hebrew word "Adonee" doesn't imply anything divine.
Psalm 110:1 Yahweh says to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand,
until I make your enemies your footstool for your feet.”
Remember the angel of the LORD is described as God Himself. God is lifted up in Isaiah 6:1, even though He is already God.QuoteCompare the usage of the words "high and lifted up":Again, there's nothing divine about saying that a person is "lifted up". Worse, God's "servant" is, in your theology, God Himself. That makes no sense and how can God be "lifted up", He is already God.
Isaiah 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple.
Isaiah 52:13 Behold, my servant will deal wisely.
He will be exalted and lifted up,
and will be very high.
The third word in Psalm 45:6 is addressing "God" in relation to the first word "your".QuoteWho is the Psalmist addressing as "you"?Why can't it be kind David? Or any righteous individual for that matter? I don't see why you always run to assume divinity on verses like this.
Psalm 45:6 Your throne, God, is forever and ever.
A scepter of equity is the scepter of your kingdom.
7 You have loved righteousness, and hated wickedness.
Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.
We are talking about whether "David" means "David" in these verses. You claimed in that 2 Kings 19:34 and 2 Kings 20:6 that David doesn't mean David because David was long dead. 2 Kings 8:19 proves that David can mean David even long after he was dead.Quote1 Kings 11:12-13 is about David's son, Solomon.Iiiiim confused.
1 Kings 15:4 is about Abijam, not Solomon, and the context in 1 Kings 15:3 talks about his father David.
2 Kings 8:19 is about Jehoram, who also lived more than 100 years after David.
2 Kings 20:6 I will add to your days fifteen years. I will deliver you and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city for my own sake, and for my servant David’s sake.
You = Hezekiah. God didn't clearly say I will defend this city for your sake.
The Bible did not mention Isaiah's name when he was in his mother either. Isaiah was not God's salvation to the ends of the earth, at least not in your understanding of salvation, I don't think.QuoteThe context of the surrounding verses (Isaiah 49:5-6) strongly suggests someone other than national Israel. The servant was named while still in his mother in Isaiah 49:1. Jacob was named after he was born. Jesus was given His name by the angel before He was born.I mean verse 3 specifically says "You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast." If you don't like that application for verses 1 and 5, why can't it be the prophet Isaiah itself? You're deliberately picking the more convoluted possibility because it supports your theology. That doesn't make it incorrect, but it also doesn't make it compelling for me to believe.
I agree that Isaiah 44:1-3 is about national Israel. Thanks for finding the simpler translation. I'm just saying that people could take the name Israel, so Isaiah 49:3 could be one of those people.QuoteIn fact, there is someone else mentioned in Isaiah named Israel.That is the most convoluted translation with archaic English and square brackets no less. I have no idea what it is saying. NIV is much simpler:
Isaiah 44:3 YLT For I pour waters on a thirsty one, And floods on a dry land, I pour My Spirit on thy seed, And My blessing on thine offspring.
4 And they have sprung up as among grass, As willows by streams of water.
5 This [one] saith, For Jehovah I [am], And this calleth [himself] by the name of Jacob, And this [one] writeth [with] his hand, `For Jehovah,' and by the name of Israel surnameth himself.
Some will say, ‘I belong to the LORD’ others will call themselves by the name of Jacob; still others will write on their hand, ‘The LORD’s,’ and will take the name Israel.
Since the chapter begins "And now, hearken, Jacob My servant, and Israel whom I have chosen..." it's talking about national Israel. The people who are "taking the name Israel" could just be converts to Judaism. It does happen you know.
Yay!QuoteI think you would agree that Isaiah 53:1-11a is spoken by a different speaker than Isaiah 53:11b-12, that talks about "my" servant again.This seems logical.
Yes, this statement in Isaiah 64:6 is quoted a lot. Thanks for the commentary and reminder about the context.QuoteI want to focus on the second half of Isaiah 53:11No...the verse doesn't say that the "servant" is "righteous". That's not how the Hebrew reads, although I see most Christians will translate it in this manner. When a Hebrew word is doubled like that in the bible, it's generally a poetic way of making it an imperative. "My servant will surely bring righteousness" in this case. See Genesis 2:17 which uses the word "die" twice in a row, typically translated as "you will surely die" or Exodus 19:5 which uses the word "listen" twice in a row, usually translated as "if you will but listen/carefully listen".
My righteous servant will justify many by the knowledge of himself;
and he will bear their iniquities.
1) The servant is righteous. That's something that Isaiah would not attribute to himself or to his people
Although even if we say that the text does say that the "servant" is "righteous", that doesn't mean that the servant is "perfect", simply righteous compared to the nations of the world; to whom the servant is bringing God's morality, which is also a nice tie-in with the people being a "light unto the nations".
To further this concept, we have Isaiah 60:21, in which God says says that Israel is righteous: "And your people, all of them righteous, shall inherit the land forever, a scion of My planting, the work of My hands in which I will glory."QuoteIsaiah 64:6 For we have all become like one who is unclean,This quote is loved by Christians for it's supposed theological connotations, but I never thought much of it. Look at the context (a few verses further):
and all our righteousness is like a polluted garment.
We all fade like a leaf;
and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
Your sacred cities have become a wasteland;
even Zion is a wasteland, Jerusalem a desolation.
Our holy and glorious temple, where our ancestors praised you,
has been burned with fire,
and all that we treasured lies in ruins.
This isn't a sweeping statement about the futility of trying to be good for all generations that ever lived. It's a cry of anguish from the generation that saw the temple destroyed and the Jews exiled. Yes, I'm sure they felt as if "we have all become like one who is unclean".
God's grace is amazing.QuoteThough Balaam's prophecy shows God's view of Israel too:Good point. And to add to it, this is the same people who committed the sin of the golden calf and the sins of the spies. And yet "He has not seen iniquity in Jacob" and Bilaam isn't even allowed to curse them "for they are blessed" (Num 22:12)
Numbers 23:21 He has not seen iniquity in Jacob. Neither has he seen perverseness in Israel. Yahweh his God is with him. The shout of a king is among them.
Quote2) Other people will be justified, or declared righteous. So not just the servant, but other people too. Other people will become more righteous than Isaiah's people were in Isaiah 64:6.It doesn't say "more righteous" only that the servant will bring righteousness. Which as I have already said, is about bringing knowledge of God to the world.Quote3) The servant bears the iniquities of the #2 people who were justified. These iniquities belong to the #2 people who are justified. If the #2 people were just because they didn't commit iniquity, the servant would have no iniquities to bear. If however, the #2 people were just BECAUSE the servant took away their iniquities, then we have vicarious atonement.It doesn't have to be vicarious atonement.
On Yom Kippur, the day of atonement, we do no work and afflict ourselves by fasting, as commanded in the bible as an "eternal statute," "throughout your generations," "in any place you dwell". We also spend all day praying and begging for forgiveness of sin since "the day will make atonement for you". There is an exhaustive list of sins that we name and ask for forgiveness. And I have to be honest, while I am far from a perfect person I also haven't committed most of these sins. And here's where it gets interesting. We don't use the singular term, "forgive me for this sin", but instead the plural "Forgive us for this sin." Because, you see, we're not just confessing our individual sins but also the sins of the entire world.
We are bearing the sins of he world, just as the verse says.
I agree that it's probably intragenerational suffering in Lamentations 5:7, but still an example of suffering from the guilt of someone rather than the actions of someone.QuoteSee also Lamentations 5:7 as an example where bearing iniquities means to suffer the consequences of someone else's sins, and not suffering from sins directed towards them."Our fathers have sinned, and are not; and we have borne their iniquities." As above, this could be a cry from a generation that saw exile and not a vast theological statement. However if you want to see it in this way it reads like Ex 20:5 I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me... which doesn't imply vicarious suffering but rather intragenerational suffering from within a single family.
OK, in your interpretation, you are linking the bearing the iniquities in verse 11 not with what is happening in verse 5, but what is happening in verse 6. btw, do you God is interceding in the servant in verse 6 or the servant is interceding before God in verse 6?Quote4) If Verse 11b is about vicarious atonement and is part of a recap of Verse 1-11a, then Verses 4-6 also describe vicarious atonement. (Even if Verse 5 means "from" our transgressions, the substitute sin bearer can still suffer "from" our transgressions)But I don't see 11b as vicarious atonement so this point is null.
Just curious. New informationQuoteSo they are only in ancient manuscripts?Why is this so important to you?
I prayed for the border policeman. I doubt the Zechariah 12 war will have only one Jewish casualty.QuoteI thought of something else regarding Zechariah 12:10The Hebrew word in question עָלָ֗יו can mean "on it" or (as you say) "on him". So let's say it means "on him" as a single person. A few days ago, a border policeman in Israel was shot in the head and is in critical condition in the hospital. An amazing thing happened. Thousands of people are outside the hospital, chanting Psalms and praying for his well-being. That's how Israel is. There are millions of people there, and every single one counts. When one soldier is critically wounded, the whole country is suffering.
Notice that they are mourning for someone who is in the singular.
I'm not trying to press any point here. I'm just stating the view from my vantage point that Is 11 may be partially fulfilled, and that I cannot agree heartily with you that ALL of Isaiah 11 is future.Just saying that it seems peculiar to me that a chapter without any natural breaks or internal messaging is describing two different time periods. The opposite, it uses the phrasing "on that day." To wit-
I know characters in the Bible had part of God's name in their name, but I don't think God's full name was ever part of their name. I thought having God's full name would mean addressing the Messiah as God.Well first of all, in Jewish theology God is not a human being. God is God. An infinite, timeless being who cannot be contained in any physical or time bound form, including a human body. A person having a name with God in it doesn't mean that person is God.
I understand God to be sitting on the throne and the Messiah sitting beside God in a very honoured position.Um, there's nothing in that Psalm that makes me think the subject is anyone other than king David.
Remember the angel of the LORD is described as God Himself. God is lifted up in Isaiah 6:1, even though He is already God.I am familiar with Isaiah 6, it's the reading for my Bar Mitzvah. A better translation " I saw the Lord sitting on a high and exalted throne". That implies nothing that you just said.
The third word in Psalm 45:6 is addressing "God" in relation to the first word "your".Could be.
I was thinking about how it sounded like Solomon. He had lots of gold and ivory (1 Kings 10:18, 22), but the Bible never mentions Solomon having an ivory palace (Psalm 45:8 ). King Ahab had an ivory house (1 Kings 22:39), but this psalm is definitely not about Ahab. As for David, I guess he was rich too, and this psalm could have been written after God promised that David's throne would last forever (2 Samuel 7:16)
We are talking about whether "David" means "David" in these verses. You claimed in that 2 Kings 19:34 and 2 Kings 20:6 that David doesn't mean David because David was long dead. 2 Kings 8:19 proves that David can mean David even long after he was dead.I've lost the plot. Alas.
The Bible did not mention Isaiah's name when he was in his mother either. Isaiah was not God's salvation to the ends of the earth, at least not in your understanding of salvation, I don't think.But the author is Isaiah. When the verse says "Who formed me from the womb as a servant to Him, said to bring Jacob back to Him," it's simplest by far to assume that the "me" is Isaiah himself and not some other character being introduced. Medieval commentator Rashi says that the "salvation to the ends of the earth" is Isaiah's message about the downfall of Babylon at the hands of Cyrus. Babylon was a brutal oppressor, but Cyrus's Persia was quite enlightened even by today's standards- he freed the slaves, allowed exiles to go home, and in general freed the captured peoples from under Babylon.
QuoteIn fact, there is someone else mentioned in Isaiah named Israel.QuoteI agree that Isaiah 44:1-3 is about national Israel. Thanks for finding the simpler translation.Glad we can work together.QuoteYes, this statement in Isaiah 64:6 is quoted a lot. Thanks for the commentary and reminder about the context.You are very welcomeQuoteGod's grace is amazing.Indeed! We can agree on that.QuoteDoes the exhaustive list of sins that you confess correspond to the 613 commandments?The confession uses more general terms and also tends to be more poetical. I mean it's also complicated because the bible has almost as many "thou shalts" as "thou shalt nots". So missing out on doing something that one is obligated to do is also a sin.QuoteThe priest makes atonement on that day. When the priest comes out of the Holy Place, he has finished making atonement. It is not the entirety of the day that makes atonement, even though the people are required to afflict themselves for the rest of the day too.It is a day on which God is open for hearing us confess our sin and request atonement. In the bible (I hate the term "laws of Moses", making it sound as if those laws came from Moses and not from God) it lists many ways to achieve atonement, including prayer, good deeds, and charity. The bible also explicitly states (Num 15:30) that there is no sacrifice for willful intentional sins.
Leviticus 16:17 only mentions atonement for the priest, his household and all the assembly of Israel. I don't think the atonement is promised to cover people outside the assembly of Israel, just because the people of Israel mention their sins. But nice thought, nonetheless. Of course, God may choose to answer any prayers offered to Him, but that is not the way God prescribed for taking away the sins of nations, I don't think, at least not in the Law of Moses.QuoteI agree that it's probably intragenerational suffering in Lamentations 5:7, but still an example of suffering from the guilt of someone rather than the actions of someone.Agree but again, this is talking about something within a family. And its not vicarious atonement its simply suffering from another's sin.QuoteOK, in your interpretation, you are linking the bearing the iniquities in verse 11 not with what is happening in verse 5, but what is happening in verse 6. btw, do you God is interceding in the servant in verse 6 or the servant is interceding before God in verse 6?53:6 is still the nations speaking. So they are expressing their own opinion, which may or may not be correct.QuoteI prayed for the border policeman.That's wonderful. May God bless you.QuoteI doubt the Zechariah 12 war will have only one Jewish casualty.Could be. It is yet to come so we shall see.QuoteFor Isaiah 53:1, there are actually two parallel statements:You're interested in the tenses. Reading from the Hebrew, it reads past tense. Something like "Who would have believed our report, and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed?"
Who has believed our message?
To whom has Yahweh’s arm been revealed?
If you change the "has" to "would have", does it still work?
Who [would have] believed our message?
To whom [would have] Yahweh’s arm been revealed?
I'm not trying to press any point here. I'm just stating the view from my vantage point that Is 11 may be partially fulfilled, and that I cannot agree heartily with you that ALL of Isaiah 11 is future.Just saying that it seems peculiar to me that a chapter without any natural breaks or internal messaging is describing two different time periods. The opposite, it uses the phrasing "on that day." To wit-
And it shall come to pass on that day that the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his resting place will be glorious. And it shall come to pass on that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the surviving remnant of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush, from Elam, from Babylonia, from Hamath and from the islands of the Mediterranean.
He will raise a banner for the nations
and gather the exiles of Israel;
he will assemble the scattered people of Judah
from the four quarters of the earth.
It reads to me like one event. There will be this amazing descendant of Jesse (David's father) who will be known to the world. And on that same day God will gather the Jewish exiles.
So if I name myself Yahweh Tsidqenuw, would that be ok? Or would it be considered blasphemous? Would it be allowed based on the 3rd commandment, not to take God's name in vain?QuoteI know characters in the Bible had part of God's name in their name, but I don't think God's full name was ever part of their name. I thought having God's full name would mean addressing the Messiah as God.Well first of all, in Jewish theology God is not a human being. God is God. An infinite, timeless being who cannot be contained in any physical or time bound form, including a human body. A person having a name with God in it doesn't mean that person is God.
There are scores of Jewish names with all or part of God's name in them, which glorifies God, not the person so named. "Gabriel" = "Strength of God". It's talking about God's strength, not the person with that name. "Isaiah" = "God saves" it's talking about God saving people, not the person so named. And so on.
If David wrote Psalm 110, it seems strange to address the subject as "you". Unless you think David didn't write the Psalm and someone wrote about David. You don't think it strange that God sits in heaven (Psalm 2:4) and the subject sits at His right hand [in heaven]? Which day in David's life is the "day of Your power" in Psalm 110:3, or is the meaning of day flexible here? Which heads of state did David break in pieces (Psalm 110:6)?QuoteI understand God to be sitting on the throne and the Messiah sitting beside God in a very honoured position.Um, there's nothing in that Psalm that makes me think the subject is anyone other than king David.
And because God is sitting on top of the throne, He is high and exalted too. You said the servant in Isaiah 52:13 could not be God because God cannot be lifted up, but it could simply be that God is high and exalted.QuoteRemember the angel of the LORD is described as God Himself. God is lifted up in Isaiah 6:1, even though He is already God.I am familiar with Isaiah 6, it's the reading for my Bar Mitzvah. A better translation " I saw the Lord sitting on a high and exalted throne". That implies nothing that you just said.
We were talking about Israel in Isaiah 49:3 could mean Israel's descendant, just as David can mean David's descendant in Ezekiel 37:24. You said David meant one of David's descendants in other places too (which I tried to contradict) but Israel never meant one of Israel's descendants in other places.QuoteWe are talking about whether "David" means "David" in these verses. You claimed in that 2 Kings 19:34 and 2 Kings 20:6 that David doesn't mean David because David was long dead. 2 Kings 8:19 proves that David can mean David even long after he was dead.I've lost the plot. Alas.
I understood Isaiah 49:6 to say the servant [you say Isaiah] is God's salvation, not that the servant announced God's salvation.QuoteThe Bible did not mention Isaiah's name when he was in his mother either. Isaiah was not God's salvation to the ends of the earth, at least not in your understanding of salvation, I don't think.But the author is Isaiah. When the verse says "Who formed me from the womb as a servant to Him, said to bring Jacob back to Him," it's simplest by far to assume that the "me" is Isaiah himself and not some other character being introduced. Medieval commentator Rashi says that the "salvation to the ends of the earth" is Isaiah's message about the downfall of Babylon at the hands of Cyrus. Babylon was a brutal oppressor, but Cyrus's Persia was quite enlightened even by today's standards- he freed the slaves, allowed exiles to go home, and in general freed the captured peoples from under Babylon.
InterestingQuoteDoes the exhaustive list of sins that you confess correspond to the 613 commandments?The confession uses more general terms and also tends to be more poetical. I mean it's also complicated because the bible has almost as many "thou shalts" as "thou shalt nots". So missing out on doing something that one is obligated to do is also a sin.
The word sacrifice is not mentioned in Numbers 15:30, but I know what you mean. The offender was killed, not brought to the tabernacle to offer a sacrifice to atone for his/her crime. Leviticus 16:30 says "that you may be clean from all your sins before the LORD".QuoteThe priest makes atonement on that day. When the priest comes out of the Holy Place, he has finished making atonement. It is not the entirety of the day that makes atonement, even though the people are required to afflict themselves for the rest of the day too.It is a day on which God is open for hearing us confess our sin and request atonement. In the bible (I hate the term "laws of Moses", making it sound as if those laws came from Moses and not from God) it lists many ways to achieve atonement, including prayer, good deeds, and charity. The bible also explicitly states (Num 15:30) that there is no sacrifice for willful intentional sins.
Leviticus 16:17 only mentions atonement for the priest, his household and all the assembly of Israel. I don't think the atonement is promised to cover people outside the assembly of Israel, just because the people of Israel mention their sins. But nice thought, nonetheless. Of course, God may choose to answer any prayers offered to Him, but that is not the way God prescribed for taking away the sins of nations, I don't think, at least not in the Law of Moses.
Agreed. I was referring to the usage of the words "bear their iniquities" having a meaning similar to "bearing the consequences of guilt".QuoteI agree that it's probably intragenerational suffering in Lamentations 5:7, but still an example of suffering from the guilt of someone rather than the actions of someone.Agree but again, this is talking about something within a family. And its not vicarious atonement its simply suffering from another's sin.
So you think Isaiah 53:1-10 is the honest opinion of the kings, which may or may not be correct, but their words should match the observations of an ordinary bystander? Are the kings predicting the future in Isaiah 53:10b? "He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand"QuoteOK, in your interpretation, you are linking the bearing the iniquities in verse 11 not with what is happening in verse 5, but what is happening in verse 6. btw, do you God is interceding in the servant in verse 6 or the servant is interceding before God in verse 6?53:6 is still the nations speaking. So they are expressing their own opinion, which may or may not be correct.
He died, right? :(QuoteI prayed for the border policeman.That's wonderful. May God bless you.
okQuoteFor Isaiah 53:1, there are actually two parallel statements:You're interested in the tenses. Reading from the Hebrew, it reads past tense. Something like "Who would have believed our report, and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed?"
Who has believed our message?
To whom has Yahweh’s arm been revealed?
If you change the "has" to "would have", does it still work?
Who [would have] believed our message?
To whom [would have] Yahweh’s arm been revealed?
Suppose the Messiah's life has some resemblance to his ancestor David's story, or just take David's story as a possible scenario that may also occur in the Messiah's life. The Spirit of the LORD was on David after he was anointed king by Samuel (1 Samuel 16:13). But David didn't become king in a practical sense until much later (2 Samuel 2:4). Similarly, the Messiah could have the Spirit on him long before he extends his kingdom to the nations in Isaiah 11:10.Yeah but we're not talking about something that happens a short time later. According to your reading, the events in the chapter are separated by what, 2000 years or more? There's nothing internally in the chapter that would lead me to believe that. Why would God deliberately communicate in such a confusing manner?
Notice that Messiah is the conqueror of the nations in Isaiah 11:4. Did you notice that in Zechariah 12:1-9, it doesn't mention the Messiah leading the battle? It only says "In that day the LORD will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem" (Zechariah 12:8 ).I'm not sure what your point here is.
So if I name myself Yahweh Tsidqenuw, would that be ok? Or would it be considered blasphemous? Would it be allowed based on the 3rd commandment, not to take God's name in vain?There's nothing blasphemous about saying "the Lord is righteous".
Yes, the heavens cannot contain God (1 Kings 8:27), but God still appear in any form that He likes, including a flame in a burning bush (Exodus 3:2).The burning bush wasn't God though.
God looked human to Abraham (Genesis 18:1-33), Jacob (Genesis 32:24-30), Gideon (Judges 6:11-24), and Samson's parents (Judges 13:2-23).Uh, those were all angels, not God. It's in the text.
Micah 5:2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,King David was born in Bethlehem. The messiah is a descendant of David. Ergo "out of you one will come out to me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings out are from of old, from ancient times.".
being small among the clans of Judah,
out of you one will come out to me that is to be ruler in Israel;
whose goings out are from of old, from ancient times.
It sounds like this ruler existed from ancient times, suggesting the Messiah existed long before he was born, and is not an ordinary man.
If David wrote Psalm 110, it seems strange to address the subject as "you".It's not strange at all. David is also the subject of the Psalm. And who were the Psalms written for? The Levites, who chanted them in service. Now that we've established that, let's look at the psalm again-
Unless you think David didn't write the Psalm and someone wrote about David. You don't think it strange that God sits in heaven (Psalm 2:4) and the subject sits at His right hand [in heaven]?Why'd you add the words in brackets? It's not in the Psalm. Why can't it just be a poetic term? You know the Psalms are poems, right?
Which day in David's life is the "day of Your power" in Psalm 110:3, or is the meaning of day flexible here?KJV and ESV translate it as "day of power", but you should look at the other translations. NIV renders the verse as " Your troops will be willing on your day of battle". So yeah, when king David goes to war (he did that a lot, you know) his troops will be ready to fight for him. Very simple.
Which heads of state did David break in pieces (Psalm 110:6)?He defeated many enemies of Israel. Surely you are aware of this.
And because God is sitting on top of the throne, He is high and exalted too. You said the servant in Isaiah 52:13 could not be God because God cannot be lifted up, but it could simply be that God is high and exalted.It says "Will be raised up" not "Is already raised up". And I don't understand how Jesus i.e. God could also be God's servant.
We were talking about Israel in Isaiah 49:3 could mean Israel's descendant, just as David can mean David's descendant in Ezekiel 37:24. You said David meant one of David's descendants in other places too (which I tried to contradict) but Israel never meant one of Israel's descendants in other places.Because Isaiah doesn't use the term with that meaning anywhere else. You want to use it here because you think it proves your point. That's a very bad reason to borrow terminology. It's intellectually dishonest.
I understood Isaiah 49:6 to say the servant [you say Isaiah] is God's salvation, not that the servant announced God's salvation.It doesn't say the servant IS God's salvation. The end of the verse reads "...so that My salvation shall be until the end of the earth."
Agreed. I was referring to the usage of the words "bear their iniquities" having a meaning similar to "bearing the consequences of guilt".Yeah, but I mean again, it's one thing within a family because God says He will punish to the fourth generation.
So you think Isaiah 53:1-10 is the honest opinion of the kings, which may or may not be correct, but their words should match the observations of an ordinary bystander?They are bystanders. I don't know what you mean here.
Are the kings predicting the future in Isaiah 53:10b? "He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand"Perhaps its their hope? I don't see how verse 10 could be applied to Jesus regardless. He had no "seed" (descendants) and his days were cut short, not prolonged.
He died, right? :(He did.
It could be all future, and that verse 2 about the spirit resting on the Messiah is the future condition. It's just possible (based on other passages) that the future condition began earlier in time and continues until the future.Suppose the Messiah's life has some resemblance to his ancestor David's story, or just take David's story as a possible scenario that may also occur in the Messiah's life. The Spirit of the LORD was on David after he was anointed king by Samuel (1 Samuel 16:13). But David didn't become king in a practical sense until much later (2 Samuel 2:4). Similarly, the Messiah could have the Spirit on him long before he extends his kingdom to the nations in Isaiah 11:10.Yeah but we're not talking about something that happens a short time later. According to your reading, the events in the chapter are separated by what, 2000 years or more? There's nothing internally in the chapter that would lead me to believe that. Why would God deliberately communicate in such a confusing manner?
And notwithstanding that Jesus is God yet he also has "the spirit of God upon him" (which I never understood.)I guess that is related to the concept of the Trinity.
That the Messiah could be the God. See also Zechariah 14:9 where the LORD is king over the earth -- something that Messiah will be.QuoteNotice that Messiah is the conqueror of the nations in Isaiah 11:4. Did you notice that in Zechariah 12:1-9, it doesn't mention the Messiah leading the battle? It only says "In that day the LORD will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem" (Zechariah 12:8 ).I'm not sure what your point here is.
OK. I guess people just need to be careful not to call me by my first name.QuoteSo if I name myself Yahweh Tsidqenuw, would that be ok? Or would it be considered blasphemous? Would it be allowed based on the 3rd commandment, not to take God's name in vain?There's nothing blasphemous about saying "the Lord is righteous".
Exodus 3:2 Yahweh’s angel appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the middle of a bush.QuoteYes, the heavens cannot contain God (1 Kings 8:27), but God still appear in any form that He likes, including a flame in a burning bush (Exodus 3:2).The burning bush wasn't God though.
Yes, they were all called the angel of the LORD, but also Yahweh or God:QuoteGod looked human to Abraham (Genesis 18:1-33), Jacob (Genesis 32:24-30), Gideon (Judges 6:11-24), and Samson's parents (Judges 13:2-23).Uh, those were all angels, not God. It's in the text.
I'm sure you've read it many times, but I can still quote it, right? I don't think the Bible has an account of David's birth, but he definitely lived in Bethlehem as a child. "out of you will come" --> so the ruler is a future ruler (Messiah, I think we are agreed). The goings out are from ancient times. Do these "goings out" refer to the future Messiah?QuoteMicah 5:2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,King David was born in Bethlehem. The messiah is a descendant of David. Ergo "out of you one will come out to me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings out are from of old, from ancient times.".
being small among the clans of Judah,
out of you one will come out to me that is to be ruler in Israel;
whose goings out are from of old, from ancient times.
It sounds like this ruler existed from ancient times, suggesting the Messiah existed long before he was born, and is not an ordinary man.
I think it's interesting that many Christians seem to feel that Jews don't know what's in our own bible.
I agree that Adonee means master. It can be used for God too, right?QuoteIf David wrote Psalm 110, it seems strange to address the subject as "you".It's not strange at all. David is also the subject of the Psalm. And who were the Psalms written for? The Levites, who chanted them in service. Now that we've established that, let's look at the psalm again-
In the Hebrew it begins "A Psalm of David". Why those first words aren't in most English translations I have no idea.
It continues: God (YHVH) said to my master (Adonee); "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool at your feet."
The Levites are talking about God speaking to their master, king David.
The English translation typically reads "The Lord said to my Lord", as if the two words "Lord" are the same, but they're not. They are two different Hebrew words and should be translated as such.
I added the brackets to suggest that if it was literal, God would probably be sitting on His throne in heaven. So David did not literally sit at God's right hand, but perhaps figuratively.QuoteUnless you think David didn't write the Psalm and someone wrote about David. You don't think it strange that God sits in heaven (Psalm 2:4) and the subject sits at His right hand [in heaven]?Why'd you add the words in brackets? It's not in the Psalm. Why can't it just be a poetic term? You know the Psalms are poems, right?
Verse 2: The LORD will extend your mighty scepter from ZionYes David ruled in Zion, and so did Melchizedek, and so will the future Messiah.
Who ruled in Zion? King David.
The word translated "power" or "battle" seems mean "ability" or "army" in other Bible verses. Your interpretation is possible.QuoteWhich day in David's life is the "day of Your power" in Psalm 110:3, or is the meaning of day flexible here?KJV and ESV translate it as "day of power", but you should look at the other translations. NIV renders the verse as " Your troops will be willing on your day of battle". So yeah, when king David goes to war (he did that a lot, you know) his troops will be ready to fight for him. Very simple.
I know, but the gruesome executions mentioned here were not described in the Bible. Or maybe break in pieces just means defeating them?QuoteWhich heads of state did David break in pieces (Psalm 110:6)?He defeated many enemies of Israel. Surely you are aware of this.
I see your point. I guess this is a New Testament thing.QuoteAnd because God is sitting on top of the throne, He is high and exalted too. You said the servant in Isaiah 52:13 could not be God because God cannot be lifted up, but it could simply be that God is high and exalted.It says "Will be raised up" not "Is already raised up". And I don't understand how Jesus i.e. God could also be God's servant.
I'm not borrowing terminology as strong evidence, but a possible explanation for a difficulty in the interpretation. It's like you saying "it is poetic". It's not strong evidence, but it offers a possible explanation for your interpretation. Does that make sense?QuoteWe were talking about Israel in Isaiah 49:3 could mean Israel's descendant, just as David can mean David's descendant in Ezekiel 37:24. You said David meant one of David's descendants in other places too (which I tried to contradict) but Israel never meant one of Israel's descendants in other places.Because Isaiah doesn't use the term with that meaning anywhere else. You want to use it here because you think it proves your point. That's a very bad reason to borrow terminology. It's intellectually dishonest.
We have different translations. This is from the World English Bible.QuoteI understood Isaiah 49:6 to say the servant [you say Isaiah] is God's salvation, not that the servant announced God's salvation.It doesn't say the servant IS God's salvation. The end of the verse reads "...so that My salvation shall be until the end of the earth."
Good thing He didn't say a hundred generations.QuoteAgreed. I was referring to the usage of the words "bear their iniquities" having a meaning similar to "bearing the consequences of guilt".Yeah, but I mean again, it's one thing within a family because God says He will punish to the fourth generation.
As an aside, He also says that He will extend kindness for a thousand generations of those who love Him and keep his commands. We're not a thousand generations from Abraham so...
OK. I was checking my understanding.QuoteSo you think Isaiah 53:1-10 is the honest opinion of the kings, which may or may not be correct, but their words should match the observations of an ordinary bystander?They are bystanders. I don't know what you mean here.
QuoteAre the kings predicting the future in Isaiah 53:10b? "He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand"Perhaps its their hope? I don't see how verse 10 could be applied to Jesus regardless. He had no "seed" (descendants) and his days were cut short, not prolonged.
It could be all future, and that verse 2 about the spirit resting on the Messiah is the future condition. It's just possible (based on other passages) that the future condition began earlier in time and continues until the future.You can see it this way if you wish. But it's not especially convincing and I'm sure you will understand if I don't.
I guess that is related to the concept of the Trinity.Other individuals have also had the spirit of God on them. Numbers 11, Judges 3, even the wicked Balaam (Numbers 24). It doesn't imply divinity.
Isaiah 48:16 “Come near to me and hear this: “From the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it happened, I was there.” Now the Lord Yahweh has sent me with his Spirit.
Yahweh can send with his Spirit. The speaker appears to be God, based on verses 9-15, but you'll probably interpret the last sentence as Isaiah speaking.
That the Messiah could be the God. See also Zechariah 14:9 where the LORD is king over the earth -- something that Messiah will be.The messiah is a scion of David. That means he's a person.
OK. I guess people just need to be careful not to call me by my first name.:o :)
Exodus 3:2 Yahweh’s angel appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the middle of a bush.You said it yourself. An angel.
Not the bush itself. God appeared like a flame of fire.
Yes, they were all called the angel of the LORD, but also Yahweh or God:The bible specifically says that Abraham's visitors were angels. Granted, God spoke to Abraham many times also.
Genesis 18:1 Yahweh appeared to him ...
Genesis 18:13 Yahweh said to Abraham, ...
Genesis 18:17 Yahweh said ...
Genesis 18:20 Yahweh said ...
Genesis 18:26 Yahweh said ...
Genesis 18:33 Yahweh went his way ...
Genesis 32:30 Jacob called the name of the place Peniel; for he said, “I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”Yet he wrestled with "a man". Hosea 12:4 clarifies that it was an angel.
Judges 6:14 Yahweh looked at him, and said, ...The earlier verses specifically say that it was an angel.
Judges 6:16 Yahweh said to him, ...
Judges 13:22 Manoah said to his wife, “We shall surely die, because we have seen God.”Again, verses say that it was an angel. Not everyone in the bible is a reliable narrator.
I'm sure you've read it many times, but I can still quote it, right? I don't think the Bible has an account of David's birth, but he definitely lived in Bethlehem as a child. "out of you will come" --> so the ruler is a future ruler (Messiah, I think we are agreed). The goings out are from ancient times. Do these "goings out" refer to the future Messiah?What the verse means is, that from Bethlehem in ancient times will the messiah come. That's because the messiah is descended from David, who was from Bethlehem.
I agree that Adonee means master. It can be used for God too, right?It doesn't imply divinity and wouldn't make sense in this context. Why use YHVH and Adonee to refer to God in the same verse? It's simpler to picture the levites singing "God said to my master (king David)."
I added the brackets to suggest that if it was literal, God would probably be sitting on His throne in heaven. So David did not literally sit at God's right hand, but perhaps figuratively.Yeah. I mean again, Psalms are poems.
Yes David ruled in Zion, and so did Melchizedek, and so will the future Messiah.Yes. But since the Psalm literally begins with the words "A Psalm for David", why assume that it's talking about anyone other than David?
I know, but the gruesome executions mentioned here were not described in the Bible. Or maybe break in pieces just means defeating them?David turned in hundreds of foreskins as proof of his prowess (1 Samuel 18:27) (eew).
I see your point. I guess this is a New Testament thing.It's ok. We can agree to disagree on things.
Philippians 2:5 Have this in your mind, which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, existing in the form of God, didn’t consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, yes, the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also highly exalted him, and gave to him the name which is above every name,See this is pretty heavy theology. But it's Christian theology. It's in your bible, and it's fine that you believe it.
I'm not borrowing terminology as strong evidence, but a possible explanation for a difficulty in the interpretation. It's like you saying "it is poetic". It's not strong evidence, but it offers a possible explanation for your interpretation. Does that make sense?Yeah. Fair point.
We have different translations.It's problematic.
Good thing He didn't say a hundred generations.Ha!
I guess this is a New Testament thing.It is.
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God’s children, to those who believe in his name:
Romans 6:9 knowing that Christ, being raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over him!But if he's God, to say that he came back from the dead seems trivial.
Bethlehem shouldn't be considered particularly ancient, compared to a lot of cities in Israel at the time of Micah (and Hezekiah). It was still a landmark in Jeremiah 41:17. The ancient "origins" refer to the Messiah, not to the town of Bethlehem. If you are talking about ancestors being ancient, that conveys little information. My own ancestors are so ancient that they trace back to Adam. Christians typically understand it to mean that the Messiah existed in eternity past, before the creation of the world -- hence more than just human. It does not prove that the Messiah is divine, but I think it offers a hint of that possibility.That the Messiah could be the God. See also Zechariah 14:9 where the LORD is king over the earth -- something that Messiah will be.The messiah is a scion of David. That means he's a person.QuoteI'm sure you've read it many times, but I can still quote it, right? I don't think the Bible has an account of David's birth, but he definitely lived in Bethlehem as a child. "out of you will come" --> so the ruler is a future ruler (Messiah, I think we are agreed). The goings out are from ancient times. Do these "goings out" refer to the future Messiah?What the verse means is, that from Bethlehem in ancient times will the messiah come. That's because the messiah is descended from David, who was from Bethlehem.
QuoteExodus 3:2 Yahweh’s angel appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the middle of a bush.You said it yourself. An angel.
Not the bush itself. God appeared like a flame of fire.
QuoteYes, they were all called the angel of the LORD, but also Yahweh or God:The bible specifically says that Abraham's visitors were angels. Granted, God spoke to Abraham many times also.
Genesis 18:1 Yahweh appeared to him ...
Genesis 18:13 Yahweh said to Abraham, ...
Genesis 18:17 Yahweh said ...
Genesis 18:20 Yahweh said ...
Genesis 18:26 Yahweh said ...
Genesis 18:33 Yahweh went his way ...
I showed in Exodus 3 that the angel of the LORD sometimes refers to God Himself. Good reference in Hosea 12:4.QuoteGenesis 32:30 Jacob called the name of the place Peniel; for he said, “I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”Yet he wrestled with "a man". Hosea 12:4 clarifies that it was an angel.
Correct, it was an angel. Yahweh can take the form of an angel too. Why is the angel called Yahweh? Did someone leave out his last name?QuoteJudges 6:14 Yahweh looked at him, and said, ...The earlier verses specifically say that it was an angel.
Judges 6:16 Yahweh said to him, ...
Fair enough.QuoteJudges 13:22 Manoah said to his wife, “We shall surely die, because we have seen God.”Again, verses say that it was an angel. Not everyone in the bible is a reliable narrator.
I think this psalm is prophetic. It would be strange for Levites to be singing that David would be a priest, which is a very Levitical role.QuoteI agree that Adonee means master. It can be used for God too, right?It doesn't imply divinity and wouldn't make sense in this context. Why use YHVH and Adonee to refer to God in the same verse? It's simpler to picture the levites singing "God said to my master (king David)."
The phrase "A Psalm of David" appears many times in the book of Psalms. There are also psalms of Asaph. They are often "for" the director of music. Although a Psalm "for" David is a possible meaning, it seems more likely that it means only that David wrote the psalm.QuoteYes David ruled in Zion, and so did Melchizedek, and so will the future Messiah.Yes. But since the Psalm literally begins with the words "A Psalm for David", why assume that it's talking about anyone other than David?
OK. Pretty gross. What I meant is the gruesome executions of heads of state in Psalm 110:5-6 is not described.QuoteI know, but the gruesome executions mentioned here were not described in the Bible. Or maybe break in pieces just means defeating them?David turned in hundreds of foreskins as proof of his prowess (1 Samuel 18:27) (eew).
The New Testament says these children are "born of God".QuoteI guess this is a New Testament thing.It is.
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God’s children, to those who believe in his name:
In the Jewish bible, "seed" always means physical descendants. A disciple might use the term "Ben" (son).
Jesus had to prove that He is God by coming back from the dead. Jesus is also so human that people need such clarifying statements. Romans 6:9 is citing the death and resurrection of Jesus as a pattern for Christians, and telling people to live for God and not for sin, as sin and death no longer have dominion over us.QuoteRomans 6:9 knowing that Christ, being raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over him!But if he's God, to say that he came back from the dead seems trivial.
Bethlehem shouldn't be considered particularly ancient, compared to a lot of cities in Israel at the time of Micah (and Hezekiah). It was still a landmark in Jeremiah 41:17. The ancient "origins" refer to the Messiah, not to the town of Bethlehem.What are you talking about? It refers to David, who by the time the messiah comes will be from "ancient times".
If you are talking about ancestors being ancient, that conveys little information. My own ancestors are so ancient that they trace back to Adam. Christians typically understand it to mean that the Messiah existed in eternity past, before the creation of the world -- hence more than just human.That's great, but nothing forces one to understand the verse in that way. And Jews don't.
Another Bible verse that suggests the Messiah is divine is Isaiah 9:6-7, based on the names given, including "Mighty God". Verse 7 says he establishes the kingdom forever.This is talking about king Hezekiah though.
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.
Solomon's psalm 72 starts off like a prayer for himself, but there are some things that seem to be more Messianic, i.e. outlasting the moon, dominion to the ends of the earth. I guess living forever doesn't prove someone is divine though. Do you think it is poetic hyperbole?That's...not a great translation. It could be rendered " In his days, may the righteous flourish..." which is more a request than a statement of fact. Psalms are generally not understood as prophecy by Jews. They're poems sung to God. As such, they will contain requests as a form of prayer.
Psalm 72:7 In his days, the righteous shall flourish,
and abundance of peace, until the moon is no more.
8 He shall have dominion also from sea to sea,
from the River to the ends of the earth.
It clearly says that God called to Moses out of the middle of the bush. The angel is God.Umm angels are not God. Angels are angels. That God called to Moses from a flame doesn't mean that the flame is God either. See Deuteronomy 4:15 And you shall watch yourselves very well, for you did not see any image on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. Lest you become corrupt and make for yourselves a graven image, the representation of any form...
Moses hid his face because he was afraid to look at God.On holidays when Priests bless the congregation, "May the Lord bless you and protect you..." they face the people and raise their hands over their head in what has become the Vulcan salute (Leonard Nimoy was Jewish and aware of the practice and made it part of Star Trek lore). They don't look at their hands and neither does the congregation, everyone covers their face with a prayer shawl. It's because the divine presence is resting on their hands. It doesn't mean that it's something that can be seen. Yet we avert our eyes nonetheless.
Genesis 18:2 He lifted up his eyes and looked, and saw that three men stood near him. ...Yes, the third angel had completed it's mission. It wasn't God and two angels. Again, go read Deuteronomy 4:15. God has no form. Period.
Genesis 19:1 The two angels came to Sodom at evening. ...
Correct, it was an angel. Yahweh can take the form of an angel too. Why is the angel called Yahweh? Did someone leave out his last name?Deuteronomy 4:15. :o
I think this psalm is prophetic.Okay, and you can think that. But that's not a compelling reason for me to think that.
It would be strange for Levites to be singing that David would be a priest, which is a very Levitical role.Yes. So I will direct you to 2 Samuel 8:18, which said that David's sons were priests. Obviously they too could not be priests, as they were from the tribe of Judah and not Levi. So obviously the term "priest" can mean something other than a descendant of Aaron. Perhaps high ranking officials? I will postulate thus: Let's have a look at Psalm 110 again. It begins "Of David a psalm." Then "“You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” (NKJV. I don't love this translation but the others are worse.) In this context, David is a "priest" like Melchizedek in that he is the king of Jerusalem just as Melchizedek was.
The phrase "A Psalm of David" appears many times in the book of Psalms. There are also psalms of Asaph. They are often "for" the director of music. Although a Psalm "for" David is a possible meaning, it seems more likely that it means only that David wrote the psalm.So what if he did? It can still be about him.
The New Testament says these children are "born of God".Right, so it's an NT thing. I'm free to see it otherwise.
Jesus had to prove that He is God by coming back from the dead.I don't see how that would prove anything. Sure God can bring people back from the dead. See 2 Kings 4. That doesn't make the person God.
OK, but olam can mean from eternity past or eternity future, right? e.g. Psalm 90:2Bethlehem shouldn't be considered particularly ancient, compared to a lot of cities in Israel at the time of Micah (and Hezekiah). It was still a landmark in Jeremiah 41:17. The ancient "origins" refer to the Messiah, not to the town of Bethlehem.What are you talking about? It refers to David, who by the time the messiah comes will be from "ancient times".QuoteIf you are talking about ancestors being ancient, that conveys little information. My own ancestors are so ancient that they trace back to Adam. Christians typically understand it to mean that the Messiah existed in eternity past, before the creation of the world -- hence more than just human.That's great, but nothing forces one to understand the verse in that way. And Jews don't.
You're changing the word order: "call his name" comes before "wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father".QuoteAnother Bible verse that suggests the Messiah is divine is Isaiah 9:6-7, based on the names given, including "Mighty God". Verse 7 says he establishes the kingdom forever.This is talking about king Hezekiah though.
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.
It is perfectly reasonable to translate it thus: For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."
You'll notice the last line of your quote. "The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this". In Hebrew it reads "קִנְאַ֛ת יְהֹוָ֥ה צְבָא֖וֹת תַּֽעֲשֶׂה־זֹּֽאת". That's a unique phrase in the bible, and it occurs exactly three times in all of Tanach (what you would call the "OT"). Once here, once in Isaiah 37:32, and once in 2 Kings 19:31. If you read Isaiah 37 and 2 Kings 19, you'll see that the context of what "the zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform" is saving Jerusalem and king Hezekiah from Sennacherib, king of Assyria. I don't think that people give enough importance to what happened. The Assyrians, the world's sole superpower, were turned back at Jerusalem. As a historical event, because that happened, Judaism survived. If the Assyrians win, they exile Judea, and just like the northern ten tribes, they are lost to history. That means 700 years later, there's no Jesus and no Christianity. It's a monumentous, world shaking event.
Interesting. Yes, I suppose it could have been in the form of requests like "may the righteous flourish" rather than predictions. Well, I believe God will answer the prayer in the messianic era.QuoteSolomon's psalm 72 starts off like a prayer for himself, but there are some things that seem to be more Messianic, i.e. outlasting the moon, dominion to the ends of the earth. I guess living forever doesn't prove someone is divine though. Do you think it is poetic hyperbole?That's...not a great translation. It could be rendered " In his days, may the righteous flourish..." which is more a request than a statement of fact. Psalms are generally not understood as prophecy by Jews. They're poems sung to God. As such, they will contain requests as a form of prayer.
Psalm 72:7 In his days, the righteous shall flourish,
and abundance of peace, until the moon is no more.
8 He shall have dominion also from sea to sea,
from the River to the ends of the earth.
Strictly speaking, Deuteronomy 4:15 was Moses' words to the congregation of Israel. Moses was referring to the event when God audibly spoke the Ten Commandments to them on Mount Sinai. They did not see God's form on that occasion.QuoteIt clearly says that God called to Moses out of the middle of the bush. The angel is God.Umm angels are not God. Angels are angels. That God called to Moses from a flame doesn't mean that the flame is God either. See Deuteronomy 4:15 And you shall watch yourselves very well, for you did not see any image on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. Lest you become corrupt and make for yourselves a graven image, the representation of any form...
Any form.
Yes, I heard about the Vulcan salute being related to the priestly tradition. I don't remember the Bible talking about the divine presence resting on their hands. I remember the divine presence is above the Mercy Seat between the Cherubim in the Holy of Holies.QuoteMoses hid his face because he was afraid to look at God.On holidays when Priests bless the congregation, "May the Lord bless you and protect you..." they face the people and raise their hands over their head in what has become the Vulcan salute (Leonard Nimoy was Jewish and aware of the practice and made it part of Star Trek lore). They don't look at their hands and neither does the congregation, everyone covers their face with a prayer shawl. It's because the divine presence is resting on their hands. It doesn't mean that it's something that can be seen. Yet we avert our eyes nonetheless.
Isn't it clear that the LORD is one of the three men who ate the food and talked to Abram?QuoteGenesis 18:2 He lifted up his eyes and looked, and saw that three men stood near him. ...Yes, the third angel had completed it's mission. It wasn't God and two angels. Again, go read Deuteronomy 4:15. God has no form. Period.
Genesis 19:1 The two angels came to Sodom at evening. ...
QuoteCorrect, it was an angel. Yahweh can take the form of an angel too. Why is the angel called Yahweh? Did someone leave out his last name?Deuteronomy 4:15. :o
I was thinking about how David's sons were priests. My guess is that they were priests in the sense of "representatives of David" to the people, or "intermediaries". So yes, "royal officials" would capture this idea. Because the Levitical priests were also "representatives of God" to the people, or "intermediaries". This idea of priest requires that the priest like Melchizedek represents someone higher. If my understanding of David's sons as priests is correct, then David was not a priest in the sense of royal official, because the king does not normally act as an intermediary for himself.QuoteI think this psalm is prophetic.Okay, and you can think that. But that's not a compelling reason for me to think that.QuoteIt would be strange for Levites to be singing that David would be a priest, which is a very Levitical role.Yes. So I will direct you to 2 Samuel 8:18, which said that David's sons were priests. Obviously they too could not be priests, as they were from the tribe of Judah and not Levi. So obviously the term "priest" can mean something other than a descendant of Aaron. Perhaps high ranking officials? I will postulate thus: Let's have a look at Psalm 110 again. It begins "Of David a psalm." Then "“You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” (NKJV. I don't love this translation but the others are worse.) In this context, David is a "priest" like Melchizedek in that he is the king of Jerusalem just as Melchizedek was.
Yes it could be about him, but I'm just suggesting that it doesn't necessarily say a Psalm about David.QuoteThe phrase "A Psalm of David" appears many times in the book of Psalms. There are also psalms of Asaph. They are often "for" the director of music. Although a Psalm "for" David is a possible meaning, it seems more likely that it means only that David wrote the psalm.So what if he did? It can still be about him.
Yes, but at least the NT did not forget to mention Jesus having children, which Isaiah 53:10 says the servant must have.QuoteThe New Testament says these children are "born of God".Right, so it's an NT thing. I'm free to see it otherwise.
True. Jesus' resurrection needs to be seen in light of His claims. His resurrection strongly indicates that Jesus was telling the truth.QuoteJesus had to prove that He is God by coming back from the dead.I don't see how that would prove anything. Sure God can bring people back from the dead. See 2 Kings 4. That doesn't make the person God.
OK, but olam can mean from eternity past or eternity future, right? e.g. Psalm 90:2Psalm 90:2 simply says "forever and ever". You're really forcing a translation here. There's no compelling reason for it to be read that way.
You're changing the word order: "call his name" comes before "wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father".So? Hebrew is not English. Sentences can have a different word order.
Yes, it was pretty momentous. The Assyrians nearly swallowed up Judah. Nevertheless, part of the miraculous workings of God is that after Judah was swallowed up by Babylon yet it was restored.You're missing my point. By all rights Judah should have been destroyed, and with it Judaism. It was and is probably the single most significant battle in the history of the world. You're brushing it aside because of hindsight.
Isaiah 37:32 says that "out of Jerusalem shall go a remnant".Yes, that's us. We are the remnant.
Isaiah 9:6-7 says talks about an everlasting kingdom, which doesn't really fit for Hezekiah.Sure it does. Judah survived for another 200 years.
The same phrase about the zeal of the LORD is used, but
the superficial meaning of the words seems to be saying the LORD is accomplishing two different things.One thing: Saving Judah.
Strictly speaking, Deuteronomy 4:15 was Moses' words to the congregation of Israel. Moses was referring to the event when God audibly spoke the Ten Commandments to them on Mount Sinai. They did not see God's form on that occasion.Strictly speaking, it's actually a command not to worship anything that can be seen, specifically because God has no form.
Exodus 24:9 NKJV Then Moses went up, also Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10 and they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the very heavens in its clarity.As it doesn't say what they saw or what God looked like, I'm going to take it as "perceived God" rather than "saw Him". I'll go back to Deut 4:15 because it's not a story but a command- And you shall watch yourselves very well, for you did not see any image on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. And why is the narrative here? Because Lest you become corrupt and make for yourselves a graven image, the representation of any form, the likeness of male or female,
Exodus 33:23 Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen.”Then why couldn't Moses see God's "front"? Because there's another perfectly reasonable way to to look at this. God is saying that His presence in human history is only understandable looking back "Oh that's why God did that".
The elders saw God. Moses saw God's back. God has feet. God has a face. God has a back. Therefore, God has a form, or at least He can assume a form.
Isaiah 6:1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple.I am familiar with this passage, it is from my Bar Mitzvah reading. This and passages in Ezekiel are clearly describing some metaphysical event and not a floating chair with a giant old man with a white beard.
Isaiah saw God!
Correct, it was an angel. Yahweh can take the form of an angel too. Why is the angel called Yahweh? Did someone leave out his last name?Angel of God. Well, technically the Hebrew word for "angel" is "messenger", which amounts to the same thing.
I was thinking about how David's sons were priests. My guess is that they were priests in the sense of "representatives of David" to the people, or "intermediaries". So yes, "royal officials" would capture this idea. Because the Levitical priests were also "representatives of God" to the people, or "intermediaries". This idea of priest requires that the priest like Melchizedek represents someone higher.Again if you wish to to believe that you may. But it's very simple to say that David was a priest like Malkitzedek in that they were both officials that ruled in Jerusalem.
Moreover, Melchizedek was the priest of God Most High and likely offered sacrifices. I think David was different from Melchizedek in that respect. The priest like Melchizedek would have a similar priesthood as Melchizedek who was a priest of God Most High. David was not a priest in the same way that Melchizedek was a priest.David also offered sacrifices. 2 Samuel 24:25.
Yes it could be about him, but I'm just suggesting that it doesn't necessarily say a Psalm about David.So what it means is flexible, depending on one's theological needs.
True. Jesus' resurrection needs to be seen in light of His claims. His resurrection strongly indicates that Jesus was telling the truth.Well his alleged resurrection.
I was thinking about Isaiah 53. Most of the things which you said the kings said are facts of history. Surely the kings knew they were evil for persecuting and killing people, right?Um, no. Not only didn't they think they were evil, they thought they were doing something good. You assume that everyone has Biblical values. History says otherwise.
Or do you think they were surprised that their cruelty could be called "iniquity" and "transgression"? The only surprising part of their report would be that the servant is innocent, right? But maybe they even knew the servant was innocent already.I mean, the Jews martyred through the ages didn't deserve their fate. They weren't criminals. The verse applies.
Isaiah 53:9 They made his grave with the wicked,
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
What new information or main point are the kings reporting in Isaiah 53:1-10 in your view? "we considered" in Isaiah 53:4 indicates that the speaker was mistaken, so what was the corrected message? Or are they simply astounded that Israel is exalted even though they were mistreated before?They're surprised that the despised Jews were actually correct all along. That the Jews weren't smitten by God, but by the nations who in their sinful behavior persecuted them.
The context of Psalm 90:2 is talking about the time before the earth was formed, so Psalm 90:2 could be referring to the ancient past with the first olam in olam ad olam. Are you saying that I'm forcing a translation in Micah 5:2 or Psalm 90:2?OK, but olam can mean from eternity past or eternity future, right? e.g. Psalm 90:2Psalm 90:2 simply says "forever and ever". You're really forcing a translation here. There's no compelling reason for it to be read that way.
Biblical Hebrew can have Verb-Subject-Object word order in the sentence. You are interpreting it as Verb-Object-Subject: call (verb) his name (object) wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father (subject). Is that acceptable grammar?QuoteYou're changing the word order: "call his name" comes before "wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father".So? Hebrew is not English. Sentences can have a different word order.
The Assyrian invasion was pretty devastating for Judah. Lachish was taken. Every fortified city was captured except Jerusalem (2 Kings 18:13). The battle was also very decisive as it ended the Assyrian invasion. God even threatened Hezekiah that Jerusalem would be destroyed but later relented.QuoteYes, it was pretty momentous. The Assyrians nearly swallowed up Judah. Nevertheless, part of the miraculous workings of God is that after Judah was swallowed up by Babylon yet it was restored.You're missing my point. By all rights Judah should have been destroyed, and with it Judaism. It was and is probably the single most significant battle in the history of the world. You're brushing it aside because of hindsight.
Yes!QuoteIsaiah 37:32 says that "out of Jerusalem shall go a remnant".Yes, that's us. We are the remnant.
The kingdom is supposed to last forever (olam -- there's that word again). 200 years is not forever. Are you thinking of verse 7 only referring to the 15 years of Hezekiah's reign after the momentous battle? His government and peace stopped increasing when his son Manasseh came along, killed lots of innocent people (2 Kings 21:16), and was captured by the Assyrian army (2 Chronicles 33:11).QuoteIsaiah 9:6-7 says talks about an everlasting kingdom, which doesn't really fit for Hezekiah.Sure it does. Judah survived for another 200 years.
I can see that Isaiah 9:7 guarantees that Judah will not be finished and there was still hope that the kingdom would survive in the future. An earlier verse Isaiah 9:4 reminds the people about God's ability to save His people from a huge army, like He did against the Midianites. The zeal of the LORD guarantees that. So that phrase was used as a reassurance for King Ahaz to hear in Isaiah 9:7 and for King Hezekiah to hear in Isaiah 37:32, as they both faced the threat of being conquered, except Assyria was supposed to be King Ahaz's ally.QuoteThe same phrase about the zeal of the LORD is used, but
But
There's no "but". It's a unique phrase that occurs only three times in the bible. You free to scour the bible for the word "Olam" and find stray instances where it could be interpreted to your liking and consider that evidence. But when a specific, unique phrase shows up in three related circumstances, you feel free to ignore it.Quotethe superficial meaning of the words seems to be saying the LORD is accomplishing two different things.One thing: Saving Judah.
I'm going to use a contemporary example of how momentous the occasion was.
Imagine if, in 1948, rather than Israel being invaded by 5 armies who outnumbered them perhaps 3 to 1, Israel was invaded by the Soviet Union, who outnumbered them 100 to 1. With tens of thousands of tanks and artillery and aircraft. And they conquered the entire country and sieged Jerusalem. And then, suddenly, a plague struck, destroying the Red Army and sending Stalin back to Moscow in disgrace.
The zeal of the Lord of Hosts, indeed.
QuoteStrictly speaking, Deuteronomy 4:15 was Moses' words to the congregation of Israel. Moses was referring to the event when God audibly spoke the Ten Commandments to them on Mount Sinai. They did not see God's form on that occasion.Strictly speaking, it's actually a command not to worship anything that can be seen, specifically because God has no form.
Yes, we shouldn't make images or statues of God to worship them. Don't worship any form. It doesn't mean God has no form.QuoteExodus 24:9 NKJV Then Moses went up, also Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10 and they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the very heavens in its clarity.As it doesn't say what they saw or what God looked like, I'm going to take it as "perceived God" rather than "saw Him". I'll go back to Deut 4:15 because it's not a story but a command- And you shall watch yourselves very well, for you did not see any image on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. And why is the narrative here? Because Lest you become corrupt and make for yourselves a graven image, the representation of any form, the likeness of male or female,
God has no form. Don't worship any form. (Catholics have all those weird statues and such, I don't know how they square it with this).
QuoteExodus 33:23 Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen.”Then why couldn't Moses see God's "front"? Because there's another perfectly reasonable way to to look at this. God is saying that His presence in human history is only understandable looking back "Oh that's why God did that".
The elders saw God. Moses saw God's back. God has feet. God has a face. God has a back. Therefore, God has a form, or at least He can assume a form.QuoteIsaiah 6:1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple.I am familiar with this passage, it is from my Bar Mitzvah reading. This and passages in Ezekiel are clearly describing some metaphysical event and not a floating chair with a giant old man with a white beard.
Isaiah saw God!
Interesting. I guess non-Levitical priests have offered sacrifices too, like Gideon (Judges 6:26).QuoteI was thinking about how David's sons were priests. My guess is that they were priests in the sense of "representatives of David" to the people, or "intermediaries". So yes, "royal officials" would capture this idea. Because the Levitical priests were also "representatives of God" to the people, or "intermediaries". This idea of priest requires that the priest like Melchizedek represents someone higher.Again if you wish to to believe that you may. But it's very simple to say that David was a priest like Malkitzedek in that they were both officials that ruled in Jerusalem.QuoteMoreover, Melchizedek was the priest of God Most High and likely offered sacrifices. I think David was different from Melchizedek in that respect. The priest like Melchizedek would have a similar priesthood as Melchizedek who was a priest of God Most High. David was not a priest in the same way that Melchizedek was a priest.David also offered sacrifices. 2 Samuel 24:25.
Have you seen the movie "The Case for Christ" with Lee Strobel?QuoteTrue. Jesus' resurrection needs to be seen in light of His claims. His resurrection strongly indicates that Jesus was telling the truth.Well his alleged resurrection.
OK, so in your view, the kings are confessing that their persecuting actions were crimes. That seems fairly easy for people to believe, no? Isaiah 53:1 says people won't believe them.QuoteI was thinking about Isaiah 53. Most of the things which you said the kings said are facts of history. Surely the kings knew they were evil for persecuting and killing people, right?Um, no. Not only didn't they think they were evil, they thought they were doing something good. You assume that everyone has Biblical values. History says otherwise.QuoteOr do you think they were surprised that their cruelty could be called "iniquity" and "transgression"? The only surprising part of their report would be that the servant is innocent, right? But maybe they even knew the servant was innocent already.I mean, the Jews martyred through the ages didn't deserve their fate. They weren't criminals. The verse applies.
Isaiah 53:9 They made his grave with the wicked,
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.QuoteWhat new information or main point are the kings reporting in Isaiah 53:1-10 in your view? "we considered" in Isaiah 53:4 indicates that the speaker was mistaken, so what was the corrected message? Or are they simply astounded that Israel is exalted even though they were mistreated before?They're surprised that the despised Jews were actually correct all along. That the Jews weren't smitten by God, but by the nations who in their sinful behavior persecuted them.
The context of Psalm 90:2 is talking about the time before the earth was formed, so Psalm 90:2 could be referring to the ancient past with the first olam in olam ad olam. Are you saying that I'm forcing a translation in Micah 5:2 or Psalm 90:2?I'm saying the word means "forever". That's all.
Is that acceptable grammar?Yeah, in Hebrew in can be. Hebrew is a very compact language and sometimes words like "is" are assumed when no present.
The Assyrian invasion was pretty devastating for Judah.If Jerusalem was captured, it would have been the end of Jews and Judaism. World history would be vastly different in ways we can't even imagine.
The kingdom is supposed to last forever (olam -- there's that word again). 200 years is not forever.200 years is a long time in the context of human experience. We think of the United States as having existed "forever" and its not much more than 200 years since 1776.
I can see that Isaiah 9:7 guarantees that Judah will not be finished and there was still hope that the kingdom would survive in the future.Not just the kingdom. The Jewish people. Do you know why you've never met an Assyrian or a Ammonite or a Moabite or Hittite or a Babylonian? Because in the ancient world, when a kingdom was conquered they stayed gone.
An earlier verse Isaiah 9:4 reminds the people about God's ability to save His people from a huge army, like He did against the Midianites. The zeal of the LORD guarantees that. So that phrase was used as a reassurance for King Ahaz to hear in Isaiah 9:7Isaiah 9 was prophesized to Judah and not Israel. Israel did not survive the Assyrian invasion.
QuoteStrictly speaking, Deuteronomy 4:15 was Moses' words to the congregation of Israel. Moses was referring to the event when God audibly spoke the Ten Commandments to them on Mount Sinai. They did not see God's form on that occasion.Strictly speaking, it's actually a command not to worship anything that can be seen, specifically because God has no form.
Numbers 12:8 says that Moses saw God's form.Deuteronomy also said that God spoke to Moses "face to face". The priestly blessing asked that God turn his face to us. But God doesn't have a body. He doesn't have a face. Deut 4:15. This is basic Jewish theology supported by our understanding of the bible. The text is simply anthromorphizing.
Yes, we shouldn't make images or statues of God to worship them. Don't worship any form. It doesn't mean God has no form.That's not how we see it and it's not really what the bible says.
So you think the metaphysical event is visible?In the mind, perhaps.
Interesting. I guess non-Levitical priests have offered sacrifices too, like Gideon (Judges 6:26).I think kings had more latitude in these areas, particularly before the temple was built.
Have you seen the movie "The Case for Christ" with Lee Strobel?I have not.
OK, so in your view, the kings are confessing that their persecuting actions were crimes. That seems fairly easy for people to believe, no? Isaiah 53:1 says people won't believe them.53:1 is also the kings. "Who would have believed it? "
Besides "forever", olam can also mean the ancient past. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon says it can mean: long duration, antiquity, futurity.The context of Psalm 90:2 is talking about the time before the earth was formed, so Psalm 90:2 could be referring to the ancient past with the first olam in olam ad olam. Are you saying that I'm forcing a translation in Micah 5:2 or Psalm 90:2?I'm saying the word means "forever". That's all.
It could be anthropomorphizing when describing God's power as God's arm, or God's attention as God's face.QuoteNumbers 12:8 says that Moses saw God's form.Deuteronomy also said that God spoke to Moses "face to face". The priestly blessing asked that God turn his face to us. But God doesn't have a body. He doesn't have a face. Deut 4:15. This is basic Jewish theology supported by our understanding of the bible. The text is simply anthromorphizing.
If it is in the mind, only one person should see it, right? If multiple people see the same thing in the mind at the same time at the same location, perhaps this thing has actually occupied a real physical location and appeared in that form. Exodus 24:9-11 talks about 74 people who saw God, including a paved work of sapphire stone under His feet. So it seems like God occupied a physical location and could be seen by multiple people in some form. Interesting how only the appearance of the sapphire stone was described (perhaps to prevent attempts at making an image), but they knew that God was above that. Do you agree that God was perceived to be at a particular location?QuoteSo you think the metaphysical event is visible?In the mind, perhaps.
Numbers 18:3 They [Levites] shall keep your [Aaron's] commands and the duty of the whole Tent; only they shall not come near to the vessels of the sanctuary and to the altar, that they not die, neither they nor you.QuoteInteresting. I guess non-Levitical priests have offered sacrifices too, like Gideon (Judges 6:26).I think kings had more latitude in these areas, particularly before the temple was built.
It's a story about a real life crime reporter who's wife converts to Christianity who tries to disprove the resurrection, but found out:QuoteHave you seen the movie "The Case for Christ" with Lee Strobel?I have not.
Genesis 4:6 So the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”
Concerning this scripture about how God is warning Cain about his anger and how sin (temptation) is lying at his door and that Cain should rule over the sin. Cain doesn't and kills his brother Abel.
Is this murder an example of God's will or is an example of His permissive will?
Is resisting the sin God's will but Cain transgressed God's will?
The main question then, is God's will "always" followed?
Would value input because just this past weekend I was reading some posts (elsewhere), where the focus of the discussion is that, "ALL IS" God's ordained will.