Search Members

[Lightenup]

@DesireTruth

Proverbs 8:1 begins with the narrator of the chapter who quotes the person referred to as wisdom.

The Son was born/begotten before the creation of the depths and mountains. A birth is not a beginning of existence, a birth requires that which is born to have existed so that he could be born. The Son existed eternally within the Father, then during eternity, before creation, was begotten from the Father. The begetting was the Father’s first work before the work of creation.

Btw, I already answered as to why I began at verse 22. That is the part of the chapter that is specific to creation.

[Lightenup]

@DesireTruth

There is much more than the word “craftsman” that shows wisdom is referring to a person who was with God before creation.
The Tanakh itself uses these words to show that:

• “I was born” — Proverbs 8:24
• “I was born” — Proverbs 8:25
• “From everlasting I was established” — Proverbs 8:23
• “When He established the heavens, I was there” — Proverbs 8:27
• “Then I was beside Him” — Proverbs 8:30
• “I was daily His delight” — Proverbs 8:30
• “Rejoicing always before Him” — Proverbs 8:30
• “Rejoicing in the world, His earth” — Proverbs 8:31
• “He who finds me finds life” — Proverbs 8:35
• “He who sins against me injures himself” — Proverbs 8:36

 

[Lightenup]

You raised several objections, but none of them actually address the point I made, so let me clarify it in the simplest possible terms.

My claim is not that Philo, Sirach, or the Targums are “Scripture.” My claim is that ancient Jews before Christianity interpreted Proverbs 8 as describing a real, personal, pre‑existent figure who comes forth from God and participates in creation.

That is a historical claim, not a theological one.

Here are the facts:

1. Philo was a Jew, not a Christian. Whether you like his Hellenized background or not, he is still a Jewish witness to how Jews in the first century understood Proverbs 8. He explicitly identifies the figure in Proverbs 8 with the divine Logos, the first‑born Son, and the agent of creation. That is simply a matter of record.

2. Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon are Jewish books written before Christianity. You don’t have to accept them as Scripture for them to show how Jews interpreted “Wisdom.” Both books describe Wisdom as pre‑existent, coming forth from God, and active in creation. Again, that is historical evidence of Jewish interpretation.

3. The Targums use “Memra” as a divine agent who creates, speaks, saves, and judges. Whether you think Memra is a substitute for YHWH or a distinct agent, it still shows that Jews believed in a personal, active intermediary associated with creation.

4. The “Two Powers in Heaven” doctrine is documented in early rabbinic literature as a Jewish belief that existed before Christianity. You may reject it, but it is still part of Jewish interpretive history.

None of these sources are Christian. They are Jewish. And they all show that the idea of a divine, pre‑existent, co‑creative figure was not invented by Christianity.

Now, if you disagree with these Jewish sources, that’s fine. But dismissing them doesn’t erase the fact that they existed and that they interpreted Proverbs 8 in a way that aligns with what I’m saying.

So let me bring this back to the actual text:

Proverbs 8 describes something that:
• comes forth from YHWH
• exists before creation
• is beside YHWH
• rejoices before Him
• and participates in creation

You’ve said it’s “just a characteristic,” but you still haven’t explained how an abstract characteristic can be “brought forth,” “stand beside,” “rejoice,” or act as a “craftsman.”

That is the question I’m asking you to answer.

[Lightenup]

@DesireTruth

Just to clarify: the idea that Proverbs 8 describes a divine, pre‑existent figure who participates in creation is not a Christian invention. Multiple ancient Jewish sources — long before Christianity — interpreted it that way.

Philo of Alexandria (20 BC–AD 50), a Jewish philosopher, explicitly identified the figure in Proverbs 8 as God’s first‑born Son, the divine Logos, and the agent through whom God created the world.

Jewish texts like Sirach 24 and Wisdom of Solomon (both pre‑Christian) describe Wisdom as pre‑existent, coming forth from God, dwelling with God, and acting in creation.

The Aramaic Targums speak of the Memra (“the Word”) as a divine intermediary who creates and stands beside God.

And early Jewish tradition included the “Two Powers in Heaven” — a second divine figure who shares God’s authority and participates in creation.

So the idea of a divine co‑creator in Proverbs 8 is not foreign to Judaism. It was part of Jewish interpretation long before Christianity existed.

[Lightenup]

@DesireTruth

I mentioned the part of the chapter that was dealing with the topic of creation because that is what we were discussing.

Also I addressed your point about “wisdom” being feminine to tell you that just because Hebrew words have a gender for their grammatical construction doesn’t really mean anything significant when the noun is inanimate. It is not a valid reason that “wisdom” can’t refer to the Son of God.”  The passage in Proverbs is commonly accepted as referring to Jesus.

I hope you are having a nice weekend!

[Lightenup]

@DesireTruth

Let me just start here with my reply. You don’t seem to understand how Hebrew works when using gender specific nouns.

The Hebrew noun for “wisdom” (חָכְמָה) is grammatically feminine, but grammatical gender in Hebrew
belongs to the noun, not to the real identity of the figure being represented.
Hebrew routinely personifies feminine nouns—even when the underlying referent is male, divine, or non‑human.
So Wisdom’s feminine grammar tells you the gender of the word, not the gender of the speaker.
It’s a linguistic feature, not a theological limitation.

Do you think you can find “wisdom” personified as male when referring to a male in the Tanach?

[Lightenup]

@DesireTruth

Here is my clear statement about Proverbs 8:

Even if we acknowledge that Proverbs 8 uses poetic personification, the text still describes “wisdom” as something that comes forth from YHWH, exists before creation, is with YHWH before anything is made, stands beside Him, and participates in creation as a craftsman. Those are the actual claims of the passage.

So my position is simply this: Proverbs 8 presents a divine figure who is not the Father, yet is with the Father before creation and active in the creation of the world.

That is the point I’m making about the text itself.

[Lightenup]

@DesireTruth

I believe that the “wisdom” in Prov 8:22+ represents the literal only begotten Son of YHVH who YHVH the Father identifies as the YHVH who all things were made through and for. They are united as one Holy Spirit that is sent to dwell in all true believers, bringing the fellowship of both the Father and the Son of God to them.

 

[Lightenup]

@DesireTruth

Thanks for asking. Here’s the follow‑up question I’m trying to get to:

If Proverbs 8 describes a being who comes forth from God, is with God before creation, stands beside God, and participates in creation as a craftsman, then how do you interpret that figure within the Tanakh?

In other words: what is this being, according to your understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures?

I’m only asking how you explain the figure Proverbs 8 itself describes.

[Lightenup]

@DesireTruth
I hear what you’re saying, and I’m not trying to analyze you or your journey. I’m only trying to stay focused on this specific textual question to establish a foundation from which to build on.

You said the answer to all three creation questions is “no,” so let me stay with that one point. My goal isn’t to defend church tradition or the New Testament as a whole — only to look at whether the Tanakh itself presents a co‑creator figure.

Proverbs 8 does use poetic personification, but the content still has to be dealt with. The passage describes a figure who:

• existed before creation (“before the depths… before the mountains… before the earth”)
• was “brought forth” before anything was made
• was “beside” God
• was the “master craftsman”
• rejoiced in the creation of the world

Labeling it “personification” doesn’t remove those claims — it just names the literary device. The question remains: what is the Tanakh describing here? This figure is not an angel, not Israel, not Solomon, and not a human king. It is a pre‑creation participant in God’s creative work.

That’s why I brought up Hebrews 1 — not to argue NT authority, but because Hebrews 1 quotes Psalm 102 (a creation psalm addressed to YHWH) and applies it to the Son. My point was simply that Hebrews 1 is using the same categories already present in the Tanakh: a divine figure who is with God and active in creation.

I’m not shifting away from the topic or trying to analyze you personally. I’m staying with the single question that seems foundational to everything else: does the Tanakh present a co‑creator figure distinct from God yet active with Him?

If you want to continue, I’m happy to stay on that one issue alone for now. If we can’t come to an agreement on that foundational issue,  it is really pointless to continue and take each other’s time.

[Lightenup]

@DesireTruth

I want to start by acknowledging something important about your story. You’ve shared that you spent forty years in Christian churches, raising sincere questions about the relationship between the Tanakh and the New Testament — and that your pastor and fellow churchgoers didn’t give you meaningful answers. I can understand how discouraging that must have been. When someone is honestly wrestling with Scripture, they deserve thoughtful engagement, not dismissal.

I’m not here to repeat the mistakes of the people who let you down. I want to represent the kind of believer who actually listens to your concerns and takes them seriously. And to do that well, I think we need to focus on one issue at a time, instead of trying to solve everything at once.

From everything you’ve said, I sense that the crux of the matter — the point where everything else hinges — is creation.

More specifically:

• Was the Son present before creation?
• Was the Son active during creation?
• And does the Tanakh allow for the Son to be an agent of creation?

If the answer is “yes,” then many of the other questions fall into place.
If the answer is “no,” then your concerns make sense.

So let’s look at the one New Testament chapter that most directly honors the Tanakh on this point: Hebrews 1. I’m not asking you to accept the New Testament as authoritative — only to see whether Hebrews 1 is consistent with the Tanakh’s own categories.

Here is the concise comparison:

1. The Tanakh teaches that creation happened through God’s Word and Wisdom.
– “By the Word of the LORD the heavens were made.” (Psalm 33:6)
– “The LORD by Wisdom founded the earth.” (Proverbs 3:19)
– Proverbs 8 describes Wisdom as existing before creation, being brought forth before the world, standing beside God, and acting as the master craftsman.

2. Hebrews 1 uses the same categories the Tanakh uses.
The Son is described as the one “through whom God made the worlds,” the radiance of God’s glory, the exact imprint of His nature, and the one who upholds all things. This matches the Word/Wisdom pattern of the Tanakh.

3. Hebrews 1 quotes Psalm 102 — a creation psalm addressed to YHWH — and applies it to the Son.
Psalm 102 says of YHWH: “You laid the foundation of the earth,” “The heavens are the work of Your hands,” “You are the same,” and “Your years have no end.” Hebrews 1:10–12 applies these words directly to the Son.

4. Hebrews 1 also quotes Psalm 45, where the king is called “God,” and applies it to the Son.
This matches the Tanakh’s pattern of a divine, enthroned ruler (Psalm 2, Psalm 45, Daniel 7).

5. Hebrews 1 distinguishes between ceremonial Sonship and eternal Sonship — just like the Tanakh does.
Psalm 2 (“Today I have begotten you”) is ceremonial of the induction of a king and applies this to a promised king which Hebrews 1 identifies as Jesus who is also identified as the YHWH who was the active agent of creation.

[Lightenup]

@DesireTruth

You keep asserting that the Messiah must be biologically descended from Solomon, and that God cannot have an only‑begotten Son. But you have not shown where the Tanakh says either of these things.

So let me ask directly:

1. Where does the Tanakh say the Messiah must come from Solomon specifically?
2. Where does the Tanakh say God cannot have an only‑begotten Son?
3. Where does the Tanakh say God cannot beget?
4. Where does the Tanakh say God cannot create a child without a human father?
5. Where does the Tanakh say God cannot send His Son?
6. Where does the Tanakh say God cannot reveal Himself through His Son?

If these are your positions, show me the verses. If the Tanakh never says these things, then your objections are philosophical, not textual.

The Tanakh requires the Messiah to be from David — not from Solomon — and it never forbids God from having a Son or acting miraculously in a birth. If you believe these things are impossible, the burden is on you to show where the Tanakh says so.

[Lightenup]

@DesireTruth

You keep asserting that God cannot have an only‑begotten Son, but you have not shown where the Tanakh says this. So let me ask directly:

Where does the Tanakh say that God cannot have a Son?
Where does it say God cannot beget?
Where does it say God cannot send His Son?
Where does it say God cannot reveal Himself through His Son?

If this is your position, show me the verse. If the Tanakh never says this, then your objection is philosophical, not textual.

[Lightenup]

@DesireTruth

Proverbs 30:4 is a riddle about the identity of a divine figure. Agur asks who ascends and descends from heaven, who gathers the wind, who wraps the waters, and who established the earth. These are all divine actions in the Tanakh. Then he asks: “What is His name, and what is His Son’s name?”

The “Son” cannot be Israel or Solomon, because neither ascended to heaven, gathered the wind, wrapped the waters, nor established the earth. The text is describing a divine figure who shares God’s creative power yet is distinguished from God (“His Son”).

The structure is: God performs these divine acts, and God has a Son who is related to Him in these acts. This is why ancient Jewish interpreters saw this as referring to a divine figure such as Wisdom, the Word (Memra), the Angel of YHWH, or the pre‑existent Messiah.

So Proverbs 30:4 does not prove the Christian doctrine by itself, but it clearly presents a divine figure distinct from God yet sharing His nature — exactly the category the New Testament identifies with the Messiah.

[Lightenup]

@DesireTruth

When God says He will make Solomon’s dynasty “permanent,” He does not mean an endless biological chain of Solomon’s sons ruling on earth.

The Tanakh itself shows Solomon’s line collapsed: the kingdom split, the monarchy ended, foreign powers deposed kings, Jehoiachin was cursed, and no son of Solomon ruled after the exile. If “permanent dynasty” meant an unbroken biological succession, then God’s promise would have failed — but Psalm 89 says God will not break His covenant.

Psalm 89 explains the covenant: even if David’s sons sin and the earthly monarchy collapses, God will still fulfill the promise through one final king who reigns forever. The prophets confirm this: Isaiah 9, Jeremiah 23, Ezekiel 37, and Zechariah 9 all describe a single eternal Davidic king — the Messiah — who rules forever.

So “permanent dynasty” means an eternal king from David’s line, not an endless chain of earthly kings. The covenant is fulfilled in the Messiah, the final Davidic ruler who reigns forever.

[Lightenup]

@DesireTruth

It’s the desire and love of God and His truth that takes me where I go, not stubbornness nor fear.

[Lightenup]

@DesireTruth

I’m going to stay with the text and ignore the personal comments. You asked for Tanakh support for the statements I made, so here are the passages.

1. “God sent His Son” — Tanakh foundation
The Tanakh repeatedly speaks of a divine figure sent by God who is distinct from God yet shares His nature.

– Prov 30:4 — “What is His name, and what is His Son’s name, if you know?”
– Dan 7:13–14 — One “like a son of man” comes with the clouds of heaven and receives everlasting dominion.
– Isa 9:6 — The Davidic child is called “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father.”
– Micah 5:2 — The ruler from Bethlehem has “origins from ancient days.”

These passages are the foundation for the NT claim that the Messiah is both human and divine. This is not “brainwashing”; it is the Tanakh’s own language.

2. “Bond‑servant” — Tanakh foundation
The Messiah is described as the Servant of the LORD.

– Isa 42:1 — “My servant… in whom My soul delights.”
– Isa 49:5–6 — The Servant is sent to restore Israel and be a light to the nations.
– Isa 52:13 — “My servant will act wisely… exalted and lifted up.”
– Isa 53 — The Servant suffers, dies, and then “prolongs His days.”

The NT did not invent the Servant. Isaiah did.

3. “Seed of Abraham” — Tanakh foundation
The Messiah must be a biological descendant of Abraham.

– Gen 22:18 — “In your seed all nations will be blessed.”
– Gen 17:7 — The covenant is with Abraham’s seed forever.
– Isa 11:1 — A shoot from Jesse (Abraham’s line).
– Jer 23:5 — A righteous Branch for David (Abraham’s line).

Mary is Abrahamic. That is all that is required for biological descent.

4. Ezra 9–10 does NOT say women “only offer Jewishness.”
Ezra 9–10 condemns **intermarriage with pagan nations**, not marriage between Israelites.

Ezra never says:
– “lineage only comes from the father”
– “the mother contributes nothing”
– “the mother’s lineage is irrelevant”

He says:
– “Do not marry foreign women who will turn your hearts away.”

This is about **idolatry**, not **genealogy**.

If Ezra meant “lineage only comes from the father,” then:
– Moses’ sons (from a Midianite woman) would not be Israelites
– Boaz (from Rahab) would not be an Israelite
– David (from Ruth) would not be an Israelite

Your interpretation contradicts the Tanakh’s own genealogies.

5. “Sitting at the right hand” — Tanakh foundation
This is straight from David.

– Psalm 110:1 — “The LORD said to my Lord: Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies Your footstool.”

This is not NT invention.
This is David describing the Messiah.

6. “Return to heaven” — Tanakh foundation
The Tanakh shows the Messiah ascending to God’s presence.

– Dan 7:13 — The Son of Man comes *to* the Ancient of Days.
– Ps 110:1 — The Messiah sits at God’s right hand.
– Ps 68:18 — “You ascended on high.”

The NT did not invent the Messiah’s ascension.
Daniel and David did.

7. “Return again” — Tanakh foundation
The Tanakh teaches that the Messiah comes twice:

First in suffering:
– Isa 53 — He is rejected, pierced, dies, and then lives again.

Then in glory:
– Zech 14:4 — His feet stand on the Mount of Olives.
– Dan 7:13–14 — He comes with the clouds to rule forever.
– Zech 12:10 — Israel looks upon “the one they pierced.”

The Tanakh itself teaches a suffering coming and a victorious coming.

8. “The Tanakh is the foundation for the NT”
Agreed.
And everything I stated is rooted in the Tanakh.

The NT does not invent:
– the divine Messiah (Isa 9:6; Mic 5:2)
– the Servant (Isa 42–53)
– the ascension (Ps 110; Ps 68; Dan 7)
– the return (Zech 14; Dan 7)
– the suffering and vindication (Isa 53)
– the eternal reign (Isa 9; Dan 7; Ezek 37)

The NT is explaining what the Tanakh already said.

If you want to continue the discussion, I’m happy to stay with the text. But I’m not going to respond to personal accusations. Let’s keep it about Scripture.

[Lightenup]

@DesireTruth

God the Father sent His only begotten Son into the world as a bond servant, fully man while still remaining eternally divine,  as the promised Messiah. Born of the seed of Abraham through Mary who married Joseph. The Messiah is sitting at the right hand of the Father who will put all His enemies under His feet.

[Lightenup]

@DesireTruth

Jesus is a legal heir to the dynasty, Jesus is a biological heir of David.

Both are true.

[Lightenup]

@Keith

I don’t believe that we have communicated before now. Nice to “meet” you. Do you agree that Jesus is a son in Solomon’s line legally by adoption with Joseph and biologically through Nathan and eventually through Mary?

[Author]

Posts