JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[DesireTruth]

@ Berean,

You are still missing what I was talking about; the future tense verb clauses do NOT align with the Hebrew, which are in the past tense. Explain THIS discrepancy!

We’ll get to verse 7…

[Berean]

@desiretruth

Isaiah 53
[4] Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
[5] But👉 he was wounded for our transgressions👈,

👉he was bruised for our iniquities👈: 

👉the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.  

I think you agree that Isaiah 53 is a Prophecy about the Messiah, ok! So can you explain to me why in Isaiah 53 the past tense is used extensively for future events?

Now for chapter 9, I don’t think it’s that important to be fussy about the grammatical tense of the verbs used.
I dare to think that the writer uses different times because of the literary style, so that this one is not too heavy….What do you think? I’m not a grammar scholar so here goes…

🙏

 

 

[DesireTruth]

@ Berean,

I am not speaking at this moment of Isa 53; if you would like to go there, Let me know when you start a new thread and we can spend the next 20 years debating what Isa 53 is really talking about.

You don’t think grammar matters and we shouldn’t get “fussy” over tenses?!?!

Let’s eat, Grandpa.
Let’s eat Grandpa.

That comma seems extremely important to Grandpa, either Grandpa is joining to partake in dinner or he’s joining us to be eaten for dinner. Tell me grammar doesn’t matter! Tell an English teacher grammatical tenses, punctuation, and capitalization don’t matter. The point I am making in Isa 9:6 is the flagrant changing of the tenses of the Hebrew scripture and these changes, change the meaning and context of what is being said. The real reason you are deflecting is you have no answer to this discrepancy and now will brush it under the carpet and ignore it, like it never happened. Carmel, who brought up the verse, has yet to chime in and explain what’s happening; this tells me he hasn’t had time, he is looking into it, or he’s ignoring it. Won’t know until he either addresses it or disregards it.

The fact this refers to someone in the past tense destroys it’s usage to refer to Jesus in the future and currently you are having a hard time dealing with this truth as you now brought in Isa 53 to somehow save whatever belief you have. This tense change is undeniable and I think fear is preventing you from dealing with this discrepancy, by dealing with it, it will cause you to question what your religion tells you. If it doesn’t cause you to question, it tells me you only desire your religion.

Print what I wrote and give it to your pastor and tell me what they say.

[carmel]

Hi Jodi,

You: If Jesus left his glory behind to become a human,

why is he then

STILL A HUMAN?

Me: Scriptures:

John 6:39 Now this is the will of the Father who sent me:

that of all that he hath given me,

I should lose nothing;

BUT SHOULD RAISE IT UP AGAIN IN THE LAST DAY.

Jodi, WHO GAVE JESUS

HIS HUMAN BODY?

Hebrews 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith:

Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not:

but a body thou hast fitted to me:

Genesis 22:And Abraham said: God will provide

HIMSELF a victim for an holocaust,

MY SON.

So they went on together.

ME: THE FATHER AND THE SON ON THE CROSS!

John10:30 I and the Father are one.

John 1:1IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,

AND THE WORD WAS GOD

14 And the Word was made flesh,

and dwelt among us,

(and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,)

full of grace and truth.

 

Isiah 55:11 So shall my word be,

which shall go FORTH from my mouth:

it shall not return to me void, but it shall do whatsoever I please, and shall

prosper in the things for which I sent it.

John 16:28 I came forth from the Father,

and am come INTO the world: again I leave the world,

and I go to the Father.

Now: When was JESUS’ last day on earth? 

ON THE CROSS! NO?

Read what occurred on the cross, on Jesus’ SUPPOSED death!

ACCORDING TO YOU IN THE SAME DEATH THAT WE DIE?

 

John13:31 When he therefore was gone out, Jesus said:

Now is the Son of man glorified,

and God is glorified in HIM.

32 If God be glorified in HIM,

God also will glorify HIM in HIMSELF;

and IMMEDIATELY will he glorify HIM.

John 17:1 THESE things Jesus spoke, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said:

Father, the HOUR is come,

glorify thy Son,

that thy Son may glorify thee. 

 

Read again the truth in more clarity:

GLORIFY YOUR SON,

IN YOUR SPIRIT, THAT 

YOUR SON MAY GLORIFY YOU,

IN HIS FLESH!

John10:30 I and the Father are one.

Now do what your shadow Mr. Gene suggested

 

AND PUT THE SCRIPTURES TOGETHER!

Jodi,

When you leave out scriptures you create deception.

 

Peace and love in Jesus Christ

[Berean]

@ desire Truth

I do not wish to start a new thread with Isaiah 53. I simply made a comparison between a few verses of chap 53 and chap 9:6,7.

Tell me what’s not fair with that. And let’s move on!

And know that I have no account to render to any pastor except to God the Father and Jesus Christ his Son.

🙏

[GeneBalthrop]

Berean…….FOR THE HUNDREDTH TIME,   Being called something does not make you it. This is done all the time in nearly all languages.  Here is some examples,

Jesus Said to PETER,  “get behind me “SATAN”.   WAS Peter really SATAN? No he was not Satan, but was demonstrating a characteristic of Satan. 

words like……The man was a snake,  or he was a rat, or where Jesus said “go tell that fox”.   All these are “IDIOMS”.  Idioms imply “CHARACTERISTICS”,  of something but are never the actual thing it self.  Jesus is called the word of God   “NOT”, because he “IS”, God’s word, but because he tell us “GOD THE FATHERS WORDS” .  GET IT?

Jesus can also be called God’s Word, IN THIS SENSE,  He is the “PROPHESIED FULFILLMENT ”  of the word of God, spoken to us by the prophets of old.  That word came into being, it was the flesh man Jesus. Just that simple Berean.

Peace and love to you and yours Berean………gene

[DesireTruth]

@ Berean,

Why wouldn’t you take this question to your pastor, your leader, your shepherd? Are you not allowed to ask them questions? If so, you need to run! Are you to simply plant your rear on a bench every Saturday and unquestioningly absorb all they say? If so, you need to run! I believe it’s fear preventing you from taking this question to him OR are you the pastor?

Showing you and everyone else this discrepancy creates an issue with our translations of scripture…they have been modified, they have been changed, they have been manipulated. I am using the Jewish words, their meanings, and comparing them to our modern translations; THEY DON’T MATCH!!!! That’s an issue and we have a HUGE problem!

I will keep Isa 53 as brief as possible, what do the chapters before and after say? Can you tell me anything about them or do you only know Isa 53? If 53 is all you know, you’re missing the context of what is being said and why! Take a book/novel you haven’t read, open it to a middle chapter, read that one chapter, and tell me what the book is about! Impossible right; yet, this is the same approach the modern church uses when teaching from scripture and Isa 53 is a prime example of this method.

I will leave you with these few questions and points concerning Isa 53.

Isa 53:8

“for the transgression of my people was he stricken.” (KJV)

“because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them.” (Jewish Bible)

Take a look at the last four Hebrew words, which is the verses above, note how “lemo” has no Strong reference. Here “lemo” is translated as “he” and in the Hebrew it’s “they/them”. Go to Isa 48:21, “lemo” is translated as “them”. Do you see the issue or are you going to simply ignore it!?!?

Isa 53:10

“when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.” (KJV)

“Zera” means seed or offspring, a seed that produces after its kind, a descendant. There is nothing “spiritual” about this word, it only applies to the act of physical reproduction. What child did Jesus bare?

Isa 53:11

“…by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many;” (KJV)

It was Jesus “knowledge” that justifies many?!?!?!

Do you see why I said to start a new thread? This is just a brief overview of Isa 53; of the few items pointed out, explain how Jesus can be the one being referred to in this chapter? I believe there is a contextual misunderstanding happening.

[Berean]

Gene

Jesus is called the word of God “NOT”, because he “IS”, God’s word, but because he tell us “GOD THE FATHERS WORDS” . GET IT?

me

I’ve known this for a long time, but thank you for reminding me.

So John 1:1 should read
IN THE BEGINNING WAS JESUS, AND JESUS CHRIST WAS WITH GOD AND HE WAS GOD.

ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM….ETC

YOU
Jesus can also be called God’s Word, IN THIS SENSE, He is the “PROPHESIED FULFILLMENT ” of the word of God, spoken to us by the prophets of old. That word came into being, it was the flesh man Jesus. Just that simple Berean.

Me

NO, for me, it’s either one or the other, but not both….but you are free to believe what you want…

THE BIBLE TELLS US JESUS IS CALLED (too)
THE WORD OF GOD

IN THE BEGINNING HE WAS WITH GOD AND HE WAS GOD.

🙏

[Berean]

@desiretruth

Why wouldn’t you take this question to your pastor, your leader, your shepherd? Are you not allowed to ask them questions? If so, you need to run! Are you to simply plant your rear on a bench every Saturday and unquestioningly absorb all they say? If so, you need to run! I believe it’s fear preventing you from taking this question to him OR are you the pastor? 

Me

What exactly are you talking about?

For the rest, I didn’t ask you to come back to 53.
I made the comparison between 9:6.7 and 53 to show you that there is often the past time to show a FUTURE event in both cases.
Answer the above please…

[carmel]

Hi Gene,

You: I HAVE NEVER ARGUED AGAINST THAT, what I am saying is, Jesus speaking GOD the Father’s words to us, does not make him, “himself “, the word of God”.

, no more then MOSES or any of the prophets who spoke GOD the Fathers words to us “were themselves the word of God either. 

Me: Gene, THAT’S WHERE YOU SIMPLY NOT EVEN SMELL THE TRUTH, I’M AFRAID, NEVER MIND DISTINGUISH THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROPHETS OF THE OT. AND JESUS!

Read these scriptures please:

Luke1:And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. 31Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.

 32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High;

and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob forever.

33And of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? 35And the angel answering, said to her:

The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee.

And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Gene, apply the above scripture to any of the prophets of the OT.

 

Luke 1:49 And he said to them: How is it that you sought me?

did you not know,

that I must be about my father’s business?

Jesus in the above, a mere boy of TWELVE, full of the Holy Ghost WITHOUT MEASURE , anticipated God Almighty at the river Jordan and declared that

GOD IS HIS FATHER!

Gene, apply the above scripture to any of the prophets of the OT.

John5:18 Hereupon therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he did not only break the sabbath,

but also said God was his Father,

making himself equal to God.

Gene, apply the above scripture to any of the prophets of the OT.

John10:30 I and the Father are one.

Gene, apply the above scripture to any of the prophets of the OT.

…Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, Shew us the Father? 10Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?… 

Gene, apply the above scripture to any of the prophets of the OT.

Colossians 2:9 For IN HIM dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally; 

Gene, apply the above scripture to any of the prophets of the OT.

JESUS WHILE HE WAS ON EARTH WAS

GOD ALMIGHTY AS MAN IN HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF THE FATHER!

WHETHER YOU ACCEPT IT OR NOT IT’S YOUR PIGEON!

 

Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of HIS GLORY,

and the figure of HIS SUBSTANCE,

and upholding all things by THE WORD OF HIS POWER,

making purgation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high

Thus reading Hebrews above IN MORE CLARITY, Jesus is

THE FATHER’S BRIGHTNESS!

THE PRIMORDIAL LIGHT! The light of the world on His birth of the Holy Ghost. The Son of God. JESUS’ DIVINE NATURE. John8:12, John 9:5, John12:46

THE FATHER’S SUBSTANCE!

THE HOLY SPIRIT! The life-giving Spirit on His conception, THE WATER OF LIFE. John 4:14 John7:38,Rev.22:17

THE FATHER’S WORD IN ITS UNIQUE POWER:

THE WORD” MADE FLESH! Pronounced by the Father on His birth, as the Son of Man. JESUS’ HUMAN NATURE. Hebrews10:5, John 16:28, John 17:8, Isaiah 55:11

Gene, apply the above scripture to any of the prophets of the OT.

More scripture:

John14:6 Jesus saith to him:

I am the way, and the truth, and the life.

No man cometh to the Father, but by

ME.

Gene, apply the above scripture to any of the prophets of the OT.

John 16:15 All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine…..

Gene, apply the above scripture to any of the prophets of the OT.

John20:28 Thomas answered and said to him: My Lord, and my God. 

Gene, apply the above scripture to any of the prophets of the OT.

 

You: no more then MOSES or any of the prophets who spoke GOD the Fathers words to us “were themselves the word of God either. 

Gene, the OT prophets spoke THE WORD of God for sure, but within them, they carried precisely Jesus, as a spirit “THE WORD” spoken of God, ETERNAL LIFE WITHIN THEIR HEART, THEIR LIFE SOURCE, as much as HE FOR NO USE is in your heart TALKING TO YOU, THEY WERE SIMPLY THE CARRIERS OF JESUS, THE ONLY  SPIRIT/MEDIATOR, BETWEEN GOD AND HIS CREATURES,  WHILE JESUS ETERNALLY IS THE ONLY PHYSICAL CARRIER AND EMBODIMENT  OF GOD!

AS MUCH AS YOU ARE THE PHYSICAL EMBODIMENT OF YOUR SOUL!

AND AS MUCH AS YOU AND YOUR SOUL ARE ONE!

JESUS AND THE FATHER ARE ALSO ONE IN

JESUS CHRIST

GODMAN!

well asserted in

Colossians 1:16 For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers:

all things were created by him and in him. 

17And he is before all, and

BY HIM ALL THINGS CONSIST!

Peace and love in Jesus Christ

 

 

[DesireTruth]

@ Berean,

When I suggested to you to take my question concerning the changes done to Isa 9:6, you responded with “I have no account to render to any pastor…”; how is asking this question to your religious leader “submitting to” or being “controlled by” them? To me this sounded like another deflection, hence my response. The issue isn’t about when and where someone is speaking in the future or past tense or if whatever is spoken is in the past tense to refer to the future; it’s about the flagrant change from speaking in the past and modifying it to the future to change the context of what is being said. In this case, making it point to “Jesus”; when read in context of the surrounding chapters is pointing to Hezekiah. For the record, you still haven’t addressed this modification to scripture nor have you addressed the ramifications of this change. Is this tampering with scripture irrelevant?

Think of Isa 53 comments as bonus food for thought.

Now please answer one of my questions, what old testament scripture states Jesus is the Archangel Michael?

[carmel]

Hi Gene,

You: you and Carmel Are two of the most dishonest people here. 

Me: WOW! SO ACCORDING TO YOU THE FACT THAT YOU NEVER PRODUCE SPECIFICALLY AND ACCORDINGLY A MERE ANSWER,

YOU CONFIRM THAT

YOU ARE THE MOST HONEST PERSON HERE!

YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW 

WHERE HONESTY STANDS!

NOW LET’S SEE HOW HONEST YOU ARE!

Read what you said in the post on page 1204 #943347

Carmel………No matter how you try to corrupt our scriptures,  it plainly say  (not me) …..

he is the firstborn “FROM THE DEAD”.

Me: THE ABOVE IS IN FULL BLOCK CPITAL SO YOU WILL SEE IT FOR SURE!

EXPLAIN WHAT THE WORD DEAD IS REFERRING TO!

ASK YOUR ALIES TO GIVE YOU SOME HELP!

JUST TO BE SPECIFIC AND GIVE YOU SOMETHING TO PONDER READ:

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. for in what day soever thou shalt eat of it,

thou shalt die the death.

Genesis 3:20

And Adam called the name of his wife Eve:

because she was the mother of all the living.21And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife, garments of skins, and clothed them.22And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. 

23And the Lord God sent him out of the paradise of pleasure, to till the earth from which he was taken. 

24And he cast out Adam; and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

 

It seems quite clear that

ADAM NEVER DIED.

 

Peace and love in Jesus Christ

 

[Berean]

@ desire Truth

 

When I suggested to you to take my question concerning the changes done to Isa 9:6, you responded with “I have no account to render to any pastor…”;

Me

Not realy, You exaggerate….

I am not convinced of the supposed change about Isaiah 9:6
I got used to the King James Bible, and you know why and so it’s clear to me.
Now try another way to convince me that I’m wrong or that KJB is wrong.

For Archangel Michael, we will see later.
It will be OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT IN SUPPORT, IF GOD GIVES ME TIME. I DO NOT HAVE A STUDY READY.
EXCEPT BY OTHER PEOPLE.( if You want)

🙏

 

 

 

[DesireTruth]

@ Berean,

What did I exaggerate? I quoted your words.

Basically what you’re saying is the King James translation supersedes the Hebrew of the old testament?!?!?! Who wrote the old testament (really called the Tanakh) and in what language was it written? How can you not see the change that was done? The words are literally changed from a past to a future tense! Absolutely stunned by your response!

[Berean]

@desiretruth

Septuagint

6For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.
👇
7His government 👉shall be great👈, and of his peace there is👉 no end: it shall be 👉upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with judgment and with righteousness, from henceforth and
👉 forever. 👈The seal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this.

Did Hezechias accomplished:
“with righteousness, from henceforth and 👉 forever.” 👈 ????

🙏

 

 

[DesireTruth]

@ Berean,

You can quote the same scriptures over and over again, but without any explanation of what is being conveyed in the context they are written, means nothing. Using “pointy fingers” to emphasize a phrase or word says nothing, other than you know how to insert an image. What are the first five verses talking about in Isaiah chapter 9, what are verses 8-21 talking about. You CANNOT pull a couple verses out of a chapter and say “it’s Jesus” because it sounds like it could be; it’s all about context and to take something out of context is to manipulate it and becomes a lie.

You quote the translation that you find unreliable, but let’s use it.

6For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.

7His government shall be great, and of his peace there is no end: it shall be upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with judgment and with righteousness, from henceforth and forever. The seal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this.

In verse 6 we have “is born”, “is given”, “is upon”, “is called”; all of these verb clauses are in the present tense. Who is the “I” who will bring “peace and health”? The Lord of Hosts mentioned in the next verse. Who is this “him”? The “child/son” mentioned at the beginning of the verse.

“His government shall be great”, whose government? “His” is referring back to the “child/son” in the previous verse who is in the present of when this was written. My guess you didn’t read II Kings or II Chron as this would answer the majority of verse 7 and tell you who Hezekiah was, what he went through, and how God blessed him and Judah. You will find there was peace in the land of Judah while he was king, God restoring Hezekiah’s health, how God defeated the Assyrian army, a king who “clave to the Lord, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments” (II Kings 1:6) a “righteous” king.

The last part of 7, “henceforth” means “from this time on, to begin/start now” or does it mean 700-800 years into the future? The term “forever”, I am sure I have gone over this before, means “for a period of time” and not eternity. Look at I Sam 1:22 “But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband, I will not go up until the child be weaned, and then I will bring him, that he may appear before the Lord, and there abide for ever.” Are you saying Samuel is still there at the temple serving? When you say this took “forever to get done”, does that mean you are still doing it? No, it just means it took longer than expected – a period of time.

This is how you explain something; “pointy fingers”, not so much. This is so simple, quit making it complicated!

[Berean]

@ desire Truth and to all

Hezekiah or Jesus:
Who is the Child of Isaiah 9:6-7
by Grace Song

Viewpoint One
There are some Christian Old Testament scholars who treat the prophecy in Isaiah 9 as referring to the birth of Hezekiah. There are several issues to be considered in interpretation of the passage.

1) With respect to the child: The issue is whether the passage is referring to literal birth or royal succession. R. E. Clement translates the verse 6 as “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given”, and proposes that it should be understood as a reference to a royal succession and not to a literal birth. Thus, he concludes that the passage is referring to the accession of Hezekiah after the death of Ahaz. Gray in The International Critical Commentary also takes the child in verse 6 as referring to Hezekiah. He writes, “The ideal standpoint of the poet seems to be shortly after the birth of the prince, after he has been recognized as prince of Israel, but before the wide extension of his kingdom has begun.” 1

Wildberger also points out the usage of the imperfect consecutive tense and suggests that this birth is not in the distant future but it has possibly already taken place.And in the same light, Wildberger takes the phrase “the sovereign authority came upon (cf. the imperfect consecutive) his shoulder” as that will make most sense in the context of a royal enthronement: “This sentence does not assert something about enthronement but must be interpreted as an act of investiture, by means of which the child is officially elevated to the status of crown prince and is proclaimed the future ruler.” 2

2) With respect to the names: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace: Clement claims that these titles portray various functions of the king, using the imagery and ideology of Egyptian origin: “The series of four names which follow, built up in word couples, almost certainly derives from the Egyptian practice of giving throne names to the Pharaoh…The Egyptian practice was for a series of five names to be given, suggesting that this was originally the case here, and that one name has been lost in the transmission.” 3 Clement explains the titles as follows: Wonderful Counselor describes the king’s role as political guide; Mighty God emphasizes the extraordinary skill and strength of the king as a warrior. However, Wildberger cautions against watering down the title and understanding it as anything less than “mighty God”. He explains the title in relation to the ancient Near Eastern idea of kingship, in which the king was portrayed as the divinity whom he represents; Everlasting Father should be understood as “father for ever’ and expresses the king’s fatherly concern for the well-being of his people. (Gray also understands the third title as “Father forever” rather than as “Eternal Father”, and takes its meaning as “the benevolent guardian of his people so long as he and they endure.” He supports his view by giving other instances in which the word “forever” was used in the Old Testament which do not necessitate understanding the title as equivalent to “Eternal Father”, which implies the eternity of God: Is.47:7: ” You said, ‘I will continue forever — the eternal queen…”; Dt 15:17: “Then you shall take an awl and pierce it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your servant forever…” Gray also directs attention to Job 29:16 and Is 22:21 where “father” was used figuratively of a protector and benefactor.) ; Prince of Peace underscores the king’s role as the promoter of peace and prosperity.

3) With respect to the nature of the promise in verse 7: Clement takes the proclamation in verse 7, “There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace…” as a promise of a solid and independent kingdom under a Davidic ruler rather than a promise of a great universal kingdom ruling over many nations — which was fulfilled in the accession of Hezekiah who provided a reprieve for the dynasty. Gray also takes the similar approach to the promise in verse 7 and understands the main thought of the promise to be that Yahweh will establish and secure a righteous and just government under the new Davidic dynasty. Wildberger finds several motif in verse 7: the motif of stable order, the possibility of flourishing development, the steadfastness and permanence of the rule, and the quality of the rule as that of justice and righteousness. Yet Wildberger also cautions against taking the motif of duration in the sense of a strict eschatology. His view is recapitulated in the following: “This section, 9:1-6, is targeted for a time which addresses a situation full of distress brought on by foreign domination … The message is thus not about an absolute, unalterable, eternal plan of salvation wrought by God. Even if it were incorrect to connect this message with events surrounding the loss of the territory of Israel to the Assyrians, the ‘darkness’ through which the people were traveling would not refer to the human condition in general…Isaiah is talking about the birth of a crown prince, from the house of David. It has either already taken place or, if “child” and “give” in v.5 are to be interpreted as prophetic perfects, it will happen in the very near future. … We have already mentioned that the widespread term ‘messianic’ is problematic as a designation for this present section. There is no place in the OT which speaks of a Messiah as a savior figure who comes forth out of the transcendent regions and brings world history to an end. The child, about whose birth Isaiah speaks in this passage, will sit upon the throne of David in Jerusalem. Yet without a doubt, his birth is a salvation event; the future ahead of him will be more than just a drawn out continuation of the present; it is indeed still history in the normal, earthly-human realm, but it is at the same time fulfilled history. ” 4

II. Viewpoint Two
On the other side are scholars such as John Oswalt and J. A. Alexander who take the birth of the child in verse 6 as referring to the birth of Jesus Christ. Both Oswalt and Alexander reject the view that Isaiah 9:6 is simply a recognition of the birth of the crown prince Hezekiah for the following reasons: 1) Such view does not accord with the chronology of Hezekiah’s birth; 2) The description of the child cannot be applied to merely a human king; 3) The nature of the rule promised in verse 7 transcends a normal earthly rule.According to Oswalt, the titles in verse 6 are above normal and highlight the ultimate deity of the child. Against the attempts to understand the titles as reference to the Egyptian throne names, he gives the following arguments. First, the customary practice of Egypt was to give five throne-names to the king upon his accession. But there are only four names in Isaiah 9; and only speculating some kind of emendation can add fifth. Second, this is a birth announcement and not an enthronement hymn. Third, the Egyptian throne-names were expression of their belief that the kings were gods — a belief that goes against the grain of Hebrew monotheism. 5

Oswalt also repudiates the attempt to deny divine attributes inherent in the titles. For example with respect to the rendering of “Mighty God” as “great hero”, he writes, “Apart from the attempt to deny deity to the person in question, however there is no reason to depart from the traditional rendering. Wherever el gibbor elsewhere in the Bible there is no doubt that the term refers to God (10:21; cf. also Deut 10:17; Jer 32:18).” 6

Along with Oswalt, Alexander repudiates renderings with respect to “Eternal Father”– such as “benefactor of the people” and “founder of a new or everlasting age” — that exclude and discredit the obvious meaning of “an eternal being”. Besides, Motyer points out that “Father” is not current in the OT as a title of the kings, and it is used of the Lord in His concern for the helpless and the care of His people.

Furthermore, the rule promised in verse 7 transcends a normal and earthly rule. Thus it could not have been applied to Hezekiah whose rule was confined to Judah, and which was neither progressive nor perpetual. As Alexander writes, “The reign here predicted was to be not only peaceful but in every respect prosperous. And this prosperity, like the reign of which it is predicted, is to have no limit, either temporal or local. It is to be both universal and eternal…” 7

III. Evaluation
A proper two-fold consideration must be given in interpreting the Old Testament prophecy: 1) the original meanings in light of their historical backgrounds; 2) the covenant theology that undergirds prophetic writings. Frequently, Isaiah speaks to his contemporaries concerning their own times, and even his eschatological oracles issue from a historical setting.Isaiah 9:6-7 is a part of Isaiah’s response to the Assyrian crises in the days of Ahaz, in which Ahaz fails to trust God and makes Judah an Assyrian vassal state. In the oracles of judgment and hope surrounding the event, Isaiah pronounces the royal hope of Davidide in 9:6-7. The original audience of Isaiah were Ahaz and the Judahites facing the Assyrian threat.

Thus, that these were the words of hope held out to the people living in a situation full of distress brought by Assyrians in the eighth century BC should not be dismissed, but rather should be underscored.

One of the most crucial issues in approaching this passage is understanding the relationship between messianism and the Davidic dynasty which entails the following: 1) The messianic thinking in the prophets is frequently tied up with specific historical events with the following themes: that the family of anointed kings would be subject to judgment; that however, their line would be restored after the exile; and that they would take a leading role in rebuilding the temple. The prophets often show how the Davidic covenant was to be interpreted in particular, historical circumstances. 2) The messianic aspect is inherent in the Davidic covenant. And the messianic concepts attached to David’s dynasty brings a focus to the hopes offered by the prophets in relation to both the present and future. 3) Thus much of the messianism found in the prophets is a form of dynastic messianism (i.e., it expresses a hope that all descendants of David will be the king par excellence). 4) However, there is another side to this dynastic messianism. It also pointed to the fact that often the ruler on the throne at the time fell far short of the ideal, and thus needed to be replaced. In the end, there will be a seed of David who will not fail but bring to full realization the hopes for eternal peace and world dominion of righteousness under Davidic dynasty. 8

Furthermore, the approach of dynastic messianism to the text takes into the account the undergirding covenant theology of the prophets. Isaiah 9:1-7 seems to be a recapitulation of the Davidic covenant announced in 2 Samuel 7. In Davidic covenant, the Lord promises that David’s dynasty will never be utterly rejected, although individual Davidic king may be chastised. This promise of God to David was extended to contemporary Israelites, as well as pointing ultimately to the ideal king that is to come, the true king of par excellence typified by David, Hezekiah, and the like. Thus it is God who raises up the Davidic offspring and guarantees the continuity of the kingdom forever under the Davidic king in both Isaiah 9 and 2 Samuel 7.

Thus from all these appears that the royal hope pronounced in Isaiah 9:6-7 had its immediate reference to the Davidic king born in the prophet’s own days (i.e., Hezekiah). However, it also had a farfetching reference (despite the fact that the prophet himself probably did not have a full understanding of the exact nature of this more remote reference) to another king that is to come in ultimate and complete fulfillment of the pronounced hope — the one who is the antitype that completely and truly satisfies all the criteria of the king par excellence. As Daniel Schibler writes, “What is important is to realize that messianism in general and messianic prophecies in particular all had a beginning, a terminus quo. and an end, a terminus ad quem., and in between a whole range or history of fulfillment. But when Jesus of Nazareth had come, the early church and generations of Christian following it have believed that, ultimately speaking, every messianic prophecy, every messianism even, found its fulfillment in Jesus, the ‘Christ’ which… means the Messiah.” 9

IV. Conclusion
The major scholarly consensus with respect to approaching Isaiah 9:6-7 has been either messianic or Isaianic (i.e., that it is reference to Hezekiah as the awaited king), and not both. However, in light of “dynastic messianism”, the most appropriate approach to Isaiah 9 seems to be that which embraces both messianic and Isaianic outlook. Hezekiah does play a major role in the book of Isaiah. He is the king par excellence that replaces Ahaz, and the first to be the “child” of Isaiah 9:6. Hezekiah was the first Messiah for Isaiah and the people living in the eight century BC Judah, for Hezekiah’s birth signified God’s presence with them in a most precarious circumstance. 10 Moreover, this oracle of royal hope was to serve as a model for Hezekiah and the ensuing kings to follow.However as Provan notes, Hezekiah as well as the rest of the earthly Davidic kings that followed– in the total effect within the context of the entire book of Isaiah — was only a type and “a paradigmatic king in whose reign the promises were in fact as yet unfulfilled, and who thus points beyond himself to another Davidic monarch to come.” 11

Thus, the ultimate fulfillment of the royal hope — announced with an immediate reference to the prophet’s own day, and with somewhat pale and shadowy understanding of its remote reference — began with the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, is continuing, and will be consummated with His glorious return.

Notes
1. George B. Gray, The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T & T Clark LTD., 1980), 180.

2. Hans Wilderberger, Isaiah 1-12A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 400.

3. R.E. Clements, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980), 108.

4. Wildberger, Isaiah 1-12, 406.

5. John Oswalt, The International Commentary on the OT: The Book of Isaiah 1-39(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986), 246.

6. Ibid., 247.

7. J.A. Alexander, Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 205.

8. Philip E. Satterthwaite, Richard Hess, and Gordon Wenham, eds., The Lord’s Anointed ( Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), 97-104.

9. Ibid., 103.

10. Ibid., 98.

11. Ibid., 83.

 

God bless

 

[DesireTruth]

@ Berean,

This is insanity! When are you going to stop defending or justifying your religion? What is happening in the verses before and after that put verses 6-7 into context of what has been written. Don’t need an academic response from a commentary, just your thoughts.

About your copy and paste…

Viewpoint 1 is the Jewish understanding…period

Viewpoint 2 is man’s understanding to take two verses out of a chapter to make them point to Jesus.

“the Egyptian throne-names were expression of their belief that the kings were gods — a belief that goes against the grain of Hebrew monotheism.” However, John 10:“ 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;”

To Moses, I (God) am going to make you a god to pharaoh.

“Hebrew monotheism”, today we have a “triune” God. Man is corrupting God’s Word!

The Evaluation and Conclusion, are a sad commentary of appeasement of both viewpoints by combining them and now making it dualistic. Every prophet in the old testament prophesied for Israel; not for Israel and later the world, just Israel.

[Berean]

@ desire Truth

That’s what you do too…
bias on both sides, and that’s normal…
But the truth with love will win.

To bé continued…

🙏

[Jodi]

Hi Berean,

We didn’t finish our conversation regarding Phil 2.

YOU:

1. A) Who, being in the form of God,
2. B) thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

THE SON OF GOD, WHO WAS GOD AND WHO WAS IN THE FORM OF GOD, CONSIDERED THAT IT WOULD BE “TO ROB GOD” TO BE, (RETAIN) THE EQUAL OF GOD…

[7] But made himself of no reputation,

HE HAD A REPUTATION OF BEING THE EQUAL OF HIS FATHER BECAUSE HE WAS GOD AND THROUGH HIM ALL WAS CREATED….(John 1:1-3)
But to save humanity from sin “HE MADE HIMSELF POOR FROM THE RICH THAT HE WAS, SO THAT WE SHOULD BE ENRICHED”
HE LEFT HIS DIVINE CONDITION IN THE GLORY HE HAD WITH HIS FATHER BEFORE THE WORLD WAS.

and took upon him the form of a servant, and  was made in the likeness of men:  AND THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH

[8] And being found  in fashion as a man,

he humbled himself,

and became obedient unto death, even  the death of the cross.

no comment

GLORY TO GOD FOR THE GIFT OF HIS OWN SON!

ME:

You are not making any sense.

You say that the text is speaking of a pre-existing God (the son), so why would it need to be even stated that he was in the form of God if he himself was God?

There is no reputation that you speak of, you actually are attempting to use Paul’s text to establish the reputation. 

The text directly tells you that Paul is speaking of the thoughts of Christ Jesus. You can actually still believe that Jesus pre-existed and recognize that Paul was speaking of the thoughts of Jesus AS the anointed Jesus.

There is a reason why Paul specifically uses Christ Jesus speaking of his thoughts, you seem to want to treat the anointing of Jesus as if it has no significant meaning, but Paul knows its significance and all that he is saying applies to it.  

Why would pre-existing God (the son) think that it would be to rob God to retain the equal of God when he himself is God? This makes absolutely no sense at all and doesn’t match the text either because it says, “Who, being in the form of God, thought it NOT robbery to be equal with God”. “Not robbery”, but you say he thought it was robbery.

The anointed Jesus certainly would not think it robbery to be equal to God if he indeed had become God’s word made true in the flesh, where he had received God’s Spirit without measure just as God had promised. He was GIVEN the Spirit and we read that he left the river Jordan having been filled with the Spirit where he was sent into the wilderness to be tested.

What was the test of this anointed Jesus and what were his thoughts, Berean?

The anointed Jesus was in the wilderness and had all the powers of God, he was in the form of God seeing himself as equal to God and what did he do according to his thoughts? He emptied himself of his own will, he humbled himself, he didn’t turn the stones into bread and feed his own hunger, he made himself a servant to God. Jesus being in the form of God didn’t have to go hungry for one second, that hunger he allowed himself to take on, made him in the likeness of all men.

Once again what was the test of this anointed Jesus and what were his thoughts,

Our anointed Jesus went to the cross, he was in the form of God where he saw himself as equal to God, not only did he have the power to save himself from the cross but he also was without sin. What did he do as he was being numbered with transgressors as a sinner, being made in the likeness of all of mankind? As God made him who knew no sin be sin for us, our anointed Jesus emptied himself of his own will, he humbled himself and was an obedient servant unto his death on the cross. Jesus being in the form of God had the power to not suffer for one second, but he took on the fashion of all of mankind, he took on the fear of death, he took on suffering and he took on death itself as a humbled obedient servant who had emptied himself of his own will.

Berean, Paul IS speaking of the anointed Jesus AS the anointed Jesus and his thoughts through what he went through when he was tested going to the cross and even prior in the wilderness. It’s truly significant it’s why we give glory to our anointed Jesus. But you destroy the profound message Paul is teaching as you change the identity and thus you change his thoughts, you change the text, you change the amazing glory to which God had said He would give to no other.

[Author]

Posts