The prophesied king of Psalm 45
Stephen also believes that Psalm 45:2-7 implies that Christ pre-existed (or, at the very least, that these verses can’t be correctly understand unless one believes that Christ pre-existed, in accord with what the Arian believes to be a “later revelation”). However, we have good reason to understand this psalm as a prophecy concerning a then-future, fully human Jesus Christ. We also have good reason to think that Stephen’s doctrinal bias is driving his interpretation of this psalm (and that, if he wasn’t assuming that Christ already existed at the time this psalm was written, he would be far more likely to conclude that this psalm is a prophecy concerning a state of affairs that was, at the time the psalm was written, yet future).
Stephen’s first point is that, since David is “speaking to someone,” the one to whom he’s “speaking” must’ve existed at that time. But that’s simply not the case. One could, for example, write a letter to someone who doesn’t yet exist if one believes that they will exist at some future time. For example, a husband and wife who intend on becoming parents could write a letter to their future child (if one doesn’t think this example corresponds closely enough to what I think is going on in Psalm 45 – which I believe to be a prophecy of the then-future Messiah – then we could just say that the husband and wife were informed by God that they’re going to become parents).
Now, if we have good reason to believe that one concerning whom the psalmist was writing didn’t exist at the time he wrote, then we have reason to conclude that this is a prophecy (and that the psalmist was addressing the future Messiah as if he already existed). In fact, Stephen’s next point – which concerns the use of the “perfect type” (or the perfective aspect) of the verbs in Psalm 45 – actually supports the prophetic interpretation of this Psalm. For as any scholar of the Hebrew Scriptures worth his salt could tell you, the perfective aspect could be used to refer to a future completed action (and was commonly used for prophecy). This use of the perfective aspect is commonly known as the “prophetc perfect” (according to which a future event or state of affairs is viewed as so certain that it is spoken of as if it has already occurred). Here’s a link to a helpful article on this subject: The Prophetic Perfect.
Thus, in accord with the fact that prophecies are often expressed as if the events prophesied have already occurred (or are already occurring), we have good reason to believe that the psalmist was addressing a future King and referring to a future state of affairs that, at the time he wrote, were so certain to exist that he could write as if they already existed. And not only this, but we have good reason to believe that the psalmist did, in have a fully human king in mind throughout this psalm. Not only does the psalmist begin by stating, “I shall recite my compositions concerning the King” (which is key to understanding the prophecy), but it becomes more and more evident as the psalm goes on that the king concerning whom the psalmist was writing is very much a human king. In other words, the psalmist isn’t addressing a non-human celestial being here. He’s addressing someone who he clearly understands to be a future human king.
The psalmist is addressing a king who’s described as having a sword on his thigh, who will “ride forth,” whose arrows are being “whetted,” and beneath whom “peoples shall fall“ (with the King’s arrows piercing “the heart of his enemies”). He’s not only said to have a “throne” and a “kingdom,” but a scepter. His garments are said to be “myrrh and aloes and cassia,” and lutes are said to rejoice him “from ivory palaces.” “Daughters of kings” are said to be among his “precious ones,” with “the consort” being stationed at his right hand “with certified gold of Ophir.” I could keep going (and I encourage those reading to read the entire psalm for themselves), but I don’t think it’s necessary. One simply cannot read through Psalm 45 and conclude that that the psalmist was addressing – and believed he was addressing – a non-human celestial being (instead of a future human king).
What are the implications of this? Well, recall Stephen’s claim that, in order for the psalmist to have addressed (and make requests of) “the King” who is the subject of this psalm, this king had to have existed at the time that the psalmist wrote. Since the psalmist was clearly addressing (and making requests of) a human king of Israel, it would mean that Christ existed as a human king of Israel at the time the psalmist wrote. Stephen can’t “have it both ways.” He can’t insist that the one being addressed by the psalmist had to exist at that time in order for the psalmist to have addressed him, but that he wasn’t a human king of Israel at that time. For it’s a human king that the psalmist was addressing.
Stephen went on to object that “Just because Christ’s kingdom is future does not at all mean that Christ is future, but that His administration is (Eph. 1:10.) Notice, God has blessed Christ for the eon; the eon does not have to occur yet for the Person being spoken to to exist.”
Again, this prophecy is 100% about a certain human king of Israel, and the psalmist was addressing this human king as if he was already reigning as king over Israel, and engaged in the sort of activities in which human kings are engaged (including striking down his enemies).
Stephen went on to claim that “Christ’s ‘obedience’ is simply not on display in Ps. 45:7.” But Stephen’s belief that the state of affairs of which we read in Ps. 45:7 isn’t a reward for Christ’s obedience unto death only begs the question against the view with which he disagrees. His claim presupposes the view that Psalm 45 isn’t a prophecy about what was, at the time the psalm was written, a future state of affairs involving the risen and vivified “Man, Christ Jesus.” If – as I believe has been sufficiently demonstrated – this Psalm is a prophecy concerning Christ as the vivified, human King that he is, then we can conclude that “loving righteousness and hating injustice” refers to more than just Christ’s untested character.
For any created being, loving righteousness and hating injustice involves believing God and doing what is pleasing to him. And Christ’s love of righteousness and hated of injustice found its fullest expression in his faith-based obedience unto death. And his being subsequently “anointed by God with the oil of exultation beyond [His] partners” cannot refer to anything less than his being “wreathed with glory and honor because of the suffering of death” (Heb. 2:9), and thus being “seated at the right hand of the Majesty in the heights, becoming so much better than the messengers as He enjoys the allotment of a more excellent name than they” (Heb. 1:4).
“Yahweh said to my Lord”
Another verse to which Stephen has appealed in support of the Arian view of Christ is Psalm 110:1. In part one of my last response to Stephen, I wrote the following concerning this important verse:
“Among the Old Testament passages that provide us with a prophetic basis for what I consider to be the true “celestial understanding of Christ” is the very next passage to which [Stephen] draws our attention (i.e., Psalm 110). In this prophecy we read that Christ would be invited by Yahweh to sit at his right hand, and thus reside in the celestial realm where God sits enthroned. Similarly, it’s foretold in Daniel 7:13-14 that Christ would, at some future time, come to be in the presence of Yahweh in the celestial throne room.”
Remarkably, Stephen went on to object to what I wrote in his next response to me by stating that “Psalm 110 quite literally does not concern us with an unfolding of Christ’s celestial glory.” He then went on to refer to everything else in the prophecy that isn’t about Christ sitting at Yahweh’s right hand in heaven. In other words, in order for Stephen to object to the fact that Psalm 110 provides us with a prophetic basis for Christ’s celestial glory, he had to ignore the part of Psalm 110 where we read of Christ being invited by Yahweh to sit at his right hand in heaven (and which is the only part of Psalm 110 that I had in mind when I referred to the prophetic basis for a “celestial understanding of Christ”).
I’m honestly not sure why Stephen responded in this way. Perhaps he assumed that I’d hadn’t read the rest of the prophecy (but even if that’s the case, why would he also ignore the part of Psalm 110 where Christ’s present celestial position is in view?). Regardless of why Stephen responded the way that he did, it’s clear from what we read in Acts 2:32-36 that Peter understood Psalm 110:1 to have begun to be fulfilled after Jesus ascended to heaven:
“This Jesus God raises, of Whom we all are witnesses. Being, then, to the right hand of God exalted, besides obtaining the promise of the holy spirit from the Father, He pours out this which you are observing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, yet he is saying, ‘Said the Lord to my Lord, “Sit at My right Till I should be placing Thine enemies for a footstool for Thy feet.”’ Let all the house of Israel know certainly, then, that God makes Him Lord as well as Christ -- this Jesus Whom you crucify!”
In these verses, Peter was quoting Psalm 110:1 (“Yahweh said to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.’”). Thus, the first verse of Psalm 110 is, indeed, a prophecy that was fulfilled after Christ “was taken up into heaven” and came to be “seated at the right hand of God” (Mark 16:19).
In fact, every time Jesus’ present location at “the right hand of God” is referred to or alluded to in Scripture, we’re basically being reminded that Psalm 110:1 is being fulfilled.
For example, in 1 Peter 3:22, Peter (the same apostle who correctly understood Jesus’ ascension into the heavens and his being exalted to the right hand of God as initiating the fulfillment of Psalm 110:1) wrote that Jesus Christ “is at God’s right hand, being gone into heaven, messengers and authorities and powers being subjected to Him.” Clearly, Peter understood that Psalm 110:1 prophesied that Christ would, until his promised return to restore the kingdom to Israel, be residing in heaven in the glorious presence of God himself. But according to Stephen, “Psalm 110 quite literally does not concern us with an unfolding of Christ’s celestial glory.” Does Stephen not consider ascending to heaven and being seated at the right of God to involve “celestial glory”? Because I’m sure that Christ would disagree.
Now, Stephen doesn’t deny that Psalm 110 is a prophecy concerning events that were, at the time David wrote, future. Nevertheless, Stephen claimed the following in his first response to me:
“…though prophetic, [Psalm 110] begins with David recognizing his coming Messiah as his Lord, i.e. his Master. We are indeed discussing the coming kingdom, but Yahweh is certainly speaking to Someone – the word “averring” (n’um, in Hebrew,) does not imply anything, but to proclaim something to someone in declarative fashion.”
In response to this objection, I pointed out that, when David wrote this psalm, Yahweh had not yet declared the quoted words that are addressed to his risen and exalted Son (i.e., “Sit at My right Until I should set Your enemies as a stool for Your feet”). That is, the quoted declaration of Yahweh to Christ in Psalm 110:1 is itself part of what’s being prophesied by David (and therefore was, in David’s day, still future). I also pointed out that the declaration of Psalm 110:1 isn’t the only example in this psalm of a declaration by Yahweh to Christ that was, in David’s day, still future.
The same can be said regarding what we read in verse 4: “You are a priest for the eon according to the order of Melchizedek.” Although this statement is just as much in the present tense as the declaration found in v. 1, we know from the letter to the Hebrews that Christ didn’t become “a priest for the eon according to the order of Melchizedek” until after his death and resurrection. Indeed, as is made abundantly clear elsewhere in the letter to the Hebrews, Christ’s sacrificial death and subsequent resurrection to immortality was absolutely necessary to his qualifying for this unique priestly office (see Heb. 2:17-18; 5:4-10; 6:20; 7:11-28; 8:3-6; 10:11-14; etc.).
Thus, just as it wouldn’t be true to say that Christ was “a priest for the eon according to the order of Melchizedek” at the time when David wrote Psalm 110, so it wouldn’t be true to say that Christ was exalted and enthroned at God’s right hand as the highest-ranked being (under Yahweh) when this Psalm was written. Both Christ’s status as Melchizedekian priest and his status as the exalted Lord of Psalm 110:1 was based on, and the result of, Christ’s obedience unto death and subsequent resurrection by God (which, again, qualified him for his eonian priestly office, and made him worthy of his exalted position at God’s right hand). The exalted, heavenly position of Christ that’s prophesied by David in Psalm 110:1 (as well as by Daniel in Daniel 7:13-14) is the sequel – and not the prequel – to the earthly chapter of Christ’s life (the chapter that began with Christ’s supernatural conception and ended with his death on the cross).
In his second response to me, Stephen appears to have acknowledged the fact that the statement by Yahweh to Christ recorded in Psalm 110:1 was, in fact, a future statement in David's day (that is, at the time David wrote, Yahweh had not yet spoken these words to Christ). So I guess he realized that his first argument based on Psalm 110:1 in defense of the Arian view was indefensible. But there is another, related point that Stephen makes that he thinks still proves that Psalm 110:1 supports his view. Stephen writes:
David is calling Someone his Lord. Someone aside from Yahweh. Something that Jesus literally needed to point out to the Pharisees and go, “Hey, yeah, I’m the Lord David was taking ownership of!” Never have I ever heard something so incredulous as, “David has a Lord, but that Lord doesn’t actually exist yet, so he’s just, like, speaking of Him proleptically.” What kind of Back-to-the-Future nonsense is this?? How can David actually have his Lord, the Master which he serves, not actually exist??
In response to this objection, it’s impossible for Christ to have been David’s Lord when David wrote Psalm110:1. Scripture is clear that Christ’s status as David’s Lord was given to him after his death and resurrection. For example, Peter declared – after quoting Psalm 110:1 – that “God makes [Jesus] Lord as well as Christ” (Acts 2:34-36). When he said that “God makes [Jesus] Lord,” he was referring to the status/position that’s referred to in Psalm 110:1. Peter had this same status in mind when he later declared that Jesus “is Lord of all” (Acts 10:36-37). Jesus is David’s Lord now (and was David’s Lord when Peter spoke the words recorded in Acts 2) because he’s Lord of all. But when did God make Jesus Lord of all? Was Jesus Lord of all (and thus David’s Lord) during his earthly ministry? No.
To be Lord of all is to have authority over all (for as A.E. Knoch correctly notes, the title “lord” refers to “one who has authority over others,” and is “the opposite of slave”). Jesus became Lord of all when he was roused from among the dead and given “all authority in heaven and on the earth” (Matt. 28:18). Jesus didn’t have authority over all – and thus wasn’t the Lord of all (including the Lord of David) – until after his death and resurrection. Paul confirms this fact in Romans 14:7-9:
For not one of us is living to himself, and not one is dying to himself. For both, if we should be living, to the Lord are we living, and if we should be dying, to the Lord are we dying. Then, both if we should be living and if we should be dying, we are the Lord's. For for this Christ died and lives, that He should be Lord of the dead as well as of the living.
The implication of what Paul wrote in v. 9 is that Jesus wasn’t “Lord of the dead as well as of the living” before his death and resurrection. In addition to this fact, Paul’s words here also reveal that being Lord of all is the purpose for which “Christ died and lives” (this is indicated by the words, “For for this”). Notice, also, that Paul included Christ’s death as being just as necessary to his present Lordship as his life. In other words, it’s not just the case that Christ wouldn’t be Lord of all he wasn’t alive; it’s also the case that Christ wouldn’t be Lord of all if he hadn’t died. Thus, based on what we read in Romans 14:9, we can conclude the following: Since Christ died and lives to be Lord of all, it means that Christ died to become Lord of all.
It’s because of Christ’s obedience unto death that God “highly exalts [Christ], and graces Him with the name that is above every name” so that every other created personal being in the universe should bow down to him and acclaim “that Jesus Christ is Lord.” Since Christ became “Lord of the dead as well as of the living” (and thus “Lord of all”) after his death and resurrection, he couldn’t have been the Lord of David when David wrote Psalm 110:1.
As noted in part two of this series, this is another example of how the Arian view minimizes and distracts from Christ’s greatest glory (i.e., the glory that Christ has because of his obedience unto death), and the related exalted, preeminent position he now enjoys. Christ died to become Lord of all (including Lord of David). But according to the Arian view, Jesus (in a pre-existent state) was David’s Lord before he did what qualified him to become David’s Lord. But if Jesus was worthy of his exalted position as Lord of all before his life on earth began, then he didn't cease to be worthy of it when his life on earth began. And this means that it’s not because of his obedience unto death that he's now worthy of his exalted status as Lord of all.
The fact is that David was able to call someone “Lord” who wasn’t his Lord yet because he was referring to the future time when this person would be his Lord. In other words, David called Jesus “my Lord” in anticipation of the fact that, at the future time when the prophecy was fulfilled, the one to whom Yahweh would be speaking would, at that time, be David’s Lord. David was referring to what would be true when the prophecy he’s about to reveal was fulfilled.
This way of speaking shouldn’t be strange to the student of Scripture. God himself spoke this way when referring to people who didn’t exist yet. For example, in Malachi 3:1, we read that God declared the following concerning John the Baptizer:
“Behold Me sending My messenger, and he surfaces the way before Me.”
I doubt that, when Stephen reads this verse, he thinks the following to himself:
“How can Yahweh have a messenger – a man who ‘surfaces the way before’ Yahweh – who doesn’t actually exist? Never have I ever heard something so incredulous as, ‘Yahweh has a messenger, but that messenger doesn’t actually exist yet, so he’s just, like, speaking of him proleptically.’ What kind of Back-to-the-Future nonsense is this??”
Or consider the following from Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1-4 (and keep in mind the fact that these words were written approximately 200 years before Cyrus was born):
Saying as to Cyrus, ‘My shepherd,’ and ‘All My desire he will perform.’
Thus says Yahweh Elohim to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I hold fast, to sway over nations before him, and the waists of kings will I unloose, to open the doors before him, and the gates shall not be closed: “I, I will go before you, and mountains will I level. Doors of copper will I break, and bars of iron will I hack down. And I give to you treasures of darkness. And those buried in concealment will I open for you, that you may know that I, Yahweh Elohim, calling you by your name, am the Elohim of Israel. On account of My servant Jacob, and Israel, My chosen, I am calling to you by your name. I am titling you, yet you do not know Me.”
Here we find Yahweh calling Cyrus “My shepherd” (and Isaiah calling him “[Yahweh’s] anointed”) before Cyrus existed. And we go on to read of Yahweh declaring a number of things to this not-yet-existent man.
I doubt Stephen would consider what’s said in these verses to be some kind of “Back-to-the-Future nonsense.” If Stephen can understand how God could refer to a yet-to-be-born Persian king as “My shepherd,” then I’m sure Stephen can understand how David could refer to the yet-to-be-born Jewish Messiah (i.e., the man to whom Yahweh was going to be speaking in the future, and who would be David’s Lord at that future time) as “My Lord.”
If Yahweh could refer to someone who didn’t yet exist (but who was going to exist) as “my shepherd” – and if Isaiah could refer to him as “[Yahweh’s] anointed” – then there’s no reason why David, “in spirit” (Matt. 22:43), couldn’t refer to another man who didn’t yet exist (but who was going to exist) as “my Lord.” Under the inspiration of God’s spirit, David knew that the one to whom Yahweh would be speaking the words of Psalm 110:1 would, at that future time, be his Lord.
But just as we have no reason to think that David believed that the Lord to whom Yahweh would be speaking was already sitting at God's right hand (how could he be, when the prophesied declaration of Yahweh to Christ wasn't fulfilled until after Christ was roused?), so we have no reason to think that David believed that the Lord to whom the words of Psalm 110:1 would be spoken was already in existence. This is especially the case given the fact that, based on what we go on to read in Psalm 110, David would've understood that his (future) Lord would also be the promised Messiah (who David knew would be a human king – indeed, one of his descendants – and not a pre-existent, non-human celestial being).
The Root of Jesse
In his response to my remarks on Rev. 5:5 and 22:16 (where we read that Christ is referred to as, and declared himself to be, “the root of David”),[i] Stephen referred to Isaiah 11:1 and 10, and quoted some remarks by A.E. Knoch on these verses. Here’s how Isaiah 11:1 and 10 reads in the Berean Literal Bible:
A branch there will come forth from the stump of Jesse, and a fresh shoot from his roots will bear fruit…And in that day it will come to pass that the root of Jesse, which is standing, will be as a banner for the peoples; the nations will seek Him out, and His resting place will be in glory.
The Hebrew word translated “from the stump” is the word migēza‘. The first part of this compound word is a prefix that means “from” (or “out of”), while the second part of this word is the Hebrew noun geza. But what does “geza” mean? Job 14:8 can help us answer this question. For in this verse we find the same noun from which the word in Isaiah 11:1 is derived. Here’s how Job 14:7-9 reads in the CVOT:
For there is expectation for a tree: If it is cut down, then it may rejuvenate again, and its young shoots may not be halted. If its roots grow old in the earth, and its trunk-base seems to die in the soil, at the scent of water it shall bud, And it produces harvest branches like a plant.
In v. 8, the word translated “its trunk-base” is derived from the same noun used in Isaiah 11:1 (geza). However, in Isaiah 11:1, the noun is combined with the prefix “from,” while in Job 14:8 it’s combined with the possessive suffix “its” or “his.”
Significantly, in the immediate context of Isaiah 11:1, God’s judgment of Assyria is described using tree-felling imagery. In Isaiah 10:33-34 (just two verses before Isaiah 11:1), we read the following:
Behold, the Lord, Yahweh of hosts, will lop off the boughs with a terrible crash; those also who are high in stature will be cut in pieces and those who are lofty will be made low. He will cut down the thickets of the forest with an iron axe, and Lebanon will fall by the Mighty One.
In light of the immediate context, we can understand “the stump” (or “trunk-base”) that’s referred to in Isaiah 11:1 as the lower part of a tree that’s left in the ground after the tree has been cut down. That which is being represented here is the debased and degraded state of the Davidic dynasty. We know that the Davidic monarchy ended in 586/587 BC when Nebuchadnezzar conquered the Kingdom of Judah, destroyed the temple, and deposed King Zedekiah. So the imagery of a “stump” or “trunk-base” implies that the royal family of David had been “chopped down” by judgment (which occurred through the Assyrians and Babylonians), leaving only a remnant. The Davidic dynasty was like a lifeless “stump” of a once-mighty tree that had been cut down.
By using the name “Jesse” (i.e., David's father, who was never actually a king) rather than “David,” Isaiah was probably highlighting two related points: (1) that there would be a total absence of royalty in the house of David when the Messiah was born, and (2) that the Messiah would have humble origins (like Jesse) rather than being the son of a king (like David’s son, Solomon).
What’s referred to in Isaiah 11:1 as “a branch” (or, in the CVOT, “a twig”) refers to the then-future King who was going to come from Jesse’s lineage (and thus from the Davidic dynasty). The emergence of the “branch” or “twig” (Hebrew: choter) from the “stump of Jesse” depicts new and unexpected life from what appeared dead (the "stump" of "trunk-base").
The Hebrew word translated “fresh shoot” is netser. This word literally denotes a “shoot” from a plant. It’s used three times in Isaiah (11:1, 14:19, and 60:21) and once in Daniel (11:7). In Isaiah 14:19, the destruction of Babylon and her kings is compared to that of useless shoots or suckers (https://mgnv.org/plants/glossary/glossary-sucker/) that grow from the root of a plant or tree, but which are cut off by the farmer and thrown away. In Isaiah 60:21, the imagery is that of a seed that has been planted, germinated, and shot forth into a plant that can be seen. In Daniel 11:7 the word figuratively refers to a child of the parents of “the daughter of the king of the south” (i.e., a brother of the king's daughter).
In the CVOT the word netser is translated as “scion.” A “scion” – in a botanical sense, at least – is “a detached living portion of a plant (such as a bud or shoot) joined to a stock in grafting and usually supplying solely aerial parts to a graft” (Definition of SCION). In other words, a “scion” is a shoot from a plant that has been detached and then grafted in elsewhere. Thus, the word “scion” is more technical and specific than “shoot.”
I haven’t been able to find any conclusive evidence that the Hebrew word netser denotes anything other than a “shoot” that emerges from a plant. As far as I know, the only version in which netser is translated “scion” is the CVOT, and there doesn’t seem to be anything published by the Concordant Publishing Concern (including in Unsearchable Riches Magazine) in which a defense of the use of “scion” (rather than “shoot”) is provided.[ii] Only if one is assuming that the “netser” of which we read in Isaiah 11:1 was subsequently removed from the “roots” and then grafted in elsewhere can it be understood as a scion. But there’s no reason to assume this.
Knoch does comment on an expression found in Daniel 11:7 in which a similar expression as that found in Isaiah 11:1 occurs. In this verse we read the following concerning “the daughter of the king of the south”:
But out of a shoot from her roots shall one stand up in his place, who shall come unto the army, and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail. [iii]
As already noted, the word translated above as “a shoot” is netser. In Knoch’s remarks on this verse (as found on page 377 of his Concordant Studies in the Book of Daniel), Knoch doesn’t defend the use of the word “scion” as a translation of netser. Instead, Knoch wrote that the expression that’s translated “scion of her roots” in the CVOT “…speaks of the propagation of plants by shoots which spring from the roots, so that, even if the plant itself is cut off and cannot propagate, the scion will fulfill this purpose.”
Notice his reference to “shoots which spring from the roots” (emphasis mine). A “shoot” that springs from a root is precisely what’s in view in Isaiah 11:1. Both Daniel 11:7 and Isaiah 11:1 make perfectly good sense when netser is translated as “shoot.” In contrast, the word “scion” only needlessly complicates (and even obscures) what’s being represented. Instead of being a translation of netser, “scion” is an interpretation. The imagery in Isaiah 11:1 is simply that of a “branch” (or “twig”) emerging from “the stump of Jesse” and of a “fresh shoot” emerging from the “roots” of this “stump” (and not of a branch or shoot being detached from the plant and then grafted in elsewhere on the same plant). And this imagery represents a new King – i.e., Christ – coming forth from Jesse’s lineage (and thus resulting in the restoration of the royal Davidic dynasty).
In Isaiah 11:10 (which Paul quotes in Rom. 15:12), slightly different imagery is used. Rather than being figuratively depicted as a “fresh shoot from [Jesse’s] roots,” Christ is now depicted as “the root of Jesse.” But just as Christ has already been depicted as a new branch or fruit-bearing shoot coming forth from the roots of the “stump of Jesse,” so the implication is that the “root” that also represents Christ is a new root that has emerged from “the “stump of Jesse.” For in accord with what’s already been said in v. 1, “the stump of Jesse” already has “roots” (plural). So “the root” that Christ is being figuratively depicted as in v. 10 can only be a new root that has emerged from “the stump of Jesse” (just as Christ was previously depicted as a new “shoot” growing from Jesse’s “roots”). In fact, the only reason that one would think that Christ is being represented as a root that was present long before the emergence of the new fruit-bearing “shoot” from the “roots of Jesse” is that Christ pre-existed his human life (when he came forth as a descendent of Jesse).
It should be noted that, in Isaiah 53:2, we find similar “plant imagery” as that found in Isaiah 11:1, 10 (“For He grew up as a tender shoot before His face, and as a root out of a dry land”). However, in contrast with what’s said in Isaiah 53:2 – which emphasizes Christ’s dependency on his God and Father – the imagery in Isaiah 11:1, 10 is that of new life emerging from a lifeless (or near-lifeless) “stump” in the form of (1) a new fruit-bearing “branch/twig” or “fresh shoot” growing from the roots of the “stump” and (2) a new “root” that grows from the “stump” (and which “anchors” the tree and gives it its stability). So the idea that Christ pre-existed David’s father Jesse is completely absent from this text. One must already believe that Christ pre-existed his life on earth in order to be inclined to think (let alone conclude) that this idea is being revealed (or implied) in these verses from Isaiah.
Micah 5:2
One verse that Arians seem to find particularly compelling as a proof-text for their position is Micah 5:2 (Stephen J., for example, appealed to this verse at least twice in his responses to me). Here’s how this verse reads in the CVOT (https://studybible.info/CLV/Micah%205):
And you, Bethlehem Ephratah, inferior to be among the mentors of Judah, from you shall One fare forth for Me to become the Ruler in Israel; yet His farings forth are from aforetime, from days eonian.
We know that Bethlehem was not only the birthplace of Christ, but it was also the birthplace of Christ’s ancestor, David. It’s also evident that the period of time referred to in this verse as “aforetime” and “days eonian” can be understood as referring to the time of David. In Nehemiah 12:46, for example, the same word that’s translated “from aforetime” (qedem) is translated “of old” in the CVOT, and refers to the time of David and Asaph. This same word is translated as “of long ago” in Lamentations 5:21, and can also be understood as referring to the time of David. And in Amos 9:11, the same Hebrew expression that’s translated above as “days eonian” (i.e., yom olam) is translated “the days of the eon.” This period of time refers to the days in which David reigned as king of Israel.
With regard to the word translated “farings forth” (or “goings forth” in an earlier version of the CVOT), this is the Hebrew noun motsa’ot. It’s defined as follows: “Origin, source, place of going out, exit” (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4163.htm). This word is actually the feminine form of the word mowtsa' (which is defined as, “a place or act of going forth, issue, export, source, spring”; https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4161.htm). It’s derived from the verb yatsa (which means “to go out, to come out, to bring forth, to depart”). Besides Micah 5:2, the only other verse in which the feminine form of this word occurs is 2 Kings 10:27 (where it’s usually translated “latrine” or “draught-house” – i.e., “a place of going out”).
It’s worth noting that, in some English Bibles, motsa’ot is translated as “origins” or “origin” in Micah 5:2. Consider the following examples:
New American Standard Bible
“His origin is from antiquity, from ancient times.”
New Revised Standard Version
"...whose origin is from of old, from ancient days".
New International Version
"...whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."
God’s Word Translation
“His origins go back to the distant past, to days long ago.”
New English Translation
“…one whose origins are in the distant past.”
New American Bible
“…Whose origin is from of old, from ancient times.”
A more “loose” translation of the last part of Micah 5:2 is provided in the New English Bible and Good News Translation (where we read, “…whose roots are far back in the past, in days gone by,” and “…whose family line goes back to ancient times”). While these translations may be closer to the actual meaning that’s being expressed through the use of the word motsa’ot, I’m going to be assuming that “farings forth” in the CVOT is the most accurate translation of this word. So what, exactly, is being expressed here?
As noted earlier, the noun mowtsa' is derived from the verb yatsa (which means “to go out, to come out, to bring forth, to depart”). In Genesis 17:6, yatsa is used to refer to kings “going out of” (or “faring forth from”) Abraham:
“And I make of you nations, and kings from you shall fare forth.”
Here, the kings who were the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob are said to “fare forth” from Abraham. In other words, David and his royal descendants “fared forth” from Abraham (despite the fact that they were born centuries after Abraham lived and died).
In accord with this consideration, we know that a descendent of someone could be said to have been “in the loins of” his ancestor. In Hebrews 7:5, 9-10 we read the following:
And, indeed, those of the sons of Levi who obtain the priestly office have a direction to take tithes from the people according to the law, that is, their brethren even those who also have come out of the loins of Abraham…And so to say, through Abraham, Levi also, who is obtaining the tithes, has been tithed, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek meets with him.
According to what we read here, Levi “was still in the loins of” his “father” (i.e., great-grandfather) Abraham when Melchizedek met Abraham. And just as Levi was in the loins of Abraham while Abraham was alive, so Levi can be said to have “come out of the loins of Abraham” (or “out of the loin of Abraham” – the word translated “loins” here is singular), and thus to have “fared forth” from Abraham (despite the fact that Abraham died approximately 85 years before Levi was born).
Keeping this consideration in mind, we read elsewhere that God swore to David that he would “seat one on his throne” who is “out of the fruit of his loin” (Acts 2:30; cf. 2 Sam. 7:12-13). Although Jesus was conceived approximately 1,000 years after David died, Jesus is the one “out of the fruit of [David’s] loin” whom God promised to seat on David’s throne. This divine promise to David not only reveals the necessity of Christ’s being a descendant of David, but it also proves that Christ was in “[David’s] loin” when God swore to David (just as Levi was “still in the loins of [Abraham]” when Melchizedek met with Abraham). That’s the only way that Christ could be “out of the fruit of [David’s] loin” and “of the seed of David” (Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8). It is because Christ was in the loins of his father David that he could validly be referred to as “the Son of David” (Matt. 1:1). And since Christ himself – and not just his body – was “out of the fruit of [David’s] loin” (and was thus “the Son of David”), he couldn’t have existed before David. Christ – the one who is the Son of David – had to have come into existence when his body did.
Thus, when we read that the “farings forth” of the promised “Ruler in Israel” are “from aforetime, from days eonian,” we’re being told that his ancestral origin (or “line of descent”) can be traced back to David’s time (as is common in the Hebrew Scriptures, the use of the plural rather than the singular – i.e., “farings forth” – can be understood as being for the sake of emphasis). In other words, Christ – the promised “Ruler in Israel” – not only “fared forth” from the same city in which David was born (i.e., Bethlehem), but he “fared forth” from David as well. And since the man from whom Jesus “fared forth” as a royal descendent was “from aforetime, from days eonian,” Jesus’ “farings forth” can be said to be from this past time as well (just as it could be said that the “farings forth” of David are from the time of Abraham, since – in accord with God’s promise in Gen. 17:6 – David and his royal descendents “fared forth” from Abraham).
Part six: That Happy Expectation: An Antidote to Arianism: Part six
[i] Stephen rightly criticized my appeal to Rom. 1:3 and 2 Tim. 2:8 in support of my understanding that David was the implied “seed” from which “the root” that is Christ grew (as he points us, it’s “mixing metaphors” to conflate the “seed” of a plant with the “seed” that Paul had in mind in these verses). However, it should be noted that the same Greek word that’s translated “seed” in the CLNT (sperma) can be used to denote both semen (and, by implication, offspring) and the seed from which a plant grows (e.g., Matt. 13:24, 27, 32; 1 Cor. 15:38). The word simply means “that which is sown,” and – according to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon – refers to the seed “from which anything springs.” The same can be said for the Hebrew word for “seed” (zera). In fact, this word is used throughout Genesis 1 to refer to the seeds of plants before it’s later used to refer to human “offspring” in Gen. 3:15. Thus, ever since the Hebrew and Greek words for “seed” began to be used, they have referred to both the seeds from which plants (and, by implication, roots) grow, and that which results in the begetting of a child.
[ii] Perhaps A.E. Knoch’s use of the more technical term “scion” (rather than “shoot”) to translate “netser” is based on Isaiah 60:21. For it’s possible (but not certain) that there’s an allusion to grafting in this verse. But even if that’s the case, it in no way follows that the word netser has the more technical/specific meaning of “scion.” Every detached shoot used for grafting is, by definition, a scion. But not every shoot is a scion (most aren’t). If the shoot is still naturally attached to the plant from which it grew, it’s not a scion. It’s just a shoot (and is only potentially a “scion”). And while every detached shoot used for grafting can be referred to as a “shoot,” not every shoot can be referred to as “scion” (most can’t, for most aren’t scions). Thus even if the grafting process is being alluded to in Isaiah 60:21 (and again, this is debatable), it doesn't follow that the word means “scion” in this verse or elsewhere. It could still mean “shoot” (which is the simpler meaning). It’s the context – and not the meaning of the word netser – that indicates whether or not the shoot of which we read is also a “scion.”
[iii] The “daughter of the king of the south” referred to in Dan. 11:7 was likely Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt. In his commentary, Albert Barnes remarked on this verse as follows:
“The meaning is, that as a branch or shoot springs up from a tree that is decayed and fallen, so there would spring up some one of her family who would come to avenge her. That is, a person is indicated who would be of a common stock with her; or, in other words, if taken strictly, a brother.”
We know that Berenice’s brother (Ptolemy III Euergetes) succeeded his father as king of Egypt, invaded Coele Syria to avenge the murder of his sister, and then reigned in Syria with his mother Laodice (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ptolemy-III-Euergetes).
No comments:
Post a Comment