Christianity Archives - Page 34 of 106

Tag Archive for: Christianity

Why The Bible Depicts God As Jealous

By Al Serrato

In my last post, I tried to make the case that God neither “needs” nor “demands” our praise. I acknowledged that he does, however, expect it, because praise naturally flows to a perfect being. But, the skeptic may counter, doesn’t the Bible describe God as “jealous?” Don’t the Ten Commandments include prohibitions on having “other gods” as well as threats of punishment for those guilty of “iniquity?” Does this not, in fact, amount to God instructing us to worship him, and explaining how angry he will become if we don’t?

We come back to the question – why would a perfect being demand worship?”

These are good questions, and they deserve an answer. But as we embark upon an answer, it’s worth noting that the questions themselves reveal some presuppositions commonly held by nonbelievers. These preconceived notions must first be teased out and assessed, because they explain, in the final analysis, why such a person cannot make sense of the Biblical model for right relationship with God.

We need to fight the temptation to treat God as if he is our equal. He is not. As the creator of this universe and everything in it, including us, he has the absolute right to do what he wants with his creation. We have no more basis to complain than would a computer animation to the computer programmer, or to use a more ancient example, the pot to the potter. This may be an unpleasant thought, especially for Americans steeped in the traditions of liberty and equality. But equality refers to the relationship between people, not the relationship between God and his creation. A child does not dictate to his parent what fairness is. Nor does the robot tell its human supervisor to take his place on the assembly line. The skeptic’s persistence in thinking that a being capable of thinking this universe into existence somehow must provide a satisfactory answer to him, or justify the way he “did” creation, is leading him to erroneous conclusions.

We also need to bear in mind that God does not experience emotions like humans do. While he is “personal,” and while he inspired the Biblical writers who used emotional imagery, he is not a histrionic drama queen ready to throw tantrums. Selectively quoting Scripture to paint such a picture distorts what the Bible teaches about God’s true nature. Negative emotion, after all, is a characteristic of a limited being that has fears, wants and desires. It is a failing. More precisely, negative emotions like jealousy, lust and greed are perversions of the good. Like evil generally, base emotions are a departure from the standard of goodness that God embodies. A limitless, timeless God doesn’t “hope” for a good outcome, or “fear” that he will not “get the girl” or seethe with “envy” against a rival. He has no needs, lacks nothing, and has no rivals. He is all good. So, why then did God inspire the Biblical authors to make use of emotional language? Probably for the same reason that I would speak one way to adults in a courtroom setting and quite another way if I’m talking to children at a daycare center. The style and content of the conversation is tailored to the needs and capabilities of the audience. Using emotional language to human beings motivated by emotion conveys God’s message much more vibrantly than simply setting forth instructions.

Because God is not emotional in the way that human beings are, the Biblical references to jealousy, like all Biblical texts, must be taken in context. The usual connotation of “jealousy” is quite negative. It conjures up images of a jilted boyfriend stalking his girlfriend as he suspects her of infidelity. But the actual definition is more varied; under the subheading “biblical” the definition includes: “intolerant of unfaithfulness or rivalry.” As I argued in the previous post, God’s self-assessment is accurate. He has every right to expect worship from his creation, because praise and worship are what perfection merit. Equally, he knows the harm it does us when we worship a lie as opposed to the truth. It is, then, an expression of love for him to desire that we return to right relationship with him.

Consider an analogy. A town doctor spends years earning the trust of his patients. One day he learns that an untrained quack has begun tending to his patients, pretending to be him, and doing much harm with his medications and treatments. The doctor loves his patients and wants what is best for them. How, then, should the doctor react? I submit that anger and jealousy – an intolerance of the harmful “rivalry” – would be an appropriate response. So too with God. He loves us enough to warn us against the danger we face when we persist in our rebellion against him. He loves us enough to express anger when we turn away.

In sum, the skeptic wants to claim equality with God and expect God to view things the same way. He does not want to give God the love and respect to which he is entitled, by virtue of having created us and giving us the opportunity to live eternally with him. And he wants God to accept this disrespect as appropriate. But God, by his nature, will also demand the response to which he is entitled. Think of it this way. Why does a judge in an earthly courtroom demand respect? Why does he have a bailiff ready to establish order if a heckler decides to interfere? If a human judge can demand that to which the law entitles him, how much more can the ultimate judge, the creator of all that there is, demand respect from his creation? After all, just as we find on Earth, we are indeed subject to the law of the “governing authority” – the creator of all things – whether we like it or not. And what does proper respect look like? Well, for the judge it means being addressed with a proper tone of voice, proper language and proper behavior. But what about for the ultimate judge? What does a perfect being deserve? Simply this: to be recognized accurately for what he is. And when we do that, we see that worship and praise are the appropriate way of responding to Him.

The point of this excursion has been to show that there is a rational way to reconcile God’s goodness and perfection, on the one hand, with the Biblical references to God’s “jealousy,” anger and expectation of worship, on the other. While on the surface these things may seem inconsistent, on deeper reflection a fuller picture of God begins to emerge. For this, we are indebted not just to the Biblical writers but to the pillars of Christian philosophy, giants such as Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas.

Somehow, though, I doubt the skeptic will accept their views, or these. Until the skeptic begins to alter his assessment of the way things really are, he is likely to go on believing in nothing.

Does Isaiah 9:6 Affirm the Deity of Israel’s Messiah?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Jonathan McLatchie

This past weekend, I had the privilege of participating in a moderated panel debate with my friends Dr. Shabir Ally, Yusuf Ismail, and Samuel Green. The topic was focused around the question of whether Isaiah 9:6 affirms the deity of Christ. Isaiah 9:6-7 reads,

6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.

In this essay, I intend to flesh out in more detail than I was able during our short dialogue the case that Isaiah 9:6 indeed affirms the divine status of Israel’s Messiah. I will be defending two basic contentions: (1) Isaiah 9:6 is best understood as a text concerning the Messiah, and (2) Isaiah 9:6 identifies the Messiah as a divine person.

The Messianic Context of Isaiah 9:6

In this first section, I will outline the case for taking Isaiah 9:6 to be a text concerned with the awaited Messiah of Israel. This was the view of the evangelist Matthew, who quoted Isaiah 9:1-2 of Jesus in 4:14-16. This section will be divided into four subsections. In the first, I will argue that the broader context of the entire book of Isaiah implies the Messianic identity of the child born in Isaiah 9. In the second, I will argue that intertextual connections between Isaiah’s prophecy and the prophecy of Micah and Zechariah suggest the Messianic identity of Isaiah’s promised deliverer. Third, I will interact with the popular objection that Isaiah 9 was in fact fulfilled not by Jesus but by King Hezekiah. Fourth, I will show that the interpretation of Isaiah 9 as a Messianic text is not a Christian invention, but rather was affirmed by Jonathan ben Uzziel, in his Aramaic Targum interpretive translation of the book of Isaiah.

Isaiah 9:6 In the Light of the Servant Songs

The Messianic identity of the child described in Isaiah 9 can be determined by an analysis of intertextual links with other parts of the book of Isaiah. In Isaiah 11:1-5,10, we read,

A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit. 2 The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him— the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of might, the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the Lord— 3 and he will delight in the fear of the Lord. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears; 4 but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked. 5 Righteousness will be his belt and faithfulness the sash around his waist…10 In that day 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.

This text is indisputably speaking of the Messiah, as even the great medieval Jewish commentator Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki) concedes [1] — the descendant of David (and therefore of his father Jesse). This means that this text connects with our text in Isaiah 9:6-7, which speak of a divine child reigning from David’s throne. The conclusion that Isaiah 11 is speaking of the same individual as Isaiah 9 is further supported by the statement that “with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth”, which resembles what is said of the child born in Isaiah 9 (verse 7): “Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.” Thus, the Messiah spoken of in Isaiah 11 is the same individual as that spoken of in Isaiah 9:6-7. The idea in both of those texts is that the Davidic dynasty, though it would fade away into obscurity, would one day bring forth a shoot from its stump, or a root out of its dry ground. Indeed, the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 11:10 for “root” (verse 1 uses the same word in the plural) is שֹׁ֣רֶשׁ (sheresh), the very same word used of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53:2: “For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root (שֹּׁ֙רֶשׁ֙) out of dry ground.” We can further confirm the connection between Isaiah 53 and 9 & 11 by looking at Isaiah 42:2-7, which speaks of the same servant as that described in Isaiah 53:

“Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations. 2 He will not shout or cry out, or raise his voice in the streets. 3 A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; 4 he will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth. In his teaching the islands will put their hope.” 5 This is what God the Lord says— the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out, who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it: 6 “I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, 7 to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.

Thus, like the Messiah of Isaiah 9 and 11, the servant is going to “bring justice to the nations” (verse 1) and “establish justice on the earth” (verse 4). God also says “I will put my Spirit on him”. Compare with Isaiah 11:2 (“And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him…”). Moreover, the servant is going to “open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.” But that is exactly what we read of the divine child in Isaiah 9:1: “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shone.” He is also to be a “light for the gentiles”, just as we saw in Isaiah 11:10: “In that day the root of Jesse, who shall stand as a signal for the peoples—of him shall the nations inquire, and his resting place shall be glorious.” Isaiah 9:2 similarly says, “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shone.” We also see these texts being connected to Isaiah 49:1-7, yet another Messianic text:

Listen to me, O coastlands, and give attention, you peoples from afar. The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name. 2 He made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand he hid me; he made me a polished arrow; in his quiver he hid me away. 3 And he said to me, “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.” 4 But I said, “I have labored in vain; I have spent my strength for nothing and vanity; yet surely my right is with the Lord, and my recompense with my God.” 5 And now the Lord says, he who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him; and that Israel might be gathered to him— for I am honored in the eyes of the Lord, and my God has become my strength— 6 he says: “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.” 7 Thus says the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel and his Holy One, to one deeply despised, abhorred by the nation, the servant of rulers: “Kings shall see and arise; princes, and they shall prostrate themselves; because of the Lord, who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you.”

This text portrays the servant as the true Israel (verse 3), an individual who regathers and redeems national Israel (verse 5) (note also the comparison of the righteous servant in Isaiah 42:1-9 with the unrighteous servant, Israel, in Isaiah 42:18-25). The servant also — just as we saw in our other texts — is a light for the gentiles (verse 6). There is also a striking parallel in verse 7 to Isaiah 52:15:

…so shall he sprinkle many nations. Kings shall shut their mouths because of him, for that which has not been told them they see, and that which they have not heard they understand.

Notice also that the servant in Isaiah 52:15 sprinkles the nations, which is consistent with the mission statement assigned to the servant in Isaiah 9, 11, 42 and 49. This, among other clues, indicates that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is the same individual as is spoken of in these other texts by Isaiah, including chapter 9.

It is of relevance here to note that, consistent with the divine titles that are bestowed upon the child of Isaiah 9:6, one can adduce further evidence in support of the divine status of the servant from these parallel texts in Isaiah. For example, one of the most intriguing aspects of Isaiah 52-13-53:12 is the exaltation language that is applied to the suffering servant in 52:13: “Behold, my servant shall act wisely; he shall be high and lifted up, and shall be exalted.” This is the very same exaltation language that is used exclusively of Yahweh elsewhere in the book of Isaiah. Consider, for example, Isaiah 6:1: “In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up.” We likewise read in Isaiah 33:5,10, “The Lord is exalted, for he dwells on high… ‘Now I will arise,’ says the Lord, ‘now I will lift myself up; now I will be exalted.’ Isaiah 57:15 similarly says, “For thus says the One who is high and lifted up, who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: ‘I dwell in the high and holy place, and also with him who is of a contrite and lowly spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly, and to revive the heart of the contrite.’” In case any readers were in doubt about whether this exaltation language of being “high and lifted up” could be applied to anyone who is not Yahweh, Isaiah 2:11-17 sets the record straight:

11 The haughty looks of man shall be brought low, and the lofty pride of men shall be humbled, and the Lord alone will be exalted in that day. 12 For the Lord of hosts has a day against all that is proud and lofty, against all that is lifted up—and it shall be brought low; 13 against all the cedars of Lebanon, lofty and lifted up; and against all the oaks of Bashan; 14 against all the lofty mountains, and against all the uplifted hills; 15 against every high tower, and against every fortified wall; 16 against all the ships of Tarshish, and against all the beautiful craft. 17 And the haughtiness of man shall be humbled, and the lofty pride of men shall be brought low, and the Lord alone will be exalted in that day.

Thus, we see, that the language that Isaiah 52:13 applies to the suffering servant can only be used of a divine person. However, we see further evidence in the suffering servant song of a divine Messiah. Consider again Isaiah 53:11-12:

11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.

Thus, we read that the servant will justify many and make intercession for sinners. However, we read in Isaiah 59:16: “He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no one to intercede; then his own arm brought him salvation, and his righteousness upheld him,” (c.f. Isa 63:5). Thus, there was nobody found worthy enough to intercede or bring about salvation — so Yahweh did it Himself using His very own arm. And yet we see in Isaiah 53:11-12 that the servant shall intercede. How can He do so if nobody besides Yahweh is worthy? This is explained if indeed the servant is a divine person.

Isaiah 9:6 in the Light of Immanuel

There is a clear link between the child of Isaiah 9:6-7 and that who bears the name of Immanuel in Isaiah 7:14. To do justice to the text of Isaiah 7 and its various interpretations would require an extensive discussion. I will therefore succinctly summarize my own preferred interpretation of this text, and how it relates to our text in Isaiah 9. The context of the text is, in brief, that Rezin, the Syrian king, and Pekah, the king of the northern kingdom of Israel (that is, Ephraim) had formed an anti-Assyrian alliance, and had requested cooperation from Ahaz, king of Judah. Upon Ahaz’s refusal to cooperate with their coalition, Syria and the northern kingdom waged war upon Judah, seeking to take it and set up the son of Tabeel as king in place of Ahaz. This posed a grave threat to the continuity of the Davidic line and therefore to the Messianic hope. Thus, Isaiah was instructed by the Lord to go and meet Ahaz, taking with him his son, Shear-jashub, and give Ahaz reassurances that God would protect them from Syria and Ephraim:

It shall not stand, and it shall not come to pass. 8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin. And within sixty-five years Ephraim will be shattered from being a people. 9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah. If you are not firm in faith, you will not be firm at all.’”

It should be observed that verse 9 makes the promise conditional upon Ahaz’s faith in God for deliverance: “If you are not firm in faith, you will not be firm at all.” God then speaks to Ahaz in verse 11 and asks him to name a sign that God can give him as further assurance that God will be with him: “Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” Ahaz replies in verse 12, with a false pretense of piety: “I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test.” This incurs God’s anger, who replies thus in verse 13-14: “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Alec Motyer comments, “The sign is no longer a matter of invitation but of prediction, no longer persuading to faith but confirming divine displeasure.” [2]

Though invisible in the English translations, the Hebrew verbs and second person pronouns in verse 13-14 are no longer in the singular but in the plural, suggesting that the addressee has shifted from Ahaz to the entire house of David. To the house of David, God gives assurance that the promised Davidic heir – the Messianic expectation – is still on track. The name Immanuel means “God with us.” Does this imply a literal dwelling of God in the midst of his people in the form of this child, Immanuel? This, of course, is the New Testament teaching, and it is noteworthy that Matthew’s gospel quotes Isaiah 7:14 of Jesus at the beginning of his gospel, in 1:23 and at the concluding verse of his gospel, in the context of the great commission, Jesus says, “And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Thus, Matthew’s gospel is bookended with the idea that, in the person of Jesus, God himself has come to dwell in the midst of his people. What, though, is the meaning of the name Immanuel in the context of Isaiah 7:14? Is it a divine title, or is it merely a prayer of a mother in Judea for deliverance? On this, Alec Motyer remarks, “We can weigh the probability of this interpretation by putting ourselves into the situation. Leaving aside the momentous possibilities that she is a virgin (‛almâ), a young woman becomes pregnant and calls her child Immanuel, either as an expression of faith in the face of adverse facts or as a prayer for help. Where is the ‘sign quality’ in this—especially after Isaiah has spoken the name and set the idea in motion? … What a depressing anticlimax following the Lord’s expressed willingness to ‘move heaven and earth’ and Isaiah’s dramatic outburst about the Sovereign himself giving a sign! The passage requires something more and if we look to the wider context of this closely integrated section we find it.” [3] Indeed, in Isaiah 8:8, we read, allusion is made to “your land, O Immanuel.” Motyer notes that “Nowhere else does the Old Testament exemplify ‘land’ with a possessive pronoun accompanied by the subject of the pronoun in the vocative.” [4] The use of the possessive pronoun attributing the land to Immanuel is rather suggestive that this child is no ordinary individual. Consistent with this, Motyer observes that “the singular possessive is linked with ‘land’ as a political unit only in the case of kings (e.g. Dt. 2:31; 2 Sa. 24:13), Israel personified or some other personification (e.g. Je. 2:15; Ho. 10:1), or of the Lord (e.g. 1 Ki. 8:36; Ezk. 36:5).” [5] Given that the child described in Isaiah 7:14 is most probably the same child as that spoken of in Isaiah 9:6-7 (that is, the recipient of the four-fold title, including “Mighty God” and “Father of Eternity”), the best explanation is that Immanuel is not merely a theophoric name, but in fact an indication that in this child God himself has come to dwell in the midst of his people.

Comment must be given at this point in regard to the common assertion that the idea of a virginal conception is foreign to the text of Isaiah 7:14. According to this view, the Hebrew word עַלְמָה (almah) is not the word for a virgin but merely a young woman. Apparently, the translators of the Septuagint did not think that that παρθένος (the Greek word for a virgin) was an unreasonable rendering of the Hebrew. One might also wonder how a young woman giving birth to a son would be a miraculous “sign”. Furthermore, Alec Motyer notes that “Of the nine occurrences of ‛almâ those in 1 Chronicles 15:20 and the title of Psalm 46 are presumably a musical direction but no longer understood. In Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19 and Song of Solomon 1:3 the context throws no decisive light on the meaning of the word. In Genesis 24:43 and Exodus 2:8 the reference is unquestionably to an unmarried girl, and in Song of Solomon 6:8 the ‛alāmôṯ, contrasted with queens and concubines, are unmarried and virgin. Thus, wherever the context allows a judgment, ‛almâ is not a general term meaning ‘young woman’ but a specific one meaning ‘virgin’. It is worth noting that outside the Bible, ‘so far as may be ascertained’, ‛almâ was ‘never used of a married woman’.” [6] Moreover, “Genesis 24 is particularly important as providing a direct comparison of ‛almâ and beṯûlâ. Abraham’s servant’s prayer (24:14) is couched in terms of a ‘girl’ (na‛arâ), of marriageable age (beṯûlâ) and single (‘no man had ever lain with her’). The qualifying words indicate that by itself beṯûlâ is not specific. In the light of this accumulating knowledge of Rebekah, verse 43 finally describes her as ‛almâ, which is clearly a summary term for ‘female, marriageable, unmarried’. There is no ground for the common assertion that had Isaiah intended virgo intacta he would have used beṯûlâ. ‛almâ lies closer to this meaning than the other word. In fact this is its meaning in every explicit context. Isaiah thus used the word which, among those available to him, came nearest to expressing ‘virgin birth’ and which, without linguistic impropriety, opens the door to such a meaning.” [7]

Verse 15 indicates that “He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.” This indicates that the Immanuel child would be born into the poverty of his people, since curds and honey is, according to verses 21-22, the food of poverty.

Verse 16 is perhaps the most challenging verse for a Messianic reading: “For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted.” However, Michael Rydelnik points out that “While many have considered v. 16 to be a continuation of the prophecy in 7:13-15, the grammar of the passage suggests otherwise. The opening phrase in Hebrew can reflect an adversative nuance, allowing for a disjunction between the child described in 7:13-15 and the one described in verse 16.” [8] Indeed, Rydelnik suggests, “There is a different child in view in this verse,” and “it makes most sense to identify the lad as Shear-Jashub. Otherwise there would be no purpose for God directing Isaiah to bring the boy.” [9] Recall that in verse 3, Isaiah had been instructed to bring his son Shear-Jashub (meaning, a remnant shall return) to the meeting with Ahaz. Rydelnik proposes that “having promised the virgin birth of the Messiah (7:13-15), the prophet then points to the very small boy that he has brought along and says, ‘But before this lad (using the article with a demonstrative force) knows enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.’” [10] Isaiah goes on to say to Judah in the very next chapter, “Behold, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.” It is also noteworthy that in verse 16 the second person pronoun is once again in the singular, suggesting that the addressee is Ahaz again. As Isaiah had predicted, within a couple of years Tiglath-Pileser had defeated both Israel and Syria.

In Isaiah 8:3-4, we read,

3 And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the LORD said to me, “Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz; 4 for before the boy knows how to cry ‘My father’ or ‘My mother,’ the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria.”

The individual who bears the name Maher-shalal-hash-baz (meaning “quickly to the plunder”) is not the same individual as the child who bears the name Immanuel, described in the previous chapter. This is apparent because he is born to the prophetess through marital intercourse, which disqualifies his mother from being an עַלְמָה (almah), a word which, as discussed previously, denotes an unmarried woman. Furthermore, the child does not bring blessing upon the people of Judah but rather judgment, resulting from Ahaz’s unbelief. As God explains in 8:6-8,

6 “Because this people has refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently, and rejoice over Rezin and the son of Remaliah, 7 therefore, behold, the Lord is bringing up against them the waters of the River, mighty and many, the king of Assyria and all his glory. And it will rise over all its channels and go over all its banks, 8 and it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass on, reaching even to the neck, and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.”

As noted earlier, the use of the possessive pronoun in this verse attributing the land to Immanuel is suggestive that the name Immanuel is not merely a theophoric name, but in fact represents that this individual bears a divine nature. This gains all the more traction with the four-fold title given to the child in Isaiah 9:6, the implications of which we shall soon discuss.

Isaiah 9:6 in the Light of Micah 5:2-5

A further Messianic text that bears on our passage is Micah 5:2-5, written by a prophet who was a contemporary of Isaiah, in which we read,

Now muster your troops, O daughter of troops; siege is laid against us; with a rod they strike the judge of Israel on the cheek. 2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days. 3 Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in labor has given birth; then the rest of his brothers shall return to the people of Israel. 4 And he shall stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And they shall dwell secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth. 5 And he shall be their peace.

Even Rashi concurs that this text expresses the Messianic hope. [11] Notice the parallels between this text and those Christological passages in Isaiah. Micah 5:5 indicates that “he shall be their peace,” which links with the title bestowed upon the child in Isaiah 9:6, “prince of peace.” He is also said to come out of Bethlehem, the city of David (which links with the prophecies of Isaiah 9:7 and 11:1, which assert that the individual will be of Davidic descent). The allusion in Micah 5:3 to “when she who is in labor has given birth” has long been recognized to be an intertextual reference to Isaiah 7:13-15. Verse 3 also indicates that “then the rest of his brothers shall return to the people of Israel.” This is consistent with what is said of the servant in Isaiah, namely, that he will “bring Jacob back to him; that Israel might be gathered to him” and that he will “bring back the preserved of Israel” (Isa 49:5-6). Micah 5:4 also indicates that the Messiah will be “great to the ends of the earth.” This too is consistent with the servant from Isaiah, of whom it is said that he “shall stand as a signal for the peoples—of him shall the nations inquire, and his resting place shall be glorious,” (Isa 11:10) and that through him God’s salvation would “reach to the ends of the earth” (Isa 49:6). Note too the statement in Isaiah 11:10 that the servant “shall stand as a signal for the peoples,” which dovetails with the statement in Micah 5:4 that he “shall stand and shepherd his flock.”

Verse 2 indicates that the Messiah’s “coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.” The King James Version translates this phrase, “whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” The latter translation is more suggestive of the Messiah’s eternal and divine nature, whereas the rendering of the ESV (which reads “from ancient days” rather than “from everlasting”) could be interpreted to mean that the Messiah had his origins in Bethlehem back in the ancient times of King David. Which translation is correct? Michael Brown notes that “In most cases in the Scriptures, ʿolam clearly means eternity, as in Psalm 90:2, where God’s existence is described as meʿolam weʿadʿolam, “from eternity to eternity” (cf. NJPSV). There are, however, some cases where ʿolam cannot mean “eternal” but rather “for a long time” (either past or present).” [12] Examining the broader context of Micah reveals that the Hebrew word עוֹלָם (olam) means “forever” in 2:9 and 4:5, 7. However, in Micah 7:14 the phrase “as in the days of old (עוֹלָם)” uses the word in its non-eternal sense. The context therefore allows for either translation, and we cannot be dogmatic as to the translation of Micah 5:2.

Some might worry that the reference to “the Lord his God” in Micah 5:4 undermines the interpretation of the Messiah as a divine person. However, the New Testament implies that, at the incarnation, Jesus submitted to the Father as his God. Indeed, this is a corollary of the fact that the Lord is the God of all flesh (Jer 32:27) and that in the person of Jesus the son of God became flesh (Jn 1:14). Even the gospel of John and the book of Revelation, both of which are quite emphatic about Jesus’ deity, refer to the Father as Jesus’ God (c.f. Jn 20:17; Rev 1:6, 3:2 and 3:12). For further discussion of this subject, I refer readers to my article here.

Isaiah 9:6 in the Light of Zechariah 9:9-12

The Messianic identity of the child described in Isaiah 9:6-7 is further supported by a comparison with Zechariah 9:9-12, which is unequivocally Messianic. As even Rashi states with regards to this text, “It is impossible to interpret this except as referring to the King Messiah, as it is stated: ‘and his rule shall be from sea to sea.’ We do not find that Israel had such a ruler during the days of the Second Temple.” [13] If, then, it can be shown to be probable that Isaiah 9:6-7 and Zechariah 9:9-12 speak of one and the same individual, this would supply yet further evidence for identifying the child with the Messiah. In this text, Zechariah prophecies:

9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. 10 I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the war horse from Jerusalem; and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall speak peace to the nations; his rule shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth. 11 As for you also, because of the blood of my covenant with you, I will set your prisoners free from the waterless pit. 12 Return to your stronghold, O prisoners of hope; today I declare that I will restore to you double.

The individual of whom Zechariah speaks in this passage is clearly the same individual of whom Isaiah spoke. Notice the close parallels. Just as we read of the servant in Isaiah, this individual establishes worldwide justice and peace on the earth, and his rule extends from shore to shore, including to the gentiles. We also have a reference to prisoners being set free from the waterless pit, which bears striking parallels to Isaiah 9:2 (“The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shone”) and Isaiah 42:7 (“…to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness”). Furthermore, the expression, “his rule shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth” parallels Psalm 72:8, in which it is said of Solomon, the Davidic heir, “May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth!” This is consistent with the statement in Isaiah 9:7 that the one spoken of would reign “on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore.”

It is also of note that Zechariah 9:9-12 can be argued on its own terms to speak of a divine-human person, thus paralleling the divine titles bestowed on the child of Isaiah 9:6. In this text, we see that Israel’s king (the same individual as spoken of by Isaiah), who is to come and establish peace on the earth, is to be a human who rides on a donkey (to ride on the back of a donkey, he must be physical). But Zechariah also tells us something else that is very important in relation to Israel’s coming king. In Zechariah 14:1-9, we read,

Behold, a day is coming for the Lord, when the spoil taken from you will be divided in your midst. 2 For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women raped. Half of the city shall go out into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be cut off from the city. 3 Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations as when he fights on a day of battle. 4 On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives that lies before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley, so that one half of the Mount shall move northward, and the other half southward. 5 And you shall flee to the valley of my mountains, for the valley of the mountains shall reach to Azal. And you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones with him. 6 On that day there shall be no light, cold, or frost. 7 And there shall be a unique day, which is known to the Lord, neither day nor night, but at evening time there shall be light. 8 On that day living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea. It shall continue in summer as in winter. 9 And the Lord will be king over all the earth. On that day the Lord will be one and his name one.

This refers to a time yet future when all nations will be gathered for battle against Jerusalem, but God Himself will intervene against Israel’s enemies. Verse 4 states something very intriguing: the feet of Yahweh will stand upon the Mount of Olives. For Yahweh’s feet to stand upon the mount of olives, He must join to Himself a physical body — for a non-material being has no feet. It seems that this allusion is intended to be taken literally rather than metaphorically, since the feet touching the mount of olives is responsible for the mountain literally being split in two from east to west. Thus, here we see a picture of Yahweh himself clothed with a physical body. Verse 9 further tells us that in that day “the Lord will be king over all the earth.” Thus, the king of Zechariah 9:9-10, whom we read of coming to Jerusalem with salvation, physically mounted upon a donkey, appears to be Yahweh Himself. Here we thus see a foreshadow of the incarnation where, in the person of Christ, God will take upon himself human flesh. One might object to this by suggesting that the Messianic king of Zechariah 9:9-12 is merely God’s agent, and hence he can be appropriately referred to as “king” because he stands in the place of God, doing his bidding. However, on this interpretation it makes little sense for God to physically come to earth to reign if he was intent on working through a non-divine human intermediary.

Another reason to take the Messianic king spoken of in Zechariah 9:9-12 as a divine figure is the passage’s intertextuality with Zephaniah 3:14-20, which exhibits several striking parallels with Zechariah 9:9-12, including the expressions “Sing aloud, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel! Rejoice and exult with all your heart, O daughter of Jerusalem!” This text also speaks of a king of Israel in the midst of His people who comes as their salvation to clear away all Israel’s enemies. The text also speaks about the restoration of Israel’s fortunes (Zeph 3:20, c.f. Zech 9:12). However, the king of Israel in Zephaniah 3 is identified in verse 15 as none other than the Lord God Himself: “The King of Israel, the LORD, is in your midst.” This provides further support for interpreting the Messianic king of Zechariah 9:9-12 as a divine person.

Is Hezekiah the Fulfilment of Isaiah 9:6?

An objection to our interpretation that must be considered is stated by Rabbi Tovia Singer: “In an effort to portray Isaiah 9:6 as a future prophecy about a divine Jesus, Christian Bibles crudely mistranslated this passage. This verse is not discussing any future event or the messiah. Rather, Isaiah is describing the exaltation of King Hezekiah and the divine names bestowed upon him following the miracle when Jerusalem was saved from the Assyrian siege 2,700 years ago. Read this passage in the original Hebrew for yourself! The KJV, NAS, and a host of other Christian Bibles meticulously changed all of the past tense verbs in this verse into a future tense so it would appear to be foretelling of an event in the distant future.” [14] However, the use of the perfect tense in Isaiah 9:6 may be plausibly understood as utilizing the Hebrew idiom of the prophetic perfect, where a future event is so assured that it is spoken of as though it were already completed. Other examples of the prophetic perfect are Isaiah 5:13 (where Isaiah speaks of the future captivity of Judah as though it had already transpired); Isaiah 10:28-32; Isaiah 53:2-11; and Amos 5:2.

Is this text referring to King Hezekiah, as Singer and other Jewish apologists suggest? To begin, let us look at what may be said in favor of this interpretation. It is sometimes alleged that the name Hezekiah means “mighty God.” However, this is quite the stretch, as the name literally means “God gives strength.” [15] However, a somewhat stronger case may be made from observing intertextual parallels between Isaiah 9 and texts that concern the Assyrian siege of Judah during the days of King Hezekiah. In Isaiah 9:4, we read, “For the yoke of his burden, and the staff for his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, you have broken as on the day of Midian.” Compare this to Isaiah 10:5, in which we read, “Woe to Assyria, the rod of my anger; the staff in their hands is my fury!” Isaiah continues in 10:24-27,

24 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD of hosts: “O my people, who dwell in Zion, be not afraid of the Assyrians when they strike with the rod and lift up their staff against you as the Egyptians did. 25 For in a very little while my fury will come to an end, and my anger will be directed to their destruction. 26 And the LORD of hosts will wield against them a whip, as when he struck Midian at the rock of Oreb. And his staff will be over the sea, and he will lift it as he did in Egypt. 27 And in that day his burden will depart from your shoulder, and his yoke from your neck; and the yoke will be broken because of the fat.”

Tovia Singer also claims another parallel between Isaiah 9:6, which identifies the child as “the Mighty God” and Isaiah 10:21, which states that “The remnant shall return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God.” [16] However, this parallel is a weak one since the title is conferred upon the child of Isaiah 9:6 (identified by Singer as Hezekiah), whereas it is unequivocally a title of the God of Israel in Isaiah 10:21.

A more striking parallel exists between the ending of Isaiah 9:7, which asserts that “The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.” In the entire Hebrew Biblical corpus, this phrase appears only two other times, in Isaiah 37:32 and 2 Kings 19:31, both of which refer to God’s miraculous salvation of Hezekiah and his besieged nation from King Sennacherib and his Assyrian army.

This positive case, though seeming initially plausible, is, however, clearly overtaken by the negative evidence against this text being fulfilled by Hezekiah. For one thing, Hezekiah’s son, Manasseh, was a wicked and idolatrous king who reversed his father’s reforms and restored polytheistic worship in the temple of Baal and Asherah (2 Kgs 21). He even apparently participated in the cult of Moloch, sacrificing children as offerings (2 Kgs 21:6). Within just four generations, the nation was exiled to Babylon, which conflicts with Isaiah’s statement that “Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore,” (Isa 9:7). The Medieval scholar, Isaac Troki, attempts to evade this conclusion by claiming that the words “without end” are “a mere figure of speech,” and that “We find, similarly, in Isaiah 2:7, ‘And his land was full of silver and gold, and there was no end to his treasures; and his land was full of horses, and there was no end to his chariots.’ Thus we also find in Ecclesiastes 4:8, ‘There is One, and no second, and he has neither son nor brother; and there is no end to all his troubles.” [17] Troki also interprets the phrase, “on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore,” (Isa 9:7) to mean “that his dominion – that is the dynasty of David – will never perish. And though an interruption occurred during the time of the captivity, the government, nonetheless, will, in the days of the Messiah, return to the scion of David.” [18] However, as Michael Brown notes in response to Troki, “it is clear from the examples he cites that these words refer to something that can hardly be counted or measured because it is so vast and boundless, like the riches of Solomon or the troubles of an afflicted man. How then can this prophecy that states ‘of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end’ apply to Hezekiah? Even granting that the words ‘without end’ do not have to be taken literally in terms of an eternal kingdom—although this would be a perfectly good way of expressing that concept in Hebrew—they simply do not describe Hezekiah’s reign, which was quite limited in international scope and influence.” [19] Brown also asks, regarding Troki’s suggestion that this text need not refer to an uninterrupted reign, “How could Isaiah have been more clear? Is there no significance to the words ‘from that time on and forever’?” [20]

Though there are, as discussed above, some textual parallels between Isaiah 9 and the texts that concern the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem during the reign of Hezekiah, there are also intertextual links – in my view, more striking – between Isaiah 9 and other texts that deal with the Davidic Messiah who would establish global peace and establish a worldwide dominion under his reign. Moreover, since the same individual is also spoken of by Isaiah and other prophets in the context of the Babylonian exile (Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is sandwiched between passages that clearly concern the Babylonian exile, as are other Biblical Messianic texts, such as Jeremiah 23:5-6), the textual links between those passages regarding the Messiah and those regarding the Assyrian siege and the Babylonian exile are, in my view, best understood as parallels of what would one day be accomplished in a much greater way, and a prophecy of hope in the midst of those trials, rather than as texts that speak of the same event.

Furthermore, given that Hezekiah (and indeed anyone else who may be said to be the individual concerned) failed to fulfil what is spoken of the child in Isaiah 9, our text must be adjudged to be either a failed prophecy or a Messianic prophecy. One might, of course, object that Jesus has not fulfilled these predictions either, since global peace has not yet been realized. However, it is plausible to view this prophecy as still awaiting its ultimate completion when Jesus returns again. Given Jesus’ resurrection from the dead (that may be historically confirmed), the Christian has a justified expectation that the Messiah will indeed return to finish what he has begun. This was the interpretation of Jesus and the apostles (c.f. Mk 13:26-27; Acts 1:11; 1 Thess 3:13, 4:13-18). I would contend that there are also hints to this effect in the Old Testament. There are texts in the Hebrew Bible that prophecy of a suffering Messiah who suffers and dies (c.f. Isa 52:13-53:12; Dan 9:26). On the other hand, there are prophecies that indicate this same “pierced” Messiah will be beheld by his enemies (Zech 12:10). The reference to being “pierced” dovetails with Isaiah 53:5, where the servant is said to be “pierced” for our transgressions. Though the Hebrew verb is different (חלל vs דקר), the connotation is the same. Zechariah 12:10 is undoubtedly speaking of the same event as that described in Zechariah 14, when the Lord God himself will descend from heaven to the aid of his people against their enemies. This is apparent from the context, since the verses leading up to 12:10 indicate that “On that day the LORD will protect the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them on that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the angel of the LORD, going before them. And on that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem,” (Zech 12:8-9, c.f. Zech 14:1-9). As discussed earlier, Zechariah 14:4 indicates that the Lord’s feet will physically stand on the mount of olives. As shown previously, verse 9 suggests that the physically descending Lord is none other than the Messianic king of whom we read in Zechariah 9:9-12. If this is so, then the implication is that the one pierced in 12:10 is likewise the Messiah. The fact that the Lord descends upon the mount of Olives in a physically embodied form is also consistent with the Jews beholding a physical affliction originating during his former coming.

Singer further alleges, “To further conceal that Isaiah 9:6 is referring to names given to Hezekiah, the New International Version Bible completely deletes the word ‘name,’ causing the verse to read, ‘and he will be called.’” [22] This, however, is an incredibly weak point since to say that someone will be called by a name can be non-literal and need not denote a birthname. Indeed, Tovia Singer himself points out that Jeremiah 33:16, speaking of the city of Jerusalem, asserts that “And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘The LORD is our righteousness.’” [23] Hezekiah was certainly not conferred those names by his mother.

Ancient Jewish Messianic Interpretation of Isaiah 9:6

It may also be observed that the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, an Aramaic paraphrase of the Hebrew Bible, explicitly identifies this text as speaking of the Messiah: “The prophet said to the house of David, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and he has taken the law upon himself to keep it. His name is called from before Him who is wonderful in counsel, the mighty God who lives to eternity — the Messiah whose peace shall be great upon us in his days.” [21]

The Deity of Israel’s Messiah

Having established that Isaiah 9:6 concerns the Messiah, we must now turn our attention to the question of whether it affirms His deity. As we have seen, Isaiah 9:6 confers upon the Messiah a four-fold title: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Mighty God

The most provocative of those titles is Mighty God. At first consideration, one might think that this ends the debate. However, orthodox Jewish interpreters often point out that the title God can be used in some contexts of those who are not God. For example, in Exodus 7:1, God says to Moses, “See, I have made you God (אֱלֹהִ֖ים) to Pharaoh” (though some English translations add the word “like” before “God,” this is not present in the Hebrew text). Psalm 8:5 also uses the word אֱלֹהִ֑ים (Elohim) in reference to angels, or heavenly beings.

A royal inauguration Psalm refers to the Davidic King as “God” (Ps 45:6-7):

6 Your throne, O God (אֱ֭לֹהִים), is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; 7 you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.

Notice that the referent of this Psalm is ascribed the title of אֱ֭לֹהִים (Elohim), yet distinguished from his God who has anointed him with the oil of gladness. Some Christian commentators have identified this as a reference to the Messiah. [24] However, I believe this to be a mistake, since the context makes it clear that this Psalm concerns a royal inauguration of a Davidic heir. The Psalm is introduced in verse 1 with a royal tribute: “My heart overflows with a pleasing theme; I address my verses to the king; my tongue is like the pen of a ready scribe.” This by itself is not fatal to a Messianic interpretation. However, verse 9 adds further clarity: “…daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor; at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.” If this Psalm concerns the Messiah, who is the queen of whom this text also speaks, not to mention the daughters of kings who are his ladies of honor? It has been suggested that the “wedding in Ps 45 is intended to be a figurative depiction of the eschatological wedding banquet,” with the queen being a metaphor for God’s people and the bridesmaids representing foreign nations. [25] While this is not impossible, it seems to me that the most straightforward reading is that the bride and bridesmaids are literal rather than figurative. Thus, it must be granted that the title אֱ֭לֹהִים (Elohim) carries a broader meaning than merely an alternative designation of Yahweh, though of course it can be (and usually is) used in this sense. The question, then, is what we can determine from the context about its meaning in Isaiah 9:6.

In Isaiah 9:6, the complete phrase that is used is אֵ֣ל גִּבּ֔וֹר (el gibbor). This expression occurs three other times in the Hebrew Biblical corpus, and in all three of those cases it refers specifically to Yahweh (Deut 10:17; Jer 32:18; Isa 10:21). One of those references is in fact in the very next chapter that follows our text: “A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God (אֵ֖ל גִּבּֽוֹר),” (Isa 10:21). This tends to favor an interpretation of the same expression in Isaiah 9:6 as likewise denoting divine status. However, a sample size of three is not sufficiently large to render this conclusion beyond all doubt, and so we must further supplement it with additional argumentation. It should be noted here that it may be contended that an exception is found in Ezekiel 32:21: “The mighty chiefs (אֵלֵ֧י גִבּוֹרִ֛ים) shall speak of them…” This verse uses the phrase, אֵלֵ֧י גִבּוֹרִ֛ים (ele gibborim), which is sometimes claimed to be the same words used in Isaiah (in the same order) but in the plural form and connected in a genitive relation, literally “gods of mighty ones.” However, the word אֵלֵ֧י (ele) actually derives from the root, אַ֫יִל (ayil), which can mean a ram or a leader/chief. [26]

It is also noteworthy that the word, אֵ֖ל (el) occurs in the singular form 217 times in the Biblical text, and always (without exception) denotes nothing less than absolute deity (though there is a handful of instances where it is used to refer to false gods (c.f. Deut 32:12; Pss 44:20, 81:9; Isa 44:10, 45:20; and Mal 2:11). Thus, if Isaiah 9:6 does not use the word אֵ֖ל (el) to denote divine status, it would be the sole exception.

Some have pointed out that the word גבר (gibbor) is sometimes used as a noun, meaning ‘hero’ or ‘warrior’, and thus the phrase אֵ֣ל גִּבּ֔וֹר (el gibbor) in Isaiah 9:6 could perhaps mean something like ‘godlike warrior.’ On this view, the word אֵ֖ל (el) would be taken adjectivally rather than as a noun. There are many examples in the Hebrew Bible of the word אֵ֖ל (el) being used with a following noun or adjective. Hebrew scholar Alec Motyer comments, “With a following adjective ’ēl always retains its full status as a noun (e.g. Ex. 20:5; Dt. 7:9; 10:17).” [27] He further remarks, “if ever ’ēl is used adjectivally, the phrase is never identical with Isaiah 9:6〈5〉and its meaning is never diluted into ‘godlike’. Whenever we find a construction identical with Isaiah 9:6〈5〉 (’ēl with a following adjective or noun), ’ēl is never adjectival but is always the ruling noun, more closely defined by the additional word.” [28]

As quoted previously, the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel renders Isaiah 9:6 into Aramaic: “The prophet said to the house of David, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and he has taken the law upon himself to keep it. His name is called from before Him who is wonderful in counsel, the mighty God who lives to eternity — the Messiah whose peace shall be great upon us in his days.” [29] This rendering avoids the implication of the child being afforded titles such as “Mighty God” and “Father of Eternity.” However, on this translation, Michael Brown remarks, “The problem with this translation, aside from the fact that it is grammatically strained, is that almost all the names are heaped upon God, and only the last two are given to the son—although it is the naming of this royal child that is central to the verse. How odd! Clearly, the names refer to the son, not to the Lord who gave them. In other words, the Targumic rendering would be like saying, ‘And God—the great, glorious, holy, wonderful, eternal, unchangeable Redeemer and King and Lord—calls his name Joe.’ There is no precedent or parallel to this anywhere in the Bible and no logical explanation for this rendering, nor is it even a natural, grammatical rendering of the Hebrew. The characteristics of the royal child are central—highlighted here by his names—not the characteristics of the Lord.” [30]

Everlasting Father

The child is also identified by the title, “Everlasting Father,” (עַ֖ד אֲבִי ad abi) which may be translated as a genitive phrase, “Father of Eternity” (since אֲבִי, abi, in the Hebrew text, stands in a genitive relationship to עַ֖ד, ad). Hans Wildberger concurs with this rendering: “אבי־עד can only mean ‘father of eternity.’” [31] This translation implies that the child is in fact the creator himself, which is unequivocally an attribute of deity. Rydelnik and Spencer note that “The child born here is not to be confused with the Father in the triune Godhead. Rather, the Son of God is the creator of time, the author of eternity.” [32] Walter Kaiser likewise comments, “Thus the one who will arrive later is one who has been here from the beginning of time and more!” [33] The NET Bible notes similarly stress, “This title must not be taken in an anachronistic Trinitarian sense. (To do so would be theologically problematic, for the ‘Son’ is the messianic king and is distinct in his person from God the ‘Father.’) Rather, in its original context the title pictures the king as the protector of his people.” [34] Indeed, God is portrayed as a Father to his people in various texts, including Isaiah 22:21, 63:8, and Job 29:16.

The term “Father” may also describe the relationship of the Messiah to his people. This would not be inconsistent with what Isaiah says elsewhere concerning the Messiah: “when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring (זֶ֖רַע, zera); he shall prolong his days,” (Isa 53:10). It is sometimes alleged that this verse precludes Jesus from being the Messiah, since Jesus left no physical descendants. However, the expression יִרְאֶ֥ה זֶ֖רַע (yireh zera ,‘see seed’) is only used one time in the Hebrew Bible, and so one can hardly be dogmatic as to its meaning. At any rate, the word זֶ֖רַע (zera) is used figuratively at times in the Hebrew Scriptures, even including the book of Isaiah. Isaiah referred to Israel as ‘a seed of evildoers’ (1:4), ‘a seed of an adulterer’ (14:20) and ‘a seed of falsehood’ (57:3-4). Thus, in those texts, the term ‘seed’ or ‘offspring’ refers to one who is to the core an evildoer etc. In like-manner, in Isaiah 53:10, it refers to the fact that the suffering servant would see his disciples transformed by virtue of his work on their behalf. This is related in Isaiah 53 to the prolonging of his days, which alludes to his resurrection from the dead.

Wonderful Counsellor

Another title that is ascribed to the child is “wonderful counsellor,” literally “wonder-counsellor.” Though admittedly less conclusive than the titles already surveyed, I believe that this phrase is also suggestive of the child’s divine identity. Indeed, Isaiah says of God elsewhere, “This also comes from the LORD of hosts; he is wonderful in counsel and excellent in wisdom,” (Isa 28:29, emphasis mine). Motyer concludes concerning this text, “To designate the child as pele’ makes him ‘out of the ordinary’, one who is something of a ‘miracle’. Isaiah’s use of the noun in 25:1 and the verb in 28:29 of the Lord’s ‘counsel’ suggests that he would not resist the notion of deity in 9:6〈5〉, specially when it is contextually linked with Mighty God (’ēl-gibbôr).” [35]

One must exercise caution, however, not to overstate the case with respect to this title, as some well-meaning Christian scholars have done. For example, Edward E. Hindson asserts that “Motyer notes that pele’ is used 15 times of extraordinary acts of God.” [36] However, Motyer in fact writes that “It is used fifteen times of human acts etc. where it means ‘what is out of the ordinary’, e.g. Jonathan’s love for David (2 Sa. 1:26; cf. 2 Ch. 2:9; Dn. 8:24). Even where it has unfortunate overtones (e.g. 2 Sa. 13:2) it means ‘more than he could bring himself to do’.” [37] Hindson’s representation of Motyer is therefore inaccurate. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum also claims that “In English, ‘wonderful’ may be freely used of many things, but in Hebrew it is reserved exclusively for that which is divine.” [38] However, this is incorrect, as the examples listed by Motyer attest. The above caveats notwithstanding, Motyer nonetheless notes that “It is used fifty-four times of the acts of God and there the meaning is ‘supernatural’, that which, for whatever reason, requires God as its explanation, for example his omnicompetence (Gn. 18:14), the way his acts confound human estimates (Ps. 118:23), the ranges of his moral providences (Ps. 107:8, 15) and when the beleaguered people felt only a ‘miracle’ could save them (Je. 21:2). In particular it describes God’s exodus-acts (Ex. 3:20; 34:10). Isaiah uses the verb in 28:29 of the Lord’s ‘counsel’ (linking with 9:6〈5〉) and in 29:14 of his work of changing the human heart.” [39] There is also a possible connection with Judges 13:18, where the angel of the Lord says to Manoah, after Manoah inquired after his name, “Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful (פֶּלִאי, peli)?” I have argued elsewhere that the angel of the Lord is himself revealed to be the Messiah and indeed a divine theophany. It may be that the translators of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible made this connection, since the Septuagint translation reads, “Because a child was born to us; a son was given to us whose leadership came upon his shoulder; and his name is called ‘Messenger of the Great Council,’ for I will bring peace upon the rulers and health to him.” [40] The Greek word translated “messenger” is ἄγγελος which, much like the Hebrew equivalent מַלְאָךְ (malak) can be translated both as “messenger” or “angel.” It seems plausible that the Septuagint translators thus understood the child of Isaiah 9:6 to be none other than the angel of the Lord!

Prince of Peace

The final title to be ascribed to the child is “Prince of Peace.” This title does not contribute to our case for the divine status of the child of Isaiah 9, though it does connect with those passages (as discussed earlier) elsewhere in Isaiah, as well as Zechariah, which speak of the Messianic figure establishing global peace. It also connects our text with the prophecy of Micah 5:5, which states of the Messiah to be born in Bethlehem that “he shall be their peace.”

Conclusion

In summary, we have seen that Isaiah 9:6-7 can be shown to be a Messianic text, by careful comparison of this text with other indubitably Messianic prophetic passages, both in the book of Isaiah as well as elsewhere in the Hebrew Biblical corpus. We have also seen that Isaiah 9:6 is best understood to indicate the deity of the child concerned, both by an analysis of the four-fold title that is bestowed upon the child, particularly the provocative titles, “Mighty God” and “Father of Eternity,” as well as other texts that can be shown to concern the same individual.

Footnotes

[1] “Rashi on Isaiah 11:1”, Sefaria, https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Isaiah.11.1.1

[2] J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 84.

[3] Ibid., 85-86.

[4] Ibid., 86.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid., 84-85.

[7] Ibid., 85.

[8] Michael Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2010), kindle.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] “Rashi on Micah 5:2”, Sefaria, https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Micah.5.2

[12] Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Messianic Prophecy Objections, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003), 39.

[13] “Rashi on Zechariah 9:9”, Sefaria, https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Zechariah.9.9

[14] Tovia Singer, Let’s Get Biblical! Why Doesn’t Judaism Accept the Christian Messiah? Volume 1 (RMBN Publishers, 2014), 182.

[15] Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 306.

[16] Tovia Singer, Let’s Get Biblical! Why Doesn’t Judaism Accept the Christian Messiah? Volume 1 (RMBN Publishers, 2014), 185.

[17] Isaac Troki, Hizzuk Emunah: Faith Strengthened, trans. Moses Mocatta (New York: Sefer Hermon, 1970), 106–7.

[18] Ibid., 107.

[19] Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Messianic Prophecy Objections, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003), 37.

[20] Ibid.

[21] “Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 9:5”, Seferia, https://www.sefaria.org/Targum_Jonathan_on_Isaiah.9.5

[22] Tovia Singer, Let’s Get Biblical! Why Doesn’t Judaism Accept the Christian Messiah? Volume 1 (RMBN Publishers, 2014), 182

[23] Ibid., 183.

[24] Seth D. Postell, “Psalm 45: The Messiah as Bridegroom,” in The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy: Studies and Expositions of the Messiah in the Old Testament, ed. Michael Rydelnik and Edwin Blum (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2019), 573-586.

[25] Ibid., 579.

[26] James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).

[27] J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 104.

[28] Ibid., 105.

[29] “Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 9:5, Sefaria, https://www.sefaria.org/Targum_Jonathan_on_Isaiah.9.5

[30] Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Messianic Prophecy Objections, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003), 32–33.

[31] Hans Wildberger, A Continental Commentary: Isaiah 1-12 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1991), 404.

[32] Michael A. Rydelnik and James Spencer, “Isaiah,” in The Moody Bible Commentary, ed. Michael A. Rydelnik and Michael Vanlaningham (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2014), 1024.

[33] Walter Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 1995), 164.

[34] Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006), Is 9:6.

[35] J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 104.

[36] Edward E. Hindson, “Isaiah 9:1–7: The Deity of Messiah,” in The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy: Studies and Expositions of the Messiah in the Old Testament, ed. Michael Rydelnik and Edwin Blum (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2019), 836.

[37] J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 104.

[38] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Messianic Christology: A Study of Old Testament Prophecy Concerning the First Coming of the Messiah (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1998), 39.

[39] J. A. Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 104.

[40] Rick Brannan et al., eds., The Lexham English Septuagint (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012), Is 9:6.

Fertility Matters

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

Nicholas Eberstadt, the Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute, is a demographic expert. He has identified some sobering trends that are cause for concern for the future of America. In his article, “Can America Cope with Demographic Decline?”, Eberstadt points out that the traditional attempts to address those worries through government policy and financial incentives “vastly underestimate the challenge they wish to address.”

Going Lower

The birth rate required to support a society’s population stability is 2.1 births per woman. Eberstadt’s research found that in 2019, the birth rate in the U.S. was 1.71, the lowest rate ever recorded up to that point. Then, COVID-19 hit. In 2020, the rate fell to 1.64. Projected estimates for the as-yet-unreported first quarter of 2021 point toward another 5% decrease. These trends portend some challenging socioeconomic times ahead.

Some post-pandemic rebound may be expected, of course. But fertility forecasts are notoriously unreliable … there are reasons to suspect that U.S. fertility could actually decline even further in the years ahead … Decades of accumulating social and political dysfunction have left America less favorably poised for, and perhaps also less capable of seizing, the advantages of the new demographic era ahead of us.

Fertility rates below 1.3 will halve a population in less than 45 years. And there is no documented case of a society surviving a rate that low at any time in history prior to 1990. Depopulation trends have already started in Russia and Japan. Projections for the European Union show that theirs will begin in 2027. China could commence even sooner.

Financing Fertility

Typically, governments attempt to boost birth rates using financial incentives. But this has proven to be a faulty solution. Russia, China, Singapore, and Japan’s efforts to stimulate fertility using financial carrots paid small dividends in the short term. In each case, financial inducements had some impact on the timing of their citizenry’s birth decisions – they are most attractive to those at the lowest income and education levels. But, ultimately, they didn’t have much impact on the total number of births, which usually return to at or below their pre-stimulus levels once the incentive runs its course.

Cultural Headwinds

The prognosis for reversing these trends is not good. Several factors lead to that conclusion. As John Stonestreet has pointed out, radical feminism demanded that women be “liberated from their own creative potential” and can be directly connected to the inclination to postpone or forgo childbirth altogether.

Since 1980, the median age of first marriage has gone from 24.7 for men and 22 for women to 30 and 28 respectively. The additional six years for women puts them almost exactly at their peak fertility.

But the Millennials who occupy that age category …

are of a markedly different mindset from that of their Boomer parents. Their lived experience is in a very different America. People under 40 do not have much memory of America with a vibrant, private-sector-driven economy. They came of age during a strange historical run of unusually poor political leadership … Theirs is an America where public confidence in the nation’s basic institutions has undergone a gruesome and wholesale slide.

Religiosity, which has historically encouraged the pursuit of the traditional family, has also been a casualty of the cultural milieu. A Gallup poll earlier this year revealed that just 36 percent of Millennials report any religious affiliation. They likewise express pessimism about the country’s future, they lack pride in it, and they are increasingly unwilling to defend it. As Eberstadt puts it, young Americans have become “demoralized and de-moralized.”

Resurrecting Marriage

There is a way out of this. And it depends on the same thing it always has – God’s design for marriage and the command to “go forth and multiply.” Mark Regnerus addresses these issues in his book, The Future of Marriage, wherein he acknowledges all of the above. His research points out that “young Christians are significantly influenced by the culture around them … [and] have a sense of swimming upstream in their efforts to marry and form families.” But, despite all this, he argues that:

Marriage as an institution has changed very little … On these points, young Christians are substantially similar to their parents and grandparents. They have not lost sight of the value of lasting love. Fundamentally, they know what it means to wed … If marriage is so deeply written into our nature, it probably won’t disappear … the young will go on looking for love, and the world will still be peopled. Civilization will continue.

These kinds of motivations don’t come from the government. That’s Nicholas Eberstadt’s point. He is cautiously optimistic that a “spontaneous, intellectually and spiritually disruptive ferment from within civil society might offer a homegrown American answer” to our demographic decline.

What You Might’ve Missed About the Mount of Transfiguration

Theology and Christian Apologetics

by Erik Manning

Does John’s Gospel give us a much higher view of Jesus than what we find in Matthew, Mark and Luke? Bart Ehrman certainly thinks so. He says:

If Jesus went around Galilee proclaiming himself to be a divine being sent from God…could anything else that he might say be so breath-taking and thunderously important? And yet none of these earlier sources says any such thing about him. Did they (all of them!) just decide not to mention the one thing that was most significant about Jesus? Almost certainly the divine self-claims in John are not historical.

How Jesus Became God p 125

In other places, Ehrman admits that the Synoptic Gospels don’t depict Jesus as a mere man. But he isn’t pre-existent and he isn’t the same as the God of Israel. Ehrman instead argues that Jesus’ ‘divinity’ was something that came into being after his resurrection. Only then did his disciples begin giving Jesus honors he never claimed for himself.

The big problem here is that Ehrman is making an argument from silence, as I discussed in a previous post. But the other problem is that the claim that Jesus isn’t depicted as Yahweh in the Synoptic Gospels simply isn’t true. Jesus speaks and acts very much like the God of the Jewish Scriptures. Let’s take a look at one of my favorite examples: The Mount of Transfiguration. This example was brought to my attention by Catholic NT scholar Brant Pitre. This miracle takes place in all three of the Synoptics, but I’ll be focusing on Mark’s version:

And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart by themselves; and he was transfigured before them, and his garments became glistening, intensely white, as no fuller on earth could bleach them. And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses; and they were talking to Jesus. And Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is well that we are here; let us make three booths, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.” For he did not know what to say, for they were exceedingly afraid. And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him.” And suddenly looking around they no longer saw any one with them but Jesus only. And as they were coming down the mountain, he charged them to tell no one what they had seen, until the Son of Man should have risen from the dead.

Mark 9:2-9

Something very weird is going on here. What’s up with Moses and Elijah appearing on the mountain with Jesus? Why is it specifically these two guys and not, say, Abraham, Noah or David? The answer I heard in Bible college was that Moses represented the Law, the first five books of the Bible, and Elijah represented the Prophets, the second major part of the Jewish Scriptures. The symbolism seems straightforward enough, I suppose. But it never felt very satisfying.

JESUS THE GLORY OF GOD

Pitre points out a better explanation for why Moses and Elijah appear, one more deeply rooted in the Old Testament. If you’ve read the Old Testament, you know that both Moses and Elijah experience theophanies—that is, appearances of God—in which God comes to them on a mountain and reveals his glory. However, neither Moses nor Elijah can see God’s face.

Let’s look at some passages: In Exodus 33:18-23 Moses said, “I beg you, show me your glory.” And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you, and will proclaim before you my name ‘The LORD’; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. But,” he said, “you cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live.” And the LORD said, “Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand upon the rock; and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by; then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back; but my face shall not be seen.”

Now let’s look at 1 Kings 19:9-13: And there he [Elijah] came to a cave, and lodged there; and behold, the word of the LORD came to him…. And he said, “Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord.” And behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice. And when Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood at the entrance of the cave.

A couple of things stand out here. Both of these experiences happen on Mount Sinai, which is a mount of divine revelation. Notice also that neither Moses nor Elijah were allowed to look at God. Despite hearing him and seeing manifestations of his power, they cannot see his face.

What does all of this have to do with the Transfiguration? You see, on the mountain of the Transfiguration, Moses and Elijah are finally allowed to see what they couldn’t see during their earthly lives: the unveiled face of God. What makes this possible? The God who appeared to them on Mount Sinai has now become a man. Jesus is God with a human face. Is your mind blown just a bit yet?

PLURALITY IN THE GODHEAD

Also, notice that in the same way that God descends upon Mount Sinai in a cloud and speaks to Moses and the people (Exodus 19:16), so now “a cloud” covers Jesus on the mountain of the Transfiguration and a voice says: “This is my beloved Son; listen to him” (Mark 9:7). The voice reveals Jesus’s true identity. Not only does Jesus speak and act as if he is God, but God speaks and acts as if Jesus is his divine Son. Here then we see a plurality of persons in the one God. On the Mount of Transfiguration, the apostles see that there is both God the Father and God the Son.

And this concept of the unseen Yahweh and the seen Yahweh isn’t merely a New Testament idea. It’s rooted in the Old Testament. You see, there’s a recurring paradox throughout the Jewish Scriptures. Remember that God says to Moses “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live,” (Exodus 33:20). But multiple people in the Old Testament do see God and live! Let’s look at a few examples.

For starters, we have Jacob. Genesis 32:20 says “So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.”
There’s also Gideon: Judges 6:22 reads: “Then Gideon perceived that he was the angel of the Lord. And Gideon said, “Alas, O Lord God! For now I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face.”
And there’s Samson’s parents: “The angel of the LORD did not appear again to Manoah and his wife. Then Manoah realized that it was the angel of the LORD. And Manoah said to his wife, “We shall surely die, for we have seen God” (Judges 13:21,22).

These are all cases where individuals are scared to death because they’ve come face-to-face with God and yet their lives have been spared. Notice that these people saw the face of the angel of Yahweh. Ah, so it’s the Angel of the LORD who appears as the seen Yahweh. It is through the Angel of Yahweh that men can look on God’s face and still live.

And just as God speaks to Jesus on the Mountain, we see conversation apparently happening within the Godhead in the Old Testament. For example, Zechariah 1:11-13 says: Then they spoke to the angel of the LORD who was standing among the myrtle trees, “We have patrolled the earth, and lo, the whole earth remains at peace.” Then the angel of the LORD said, “O LORD of hosts, how long will you withhold mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with which you have been angry these seventy years?” Then the LORD replied with gracious and comforting words to the angel who talked with Me.

Here the Angel of the LORD plays the role of mediator, the same role Jesus fulfills in the NT. (Romans 8:34, Hebrews 7:25, 1 John 2:2) Also, note Jacob’s blessing of the sons of Joseph in Genesis 48:15-16: “The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day, the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, may he bless the boys.” This case of Hebrew parallelism suggests that “the angel” and “God” are to be taken as the same person.

Moreover, check out Judges 2:1-2, where the angel of the Lord says, “I brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land that I swore to give to your fathers…” Jude 5 says that: “Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” Though a minority of manuscripts read κύριος instead of Ἰησοῦς, this is of little interpretive significance since the preceding verse identifies Jesus as “our only Master and Lord.”

The point here is that Ehrman is wrong. Jesus is portrayed as Yahweh in the Synoptic Gospels, but in a very Jewish way, and one that includes a plurality within the Godhead found in the Old Testament. And we have multiple lines of evidence that what is recorded in the Synoptics is based on eyewitness testimony. What happened on the Mount of Transfiguration isn’t a cunningly devised fable. See my playlist on the historical reliability of the Gospels for more.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)

Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Erik is a Reasonable Faith Chapter Director located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He’s a former freelance baseball writer and the co-owner of a vintage and handmade decor business with his wife, Dawn. He is passionate about the intersection of apologetics and evangelism.

Original blog: https://bit.ly/3QOJLDJ

August 15, 2022/by Guest

How We Got Our Bible: History of the English Bible

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

In this post, we will consider the history of the English Bible. The Bible, after all, wasn’t written in English but in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. In fact, English didn’t even exist when the Bible was written! So how did the Bible end up in our language? That’s what I hope to explain in this article

The Latin Bible

Since the start of the fifth century, the Latin Vulgate was the official Bible translation for the church in the West. The problem was that by the Middle Ages, almost nobody knew Latin, including much of the clergy! Large chunks of Scripture, therefore, had never been read nor heard. While some desired to translate the Bible into native languages, the church forbade this activity. Translating a Bible into a language other than the approved Latin version could land you in prison or the chopping block.

Keeping the laity away from Scripture was one of the problems which led to the Reformation. The Reformation doctrine of the priesthood of the believer would never stand for only clergy having access to Scripture. But even though the Reformation was still 150 years away, the Morningstar of the Reformation began to shine bright in the fourteenth century.

John Wycliffe

Wycliffe was a Reformer before there were Reformers. He believed that ultimate authority resided in the Bible, not the Pope. As one of the most brilliant scholars in England during his time, Wycliffe gathered quite a following. His followers were derogatorily known as “Lollards.” Wycliffe sent these lower-class preachers out to villages around England where they preached in English. Wycliffe noted, “Christ and his apostles taught the people in the language best known to them. . . . Therefore, the doctrine should be not only in Latin but also in the [common] tongue.” [1].

Following the influence of their leader, the Lollards translated the Bible from the Latin into English in 1382. Each Wycliffe Bible was copied by hand since the printing press would not be invented by Gutenberg for another seventy years. As you can imagine, the ecclesiastical powers frowned upon the Lollard’s work. The archbishop of Canterbury remarked, “That pestilent and most wretched John Wycliffe, of damnable memory, a child of the old devil, and himself a child or pupil of Antichrist . . . crowned his wickedness by translating the Scriptures into the mother tongue.” [2].

One detractor even complained, “Christ gave his Gospel to the clergy and the learned doctors of the Church so that they might give it to the laypeople. . . . But this Master John Wycliffe translated the Gospel from Latin into the English. . . . And Wycliffe, by thus translating the bible, made it . . . common to all, . . . even to women!”[3].

Lollards were repeatedly burned at the stake with their Bibles tied around their necks. Wycliffe, however, was able to escape the death penalty because of friends in high places. In 1384, however, he suffered a stroke while taking the Lord’s Supper. He died a few days later.

Thirty years later, in 1415, the Council of Constance condemned Wycliffe and his Bible. So they dug up his corpse, burned his remains, and threw his ashes in the River Swift.

Erasmus and the Greek New Testament

The Lollards translated from the Latin into English because hardly anybody knew Greek in the Western world at the time. All of that changed, however, in the fifteenth century when the Muslim Ottomans conquered the Eastern Roman Empire. As a result, Greek scholars migrated west and brought their Greek with them. This led to a renaissance of interest in the ancient languages. Within just a few short years, universities started offering Greek.

One person who was especially interested in learning Greek was a young Dutch scholar named Desiderius Erasmus. He is famously quoted as saying, “I have turned my entire attention to Greek. The first thing I shall do, as soon as money arrives, is to buy some Greek authors; after that, I shall buy clothes.”[4].

In 1516, he became the first person to publish a critical edition of the Greek New Testament. Erasmus used about ten Greek manuscripts, all which dated to the medieval period. Until this time, the Greek New Testament only survived in hand-copied manuscripts that were often incomplete. Since Gutenburg had previously invented the printing press sixty years earlier, Erasmus was able to produce an entire Greek New Testament and distribute thousands of copies.

Biblical scholars refer to Erasmus’ critical New Testament as the Textus Receptus (“the received text”). His multiple editions became the basis for the King James Bible.

William Tyndale

Shortly after Erasmus’ Greek New Testament was published, a young scholar named William Tyndale requested a reversal to the policy against English Bible translations. His request was denied. Certainly, if someone was ever going to translate the Bible into English from the original languages, Tyndale was the guy. He trained at both Oxford and Cambridge and was fluent in 6-7 languages. Yet, his peers did not share his same passion. One such priest chided Tyndale’s desire to get God’s word to the people. He went so far as to say that it was more important for the people to know the Pope’s decrees than God’s. Tyndale responded, “If God spares my life, I will cause a boy that driveth the plow to know more of the Scripture than you do.” [5 ]. Tyndale would eventually succeed.

Yet, Tyndale had to flee England for Reformation-friendly Germany where he could translate in safety. In 1526, Tyndale finished translating the Greek New Testament into English. This was the first English Bible based off the original languages. A German printer produced 6,000 copies. These Bibles were smuggled into England inside boxes of wine and sacks of flour and sold on the black market. English bishops bought as many copies as they could, often at inflated prices, just so they could burn them. Tyndale wasn’t bothered by their actions. He used the added proceeds to update and improve his New Testament.

Tyndale’s Bible underwent several updates. His third edition of 1534 is the most significant. He is also responsible for shaping much of the English language. Linguists argue that Tyndale and William Shakespeare shaped the English language more than anyone else. Tyndale introduced new words such as “fisherman, seashore, scapegoat, beautiful, and peacemaker.”

Henry VIII

Even though Henry VIII led England out of the Roman Catholic Church, he still did not approve of Tyndale’s Bible. The reason? Because Tyndale wrote a tract condemning Henry’s unlawful divorce of his wife Catherine so he could marry Anne Boleyn. The year after this tract, Henry issued an edict, “the translation of Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale . . . should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away.”[6].

In 1535, the English bribed Henry Philips to betray Tyndale over to the authorities. Philips succeeded and Tyndale was thrown into prison for over a year. While in prison, he determined to translate the Old Testament from the Hebrew. He never finished. In 1536, he was tied to a post, strangled to death, and burned. His final words that he cried out for all the bystanders to hear were, “Lord! Open the king of England’s eyes!”[7].

Tyndale’s prayer was answered. Around that time, Henry VIII approved the Matthew’s Version of the Bible. “Matthew” was a pseudonym for Tyndale’s friend John Rogers. In fact, the letters “WT” were printed between the Old and New Testaments as a covert tribute to William Tyndale.

English Bibles Before KJV

After the first English translation was approved, several immediately followed:

The Coverdale Bible

In 1535, Miles Coverdale (Tyndale’s assistant) produced a complete Bible. This became the first complete Bible printed in English. That said, he didn’t translate directly from the original languages. He used Tyndale’s text, the Latin, and even Luther’s German Bible.

The Matthew’s Bible

In 1537, John Rogers—whose pen name was Thomas Matthew—brought together Tyndale’s published and unpublished translations along with Coverdale’s translation of the prophets and apocrypha. Rogers added over 2,000 notes to his translation. His Bible is sometimes called the “Wife-Beater’s Bible” because a marginal note at 1 Peter 3:7 reads, “If the wife be not obedient and helpful to her husband, he should endeavor to beat the fear of God into her.” Ironically, Rogers became the first martyr to be burned at the stake during Bloody Mary’s reign in 1555. I guess she read the footnote.

The Great Bible

In 1538, the king ordered that an English Bible be placed in every church. And not just any Bible, but the biggest Bible available. Therefore, the Church commissioned Coverdale to publish a new Bible that was even larger than the Matthew’s Bible. Thus, it was called the “Great Bible,” not because of its quality but because of its size. This Bible was based largely on Matthew’s Bible. It was different in two ways though. First, it was larger. And second, it left out all the marginal notes.

The Geneva Bible

During the reign of Bloody Mary, many Protestants fled for the mainland. One landing spot was the Reformation hub Geneva—home of John Calvin. Here, Reformers produced a new translation of the Bible in 1560. This Bible quickly became the most popular English Bible among Protestants—Puritans in particular because of the Calvinistic marginal notes. This was the first Bible translated entirely from the Greek and Hebrew and by a committee. That said, its New Testament relied heavily on Tyndale. It was also the first Bible with verse divisions.

The Bishop’s Bible

Based on the success of the Geneva Bible, the English clergy needed to create a new Bible devoid of Calvin’s influence that could be used in the churches. In 1568, the Church created the Bishop’s Bible. Even though it was used in the pulpits, it was wildly unpopular. It never caught on due to its wooden translation.

The King James Bible

In 1603, King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England. Shortly after his installment, a petition signed by a thousand Puritan pastors led to a conference at Hampton Court in 1604. The king summoned church leaders from all across England to discuss crucial ecclesiastical matters. The most important issue discussed was the desire for a single English translation to be used in the churches—and one without any marginal notes. At the time, the Bishop’s Bible was unpopular, while the unofficial Geneva Bible was used by the masses.

King James was uncomfortable with the Geneva Bible for a couple of reasons. First, he disliked the Calvinistic notes. And second, he disliked that some notes called into question the absolute power of his kingdom. One marginal note justified the Hebrew midwives’ disobedience of Pharaoh’s decree.

In 1611, James commissioned forty-seven scholars to translate a new English Bible. The KJV translators relied heavily on Erasmus’ third edition of the Greek New Testament. After several revisions, the KJV translators ended up copying about 90% of Tyndale’s English New Testament. They also drew heavily from the Geneva Bible’s Old Testament. They even follow the Rheims-Douai translation which was taken from the Latin Vulgate in a hundred places! In other words, the KJV was not brand new translation, but a revision of earlier works.

The KJV endured several revisions and alterations. In fact, about 100,000 changes were made from the original 1611 text to the current version which was completed in 1769—most of which were spelling changes.

Notable KJV Flubs

After the publication of the KJV, it went through several printings. On occasion, printer’s errors occurred, many of which are quite comical. Here are a few:

The Party Bible
A 1716 version has Jesus say in John 5:14 “sin on more” instead of “sin no more.”

The Vinegar Bible
A 1717 version includes the heading “The Parable of the Vinegar” instead of “The Parable of the Vineyard.”

The Murderer’s Bible
A 1795 version has Jesus saying “Let the children first be killed” instead of “Let the children first be filled.”

The Fashion Bible
A 1964 version has Paul saying that “women should adorn themselves with modern apparel” instead of “women should adorn themselves with modest apparel.”

The Unrighteous Bible
A 1653 version has Paul saying that “the unrighteous will inherit the kingdom of God” instead of “the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

The Wicked Bible
This Bible is the most notorious of them all. A 1631 version has the seventh commandment saying “thou shalt commit adultery” instead of “thou shalt not commit adultery.” After this printing went out, the archbishop ordered that all copies be burned and he fined the printer three hundred pounds. The printer died in debtors’ prison.

Footnotes

[1] Dyson Hague, The Life and Work of John Wycliffe, 94

[2] Dove, The First English Bible, 6; Matthew Spinka, John Hus’ Concept of the Church, 296-297.

[3] Timothy Paul Jones, How We Got the Bible, 130

[4] Desiderius Erasmus, The Correspondence of Erasmus: Letters 1 to 141, 1484-1500, 252.

[5] John Foxe, The Book of Martyrs, 1857, 258-259.

[6 ] Andrew Edgar, The Bibles of London, 59-60.

[7] John Foxe, The Book of Martyrs, 264.

Salvation in Christianity Vs. Salvation in Buddhism

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Melissa Dougherty

“Buddhism has much more to offer than Christianity does!”

“How do you figure? What you’re suggesting is impossible. It’s unattainable. Isn’t that the point?”

I was listening to two of my friends have a lively conversation about their beliefs, and that last sentence stopped my first friend cold in his words. He hadn’t thought of it like that before. Like many religions in the world, Buddhism has a moral, ethical and philosophical system that allows for many good works, and some promise a sort of “salvation” at the end. In this case, Nirvana is the ultimate goal for those practicing Buddhism.

Before I go on, I want to concede that there are many different sects of Buddhism that people ascribe to. For this reason, I will cover the religion’s main points that would be applicable for someone to call themselves a “Buddhist.”

What is Buddhism?

When someone thinks of Buddhism, they might think of a statue of a man with a big belly. Others might think of the story of its founder, Siddhartha Guatama, and the lessons he taught. Born in 600 B.C in Nepal, he sought a more simple life and devoted his life for a time to self-deprivation. Following a strict lifestyle standard, he sought enlightenment by adhering to intense meditation and extreme humility. The story goes that after he had “indulged” by having a bowl of rice, he went to meditate under a fig tree. He said he would stay there meditating until the end of his life or until he reached enlightenment. When morning came, he claimed to have achieved this goal. This was when he became the “Buddha.”

Buddhism is diverse and can be atheistic, pantheistic, or even nihilistic. Some might mistake Buddhism and Hinduism as being the same, but they are very different if not opposed in many ways to one another. There are universal beliefs that unite it as being under the umbrella of “Buddhism.” Many people admit that Buddhism’s teaching about salvation is somewhat nonsensical. The average person has to do a lot of mental gymnastics to wrap their head around the teachings. Buddha taught that salvation is obtained by letting go of all attachments and the release of the cycle of reincarnation. The goal is Nirvana. What Nirvana specifically is depends on which teacher you ask. It’s neither existence nor nonexistence, uncaused, and is the ultimate goal after enlightenment. Obtaining Nirvana means ultimate detachment and an ending to all suffering.

The Four Noble Truths

Siddhartha Guatama claimed to have discovered a “middle way,” a balance to live. According to him, enlightenment is not achieved by extremes. You cannot live in luxury or self-denial. He also discovered what’s called the Four Noble Truths. They are: 1- to live is to suffer. 2- Suffering is caused by attachment or desire. 3- You can eliminate suffering by eliminating all attachments. 4- This is achieved by following the Eightfold Path. According to the Buddha, the goal of ridding yourself of attachment can be attained only through a rigorous life of concentrated effort in following the Noble Eightfold Path, which is 1- the right view—understanding the truths of existence. 2- the right intention— being willing to achieve enlightenment. 3- the right speech. 4- the right action. 5- The right livelihood (being a monk.) 6- the right effort. 7- Proper meditation. 8- the right concentration— maintaining continuous focus.

This is a full-time effort. No pressure.

Buddhism Compared to Christianity

The basic formula in Buddhism is as follows: To live is to suffer. Suffering is caused by attachment. To eliminate suffering, eliminate attachment. Eliminate attachment by following the Eightfold Path. Sin is seen as ignorance, ultimately, and there’s a disconnect between the depravity of human beings. Jesus is seen as one of the Buddha’s, or an incarnation of “Christ Consciousness,” which the Buddha supposedly exhibited himself. They both were enlightened and taught us spiritual truth. It really comes down to that Buddhism is a philosophy that focuses on the way to live to become enlightened.

When people say that all religions in the world are the same, but we just worship God differently, it shows that they might not know a lot about religion, especially Buddhism. There is an uncompromising difference between these two belief systems, no matter how much people want to syncretize them. Christianity is opposed to Buddhism in almost every way, except perhaps the understanding that suffering is a problem. In Christianity, there are many beliefs that depart from Buddhism. Sin is part of human depravity. We need a Savior that was prophesied about in the Old Testament, trusting in Jesus for this salvation, evil is real, people are not “good,” God is personal, truth and reality exist, and there is an afterlife. Salvation in Christianity is exclusive, specifically in the atoning work on the cross. Jesus is not an Ascended Master, or “one of many Buddhas or Messiahs” as some New Age teachers would imply. The Bible, the historical document that records Jesus’ life, contradicts this idea.

There also seems to be a disconnect from ultimate reality within Buddhism that is in total disagreement with the teachings of Christianity. The teachings of Jesus are tethered to a tangible reality, whereas the teachings within Buddhism are contradictory. For example, the whole goal of Buddhism is to obtain Nirvana by letting go of all attachments. But isn’t the very thought and devotion to Nirvana an attachment in and of itself? Isn’t striving for enlightenment an attachment? Beyond that, there are many more self-defeating beliefs. It’s interesting to see how and why Buddhism holds silencing of the mind in such reverence: I would submit that critically thinking about these ideas defeats them

The Main Problem for Buddhism

Buddhism can offer many things to humanity, but one major flaw is that it cannot offer truth. If it cannot provide truth, it cannot offer you salvation. Truth is what corresponds to reality. If our beliefs do not correspond to reality, then they must be false. Suppose all suffering is caused by attachment, and to reach “salvation” is to release from all attachment by following the Eightfold Path. In that case, this is really no different than a works-based religion that leaves us empty and wondering why we’re not spiritual enough. Nirvana supposedly cannot be taught but only realized. If a Buddhist believes that Jesus obtained this, it would be interesting to see how it happened and compare it to what they have been taught about enlightenment. Gnostic teachings are closer to Buddhism than Christianity or anything that Jesus taught.

Ultimately, the practices of Buddism are unattainable. This is precisely why Jesus came.

If we’re to be looking at the world through the lens of suffering and why it’s here, then it would seem that Christianity, by far, has the best explanation for why this is the case. For the Buddhist seeking enlightenment, their life is devoted to seeking this out, and they are given impossible odds for it to be achieved. It’s only in trusting in Jesus’ work on the cross, knowing that it can never be obtained is when anyone will truly find the freedom that they have been seeking their whole life.

Footnotes

[1] Winfried Corduan, Neighboring Faiths: A Christian Introduction to World Religions, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity, 2012), chap. 10, Kindle.

[2] Eckhart Tolle, The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment, (Vancouver CA: Namaste Publishing, 2004), pg 68.

[3] Walter Martin, Kingdom of the Cults, 6th Ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2019), pg 511.

Truth, Perception, and Reality

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian G. Chilton

Is truth found in personal perceptions or is it grounded in an independent transcendent reality? Multiple businesses and even churches have used the phrase “perception is reality” when referencing the importance of meeting customer needs. If a customer feels that he or she is not getting the service they expect, then their perception of the received service will lead them away from the business in question. While it is not the intent of this author to endorse or condemn a business or church’s employment of such a phrase, as one who is theologically and philosophically inclined, every statement and concept must be tested. Thus, it must be asked, does a person’s views of a certain activity and/or thought make that belief real or even true?

The phrase found its origin in political strategist Lee Atwater who worked for the George Bush, Sr. political campaign in 1988. Atwater, who died from brain cancer three years after devising the phrase, helped Bush reclaim a 17-point deficit to win the 1988 Presidential election.[1] Atwater held that if one could lead the populace to believe something as true, then that person’s perception of the truth becomes reality to that group. Thus, it mattered less about what was true than what people thought was true.

Others have furthered Atwater’s assessment to claim that perception means more than reality.[2] That is, a person’s belief about what is true matters more than what is actually true. If the statement is understood correctly, then it seems to be a situation in which truth is altered to meet the needs of the one promoting a certain perception. But is this not the same as promoting a falsehood?

This article is not intended to be political. As such, it does not endorse any political party or candidate. The only reason political persons were mentioned is that the phrase found its origin in politics. As previously noted, the article does not intend to disparage anyone who has used the phrase. However, the seeker of truth must ask whether the logic of the phrase holds philosophically, as the philosopher questions everything.

Sure, wars have been fought and political agendas have been set because of the perception of a person or group of people. But do those perceptions automatically ensure that the promoted perception matches reality as it truly exists? Surely, the perceptions of Hitler and radical extremist groups do not match reality. Furthermore, does this not cause the nature of reality to become dependent on what one thinks rather than what actually is? There are quite a few logical problems with the phrase, many more than I assumed when I first started my investigation.

There are two camps in this debate: reality-over-perception (that is, reality holds greater importance than a person’s perception) versus perception-over-reality (that a person’s perception of truth matters more than what exists in space and time). The reality-over-perception theory is seemingly the preferable viewpoint. As we examine the debate, let us first define what reality and perception are. Then, we will need to draw distinctions between the two entities before showing why reality, in fact, matters more than perception rather than vice versa. Finally, we will issue a warning of what could come when perceptions are elevated over truth and reality.

The Nature of Reality and Perception

The core issue at hand is what makes something true. Is truth something that is external to a person? Or is truth relative and found within a person’s belief system? This is the crux that forms the primary distinction between the reality-over-perception theory and Atwater’s perception-over-reality theory. What is truth? The answer shapes how one responds to the debate.

Truth (i.e., reality) is best defined by Aristotle who wrote, “To say that what is is not, or that what is not is, is false; but to say that what is is, and what is not is not, is true; and therefore also he who says that a thing is or is not will say either what is true or what is false.”[3] In other words, truth is that which corresponds with external realities. Thus, truth is transcendent. It exists outside of a person’s opinion and desire. If a person claims that the sky is red when the wavelengths match the color that is identified as blue, then it cannot be said that the person is speaking the truth. Comparably, a student who claims that 5 + 5 = 15 is most assuredly wrong despite their convictions to the otherwise.

In contrast, perception is how a person perceives reality through the lens of their sense experience. Philosophically, this includes a concept known as the qualia, which is defined as “the aspects of your sensations—the way things look, feel, smell, taste, and sound.”[4] A person’s qualia may differ according to their experience of reality. For instance, some Protestants cheer the work of Martin Luther as he led the Protestant Reformation of the 1500s. In stark contrast, some Catholics abhor his work, believing that he unnecessarily split the church. The beliefs of each group impacted the perception of their qualia and vice versa.

Why the Transcendent Nature of Reality Trumps Perception

To recap, truth is a transcendent reality that exists beyond the scope of a person’s experience, while a person’s perception is how an individual or group interprets their qualia. However, reality, by necessity, supersedes individual perception because of the nature of truth.

Previously, the color of the sky was given as an example. Some may argue that a person with regular vision may see colors to one degree, whereas those who are color blind perceive the color in a different hue. Thus, it may appear that each person’s qualia is different. The argument is not as strong as taken at first glance, because even though the color is perceived differently, the wavelength of the color in question remains the same. So, even if one person’s qualia led the person to believe that a color is purple when in fact it is blue, the wavelength of the color in question is the same even though perceived differently.

Another example given concerned the Protestant Reformation. While some Protestants and Catholics view the work of Luther and the Reformation differently, the common transcendent reality was that Luther and other Reformers led the movement in the 16^th century. A person’s perception of the event does not change the historical realities found in Luther’s work and other Reformers of the time.

Lastly, you have probably heard the philosophical puzzle of a tree in a forest. If a tree fell in the wilderness, would it make a sound even if no one was present to hear it? Because of the workings of physics, soundwaves are created when vibrations are passed through mediums such as air or water. Thus, the crashing of a felled tree would create the vibrations necessary to create a sound regardless of how few hearers are there to audibly receive the vibrations. Even if no one is present, the actualized vibrations would create the potential for hearing. As these exercises show, reality is not dependent on personal perception. Instead, a person’s perceptions are based upon the external reality experienced.

The Consequences of Elevating Perception Over Reality

If people begin elevating perception over reality, then the basis by which science and historical studies are conducted are demolished. No one could ever postulate what occurred prior to the present time and no scientific advancements could be made as everything would become personal preference. The healthcare industry would suffer as each person could claim that they do not have a disease even though the evidence suggests that he or she does. Then, the person would not receive the treatment that could cure the disease that he or she does not believe exists.

Theologically, faith matters would then become a matter of self-invention rather than encounters with the divine. Self-deluded cult leaders could then persuade countless individuals to do reprehensible things for the leader. The leader would argue that his perception is true even if reality does not support his claims. People could never be held accountable for crimes, and judges could never convict criminals. In literature, the author’s intent is replaced by the reader’s misconceptions, and so on. Diminishing the external reality of truth creates a slippery slope that leads to a host of problems.

Conclusion

Truth matters. Truth grounds and establishes us. Jesus noted the freeing nature of truth, stating that “the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). [5] It is understood why businesses and churches gravitate toward the phrase. Because these institutions want to create the best experience for their customers, and rightfully so. The intention behind the phrase is justified and understandable. However, the philosophical connotations of the phrase are quite troubling. Therefore, I propose that we should replace the phrase perception is reality with the phrase perception is a personal view of reality. In this way, the nature of truth is not diminished and the importance of the person’s perception of reality is also emphasized. The provider of a service will want to afford the best experience possible for his or her customers. But there is too much at stake to eliminate the value of truth itself.

Footnotes

[1] Simon Kelner, “Perception is Reality: The Facts Won’t Matter in Next Year’s Election,” Independent.co.uk (Oct. 14, 2014),

[2] “Perception is more important than reality. If someone perceives something to be true, it is more important than if it is in fact true. This does not mean that you should be duplicitous or deceitful, but don’t go out of your way to correct a false assumption if it plays to your advantage.” Ivanka Trump, The Trump Card: Playing to Win in Love and Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009), Kindle.

[3] Aristotle, Metaphysics 1011b25, in Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vols.17, 18, Translated by Hugh Tredennick. (Medford, MA: Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd., 1933, 1989), Logos Bible Software.

[4 ] Edward Feser, Philosophy of Mind (London, UK: Oneworld, 2006), 15.

[5 ] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman, 2020).

Why God Does Not Need Praise

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

Christians claim that God is a perfect Being. By perfect, of course, we mean that God has every possible attribute in an infinite and complete way. In other words, God possesses everything, lacks nothing and needs…nothing. Why then, the skeptic will often counter, does this Being that needs nothing need praise? Doesn’t God demand that we praise and worship Him? A perfect being shouldn’t want for anything, including the worship of its creation. Right?

The question can be restated in the form of an argument denying that the God of the Bible is perfect. It would go like this:

• A perfect being has no needs and no wants.
• The God of the Bible needs and wants praise and worship.
• Therefore, the God of the Bible is not perfect.

Of course, a non-perfect “God” is a contradiction. This would lead to one of two conclusions: either God does not actually exist or the real God is not the God of the Bible. Either way, the Christian loses.

The value in restating the question lies in the clarification it brings to the skeptic’s assumptions. The syllogism set forth is logical. If in fact the God of the Bible needs and wants praise and worship, he could not rightly be viewed as perfect. The problem with the challenge is not the implied logic; no, the problem is that the assumption about God – that he both needs and desires praise – is false. The God of the Bible has no such desire. Instead, because he is the perfect Being, God rightly expects praise and worship from us lesser, imperfect beings, his creation.

To see why, one must first spend a moment considering what “praise” and “worship” entail. To “praise” is to express approval or admiration. It derives from the verb “to prize,” or in other words, to highly value something. To “worship” derives from “worth” and means to revere or to adore. To “revere” means to regard with awe, an overwhelming feeling of fear or admiration produced by that which is grand, sublime or extremely powerful. These concepts all boil down to the same basic thought: praise and worship are a recognition and expression of awe in the presence of something great.

In considering praise and worship, two things become apparent:

1) To be meaningful, praise and worship must be freely given. They are the human mind’s natural response to witnessing or experiencing something marvelous or amazing. You simply cannot force someone to experience such feelings. As is true of love, such feelings cannot be the result of coercion, for to coerce someone by threat, or by promise of reward, to give praise or to worship would deprive those things of any value or of meaning. One cannot be forced to admire or to feel awe.

2) Praise flows naturally from a recognition of greatness. Millions of people tune into the Olympics to marvel at the great skill and ability on display by the athletes in the arena. While the viewers may not recognize it, while they watch they no doubt feel a sense of awe at what they are witnessing. We have a term for this natural human response: it’s call hero-worship and just about everyone experiences it. From early childhood, most people will gravitate to someone who embodies for them qualities, capacities, or abilities that they admire and esteem. This human response occurs even if the viewer refuses to convey praise to the person they are watching, or where they actually dislike what is on display. For example, a viewer may dislike the Blue Angels for being militaristic, but contemplating the great skill required to control high performance aircraft travelling inches apart at near supersonic speeds would still result in a feeling of awe; the performance of the pilots is no small feat. The mastery of self and jet and the ability to perform generate awe. Similarly, some fans may dislike overpaid baseball players yet still admire the ability required to hit a curving ball travelling toward the batter at 90 miles per hour. In both cases, the viewer can refuse to give praise but the recognition of “greatness” in the performance will evoke a feeling of admiration.

Recognizing what praise and worship involve, it is apparent that no person – certainly not a perfect one – would demand it. It simply does not work this way. Review the pages of the Bible, and you will see that God does not demand praise and worship to fulfill some need of His. Where those concepts are discussed, they are the words and exhortations of other people talking about God. But God does expect our worship and praise. Of course He does, for that is indeed what we should feel when we contemplate Him.

This point bears emphasis. God knows the way things really are. His self-assessment of his infinite perfection is accurate. Such perfection is worthy of praise and awe and reverence from those lesser, limited being which he created. For God to think otherwise would not be humility, but error. Having no limitations, God rightly expects that we view him in the correct way, the only way that conforms to reality. Consequently, whatever attributes a person finds worthy of praise, God possesses these in infinite measure. Getting one’s mind around the immensity of a perfect God – of the utter overwhelming greatness that he possesses – one would necessarily be overcome with awe, fear and reverence. Whether we “like” Him or rebel against Him, our urge to praise and worship Him flow naturally from a recognition of His infinite greatness. If we could see God clearly, without our innate urge to selfishness and rebellion, we would naturally feel infinite “hero worship” for the greatest of all possible beings.

Now add to this the fact that God created us from nothing. He offers us the opportunity for union with Him, the chance to partake in His eternal loving relationship. When we begin to think deeply about the notion of what living eternally in the presence of perfection will be like, we will naturally, as a recognition of the proper order of things, gush praise and worship, and love. This is what the Bible is capturing when it speaks of the need – our need – to give praise and worship to God.

For those looking in from the outside, this will make little sense. They will mock our rituals of prayer, worship and adoration as primitive things, forced upon us by a jealous and angry god. For they do not yet understand. They have closed their minds to Godly things. Think of it this way: a person encounters a scuba diver for the first time. Watching him ascend a set number of feet and then stop for a period may seem quaint. The observer might imagine that the diver is saying prayers to the gods or partaking in some other primitive ritual. But the diver knows better. Understanding the workings of nature – that rising too quickly will result in that dangerous condition known as the bends – he periodically stops his ascent to comply with the natural order of things. It may seem like silly ritual to the uninformed, but to one with actual knowledge of the way things really are, it is indispensable. It is something he must do to remain in sync with the natural order of things.

So too with eternal matters. While our prayers and beliefs and rituals may seem foolish to the secular world, they are in fact a proper recognition of the “worth”ship of God. We bend our knees voluntarily to His sublime excellence, for it too is the natural order of things.

Is the Law of First Mention a Proper Biblical Hermeneutic?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

Recently, Curtis Evelo (Bellator Christi Podcast co-host) told me about a conversation he had with an individual about biblical interpretation. Apparently, the individual held that the wine that Jesus miraculously brought forth out of water in John 4 was merely unfermented grape juice. When asked why he held this view, he contended that to hold that the wine held fermented content was to argue that Jesus was a sinner because wine is said to be a mocker in Proverbs 20:1. Curtis asked him what this had to do with Jesus’s miraculous transformation of water into wine. The unnamed individual then said that he used the law of first mention. According to the law of first mention, the interpreter first examines the initial place where the term or doctrine is taught in the Scripture. Then, the initial usage of the term and/or doctrine serves as a guideline for interpreting other subsequent passages that teach on the issue.

Let me first say that in all my biblical hermeneutics courses, I have never heard of the law of first mention. I have had some world-class instructors who can read the Bible in its original languages without a translation in hand. To my knowledge, they never mentioned such a law of biblical interpretation. There is simply no good reason to follow the law of first mention for the following reasons. As an aside, the issue concerning the Christian’s use of alcohol is a highly controversial topic. We simply do not have space to deal with the ethical ramifications of alcohol use. For the purposes of this article, we are merely examining the efficacy of the law of first mention, or the lack thereof.

The Law of First Mention Fails to Engage the Individual Text

The first problem with the law of first mention is that the tactic fails to consider the literal interpretation of each biblical text. Considering the topic at hand, earlier texts really do nothing to assist the interpreter with engaging whether a historical event occurred or not. Earlier teachings may assist with understanding the thought process behind a text in question. But it cannot overrule other factors such as social practice and norms, extra-biblical historical events, word studies, and other social matters that come into play. Furthermore, the historical context of the first mention must also be an issue of investigation, as one must remember that the modern interpreter is separated from the biblical times by at least 2,000 years—more like 4–6,000 years from the Old Testament eras. Additionally, the writings of Scripture are not necessarily in chronological order. So, determining when something was first uttered may be far more complex than originally held.

The Law of First Mention Fails to Accommodate Theological Complexities

Second, the law of first mention does not consider the theological complexities found in Scripture. Without considering various theological issues, one may adopt all kinds of absurdities. For instance, the first two instances where wine is mentioned in the Bible come in the book of Genesis. The first reference is in Genesis 9:21, where it is said of Noah that “He drank some of the wine, became drunk, and uncovered himself inside the tent” (Gen. 9:21) [1]. Does this then imply that each believer should drink wine, become drunk, and uncover oneself? Certainly not! Obviously, this is not what Curtis’s friend was trying to imply.

The second mention is no better for his cause, for it says, “Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine; he was a priest to God Most High” (Gen. 14:18). This is of no help when trying to understand whether Jesus’s wine was fermented or not. Thus, as one can tell, the law of first mention fails to account for the theological complexities of the text. The first instance serves as a warning of a life that strayed from God, whereas the second shows the gift that Melchizedek gave to Abraham, which may have included fermented wine.

Does this then indicate that everyone should drink wine? Of course not! Because other texts serve as warnings, exhorting individuals to avoid drunkenness (i.e., Prov. 23:20; Isa. 5:22; Gal. 5:19–21; Eph. 5:18). Yet this shows the ineptitude of the law of first mention when used alone. The law of first mention would seem to indicate that everyone should drink wine and get drunk if the case of Noah is used; but as the specified texts suggest, this is not the case.

Finally, the law of first mention fails to account for the gradual betterment of each subsequent covenant. If one accepts the law of first mention, then the old covenants are inherently better than the newer covenants. However, the new covenant in Christ is superior to all previous covenants. The writer of Hebrews states, “By saying a new covenant, he has declared that the first is obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old is about to pass away” (Heb. 8:13). Not only does the author note that the new covenant is better than the covenants of old, but he also proclaims that the new has made the old obsolete. Therefore, this poses a major difficulty for the law of first mention, as it shows that there may be times when the new supersedes the old. Yes, the new covenant is indeed built upon concepts found in previous covenants. However, the new covenant does not require animal sacrifices, rituals, or the keeping of certain holidays. Rather, it is built upon the sacrifice of Christ himself. The believer is no longer under the law of old. He or she is under the law of grace. The new covenant’s supersession of the old creates a cataclysmic problem for the law of first mention.

The Law of First Mention is Based on a Logical Fallacy

Finally, the law of first mention is seemingly built upon a logical fallacy known as the fallacy of antiquity or the fallacy of tradition. The fallacy of antiquity is a false belief that holds that something must be better if it is older. This is the opposite of what is known as the fallacy of novelty, which holds that something must be better if it is new.

Suppose a person argues that original video games are better than modern video games. If this were so in all cases, then the paddle game Pong would be better than recent sports games, since it is the very first video game developed. However, Pong can in no way match the complexities and graphics found in modern games. For instance, being a football fan, I love the Madden football series. There is no comparison between Pong and the Madden series, as Madden adds realistic graphics, color commentary, and the opportunity to call numerous plays. In contrast, Pong allows you to move a white bar on a black screen to toss a white ball to an opponent who repeats the process. It could be that some aspects of older games are better than newer games. [2] But it is a hard sale to claim that all older games are better than all newer ones.

Another misconception people hold is that times were always better in the 50s and 60s than in modern times. However, one often does not consider the racial tensions of the 50s. If a person was black and lived in some sectors of the South, then the 50s were exponentially worse than modern times. Thus, this view shows the difficulties associated with an appeal to antiquity. The reality is that such a claim is not always true. The law of first things appears to be guilty of the same fallacy. Accepting the first mention of an issue in the Bible as the linchpin for all future references is nothing more than adopting the fallacy of antiquity.

Conclusion

The law of first mention fails as a proper hermeneutic on several fronts. First, it does not adequately handle the hermeneutical complexities of each passage at hand. Second, it fails to examine the theological intricacies throughout the totality of Scripture, especially when concerned with the supremacy of the new covenant over the old. Finally, the law of first mention is built upon the logical fallacy known as the appeal to antiquity. With all this noted, one may still find some benefits in studying the first place where an idea or word is used in Scripture. Some have found it beneficial to examine the first time that the term “light” is used in Genesis. Nevertheless, such a practice should never be used in isolation. It should always accompany linguistic, historical, and theological depths to find authorial intent. The goal of biblical interpretation is to understand what the author is trying to communicate to his/her reader. As such, the law of first mention does not assist in this endeavor and can lead to absurdities if pressed too far.

Footnotes

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman, 2020).

[2] One case being where old hockey games would allow you to shove a player into his team’s bench and allowed you to shatter the glass if you were to hit the puck just right. But does this indicate that the overall game is better? Probably not.

No, Martin Luther Was Not a Deconstructionist

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Alisa Childers

This article is in response to this piece from The Gospel Coalition. As a past TGC contributor, as an act of good faith, I did express my concerns directly to TGC before posting my article here.

**Update** The Gospel Coalition was gracious to publish a condensed version of my article on their site.

No, Martin Luther Was Not a Deconstructionist. And neither was Jesus.

Many years ago, my Christian beliefs were challenged intellectually by a progressive Christian pastor. It threw me into deconstruction that took several years to fully come out of. I would find out later that he himself had already deconstructed and had hoped to propel his congregation into deconstruction so he could convert them to progressive Christianity. He was very good at it. In fact, he was almost totally successful. A few of us came back around to a historically Christian understanding of the gospel, but most did not.

Because of this, when “deconstruction stories” started popping up in my social media newsfeed, along with hashtags like #exvangelical and #deconstruction, I paid attention. I’ve been following along… seeking to understand what people mean by those words.

I witnessed a hashtag turn into a movement.

As of today, there are 293,026 posts on Instagram utilizing the hashtag #deconstruction. The vast majority are from people who have either deconverted from Christianity, become progressive Christians, embraced same-sex marriage and relationships, rejected core historic doctrines of the faith,and/or are on a mission to crush the white Christian patriarchy. There are a few photos of deconstructed clothing (apparently this is a thing?) and a scant few sneaky posts from evangelicals attempting (mostly unsuccessfully) to convince the deconstructors that Jesus is the way. A plethora of insults, mockery, and anger are hurled at the church, along with memes stating, “I regret saving myself for marriage,” and “Good morning! It’s a great day to leave your nonaffirming church.”

Online, there are countless deconstruction therapy and counseling sites which will facilitate your deconstruction and reconstruct you with mindfulness or the contemplative practices of progressive Christian favorites like Richard Rohr. There are conferences you can attend, one for which I personally paid good money (for research purposes) to be taught how to break free from toxic religion, reject Christian dogma, and learn to embrace what basically added up to warmed-over Buddhism.

Phil Drysdale, a deconstructed Christian and deconstruction researcher asked people on Instagram to name the accounts that have helped them through their deconstructions. A quick scroll reveals that the leaders and guides the vast majority are looking to are accounts/people like Lisa Gungor, Audrey Assad, God is Grey, Jesus Unfollower, Your Favorite Heretics, Jo Luehmann, The Naked Pastor, and a plethora of others dedicated to providing a space for Christians to examine, reinterpret and/or abandon their beliefs. None of these accounts are encouraging Christians to look to Scripture as the authority for truth.

My Kingdom for a Definition

In my book, Another Gospel: A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth in Response to Progressive Christianity, which chronicles my own deconstruction journey, I define deconstruction this way:

In the context of faith, deconstruction is the process of systematically dissecting and often rejecting the beliefs you grew up with. Sometimes the Christian will deconstruct all the way into atheism. Some remain there, but others experience a reconstruction. But the type of faith they end up embracing almost never resembles the Christianity they formerly knew.

I would add that it rarely retains any vestiges of actual Christianity.

Over the past year or so, it has become common for Christian leaders to begin to refer to deconstruction as something potentially positive. I get it. When I first heard that take, I thought, “Hmmm. That could work. Just deconstruct the false beliefs and line up what you believe with Scripture.” I was operating from the foundational belief that objective truth exists and can be known. But as I continued to study the movement, this understanding of deconstruction became untenable.

That’s because the way the word is most often used in the deconstruction movement has little to do with objective truth, and everything to do with tearing down whatever doctrine someone believes is morally wrong. Take, for example, Melissa Stewart, a former Christian now agnostic/atheist with a TikTok following of over 200k. She describes how lonely and isolated she felt during her own deconstruction, and how discovering the #exvangelical hashtag opened up a whole new world of voices who related with what she was going through. Her TikTok platform now gives her the opportunity to create that type of space for others. In an interview on the Exvangelical Podcast, she commented on the deconstruction/exvangelical online space:

My biggest experiences with it were people talking about what they went through—their stories—and it was very personal and it focused on the human beings who have come out of this, rather than on whether a certain kind of theology is right or wrong.

In my experience studying this movement, I think she nails it on the head. Deconstruction is not about getting your theology right. It’s built upon a postmodern-ish embrace of moral relativism. For example, if your church says a woman can’t be a pastor, the virtuous thing to do would be to leave that church and deconstruct out of that toxic and oppressive doctrine. Deconstructionists do not regard Scripture as being the final authority for morality and theology—they appeal primarily to science, culture, psychology, sociology, and history.

A Life of Its Own

Now, the narrative is evolving. I’m seeing more and more posts, including the previously mentioned Gospel Coalition article, that portray Martin Luther and even Jesus himself as deconstructionists. This, in my view, is inherently irresponsible. If deconstruction means nothing more than changing your mind, or correcting bad ideas, then I can say I deconstructed by switching from AT&T to Verizon. Martin Luther was trying to reform the church to get back to Scripture. This is most certainly not what the deconstructionists are doing. In most cases, the Bible is the first thing to go. And when people put Jesus in the deconstruction camp…it’s unclear whether they mean he deconstructed his own views or he deconstructed the views of others. Either way, it’s seriously problematic. Deconstruction is not an appropriate term to use in these contexts.

It’s as if all of the sudden no one knows what the word means anymore, and they are somehow trying to redeem it or co-opt it to represent something like changing your mind or reforming your faith. Some in the deconstruction movement will argue that the current iteration of deconstruction is not to be conflated with the postmodern philosophy of Jacque Derrida, who is often referred to as the “Father of Deconstruction.” But I’m not convinced. Ultimately, Derrida didn’t believe that words could be pinned down to singular meanings. James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose put it like this: “For Derrida, the speaker’s meaning has no more authority than the hearer’s interpretation and thus intention cannot outweigh impact.”[i]

Of course, for Derrida deconstruction had to do with text and words, not necessarily the dismantling of one’s faith. But it’s only a short jump from deconstructing the text of the Bible (which, I would argue, is typically the first stop on the path to deconstruction as it is manifesting today) to the complete unraveling of one’s orthodox Christian beliefs.

Here’s the irony. If we attempt to completely detach current deconstruction from Derrida and define it subjectively, we are literally deconstructing the word “deconstruction” a la Derrida. Why are we trying to co-opt a word and spin it into a positive? And if the meaning of the word deconstruction signifies any number of different things, at best we will be equivocating. At worst, we will have bought into the assumptions of postmodernism hook, line and sinker.

Matt Chandler is Right

Recent comments by Matt Chandler have made the rounds in which he characterized deconstruction as “the sexy thing to do,” hitting on the almost trendy type of cool factor the word now carries. Aside from giving the deconstructionists endless opportunities to make him the butt of their “Matt Chandler thinks I’m sexy!” jokes and memes, his comments (along with the recent comments by John Cooper of Skillet) have revealed that many Christians are using this one word in profoundly different ways. For example, Relevant magazine claims Chandler and Cooper have a “fundamental misunderstanding” of deconstruction. I disagree. I admit I’ve had a few quibbles with points Matt Chandler has made in recent years. But on this I think he understands something they don’t. He links deconstruction with the postmodernism of Derrida, and in a subsequent Instagram post, commented, “Deconstruction doesn’t mean doubt or theological wrestle or struggling through church hurt.” (All things he said he’s been through and has tons of mercy for.) I think he’s dead right.

We are Christians, and we should be deriving our vocabulary and categories from Scripture. I see nowhere in the Bible where anything like the current movement of deconstruction is promoted or condoned. I propose we leave it with Derrida and instead use biblical words and categories like doubt, reformation, discernment, and even sometimes, (gasp!) apostasy.

Let’s save deconstruction for what it presents itself to be. Here are some characteristics to look for if you think you might be deconstructing:

1. Some type of moral relativism is assumed, whether explicitly or implicitly. If Scripture is your authority, you are not deconstructing. That doesn’t mean you’re not struggling deeply with doubt, seeking healing from church abuse, or have profound confusion over what it means to be a Christian.

2. You are detaching from the body of Christ and seeking only the community of others who are also in deconstruction. If you are working through your doubts and questions in community with other believers, or at least have the intention of doing so, you are not deconstructing. Sometimes this will mean leaving an unbiblical church environment for a time, with the goal of finding a healthy one.

3. You are looking to non-Christian religious philosophies, history, or sociology—rather than Scripture— to determine authentic Christianity. Not that things like history and sociology are without merit, but if you are honestly seeking to derive your religious beliefs from Scripture, you are not deconstructing.

This doesn’t mean there’s no hope if you find yourself in actual deconstruction. Ten years ago, I found myself spiraling into deconstruction, and God in his unfathomable mercy and faithfulness led me out.

Let’s not Deconstruct Deconstruction

As Christians, we tend to protest when progressives and secularists take words and phrases like “love,” “tolerance,’ “biblical inspiration,” and “incarnation” and change the definitions to suit their preferences. Let’s not do the same with deconstruction.

Deconstruction has taken on a life of its own, and now is the time to be extremely careful to define our words accurately. After all, if the word means everything, then it means nothing, yet it carries the potential to suck unsuspecting Christians into a very dangerous vortex of ideas from which they might not return.