Isaiah 42:8 and Glory Not Shared

Asked on Quora: What is the meaning of Isaiah 42:8?

Isaiah 42:8 can be taken at face value.

I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images. (NASB)

Unfortunately, certain churches tack onto it meanings that violate the context. Those must be addressed.

There are sects that make a big deal about God’s name. The Hebrew Roots movement makes a fuss over saying Jesus’s name in Hebrew or Aramaic, and the Watchtower (Jehovah’s Witnesses) make a fuss over God’s name being Jehovah.

But Christianity is not a religion of sorcery that ascribes magical power to words and their pronunciation. The term Jehovah is a great example.

The word translated LORD is the Hebrew word YHWH. The letters are all consonants. The Hebrew had no vowels.

Compounding the problem of the Hebrew word lacking vowels, Jews were forbidden from pronouncing it, for it was too holy; so the original pronunciation is lost to time. The majority of scholars believe it was pronounced Yahweh. Notice that the W is pronounced as in Water, not like the V in Victor.

A few centuries before Christ, instead of saying YHWH, Jews would substitute Adonai, which means Lord. Fast forward a thousand years, let Roman Catholic monks substitute J for Y and V for H to make it compatible with Latin, and add the vowels from Adonai to make JHVH pronounceable, and then let the first printed English Bible transliterate the word into Jehovah instead of translating it, and you’ve got a new “name” for God. And that new name is what some people are making such a big deal about.

Ironically — or hypocritically — the Jehovah’s Witnesses spend a lot of effort to reject all things Catholic, yet base their whole message on this Roman Catholic twisting of a word.

Most experienced Bible readers understand that LORD (in all caps) represents YHWH. The word means self-existent one or I AM. In Genesis 3:15, the NASB translates the word instead of substituting LORD Jewish style or the twisted pronunciation Jehovah. At the burning bush, Moses had asked God whom he should say sent Him to the Israelites in Egypt.

• God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

Why a descriptive name?

• No god created God, so there was nobody to name Him.
• There is no higher power with authority to give God a name.
• There is no need to distinguish the God who IS from all those other gods who ARE NOT.

Can you see why the meaning, and not the pronunciation, is what’s important? Any movement or sect that makes a big deal about the right “name” (which isn’t even the original Hebrew word) is heading in the wrong direction.

Hebrew scriptures frequently use a form of parallelism in which an idea is restated from a different perspective. You already saw that:

• I am the LORD,
  that is My name

The rest of the verse does the same thing.

• I will not give My glory to another,
  Nor My praise to graven images.

The two statements dovetail; you cannot separate them because they state the same thing from different perspectives.

This theme runs throughout scriptures, from the Ten Commandments… 

• You shall have no other gods before Me.  You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God…. (Exodus 20:3–4)

to the gospels, where Jesus claimed to be God:

• Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM." (John 8:58)

The Jews understood Jesus’s claim. Therefore, they took up stones to stone Him for blasphemy (verse 59).

• Tangent:  Roman Catholic lists of the Ten Commandments skip the prohibition against making likenesses and serving them. When you point it out, Catholics rely on the technicality that their images are not graven and that the weasel-word venerate is not the word worship. Graven images, however, generalizes to any likeness. I’d like to know how they carve out wooden and marble statues without graving them. And if praising, burning candles to, leaving offerings for, and praying to people through icons is not worshiping, nothing is.)

Certain sects have a difficult time accepting that One God can be three Persons. The Latter Day Saints (Mormons) demote Jesus to a child of the Father, born on another planet, and brother to the devil.

Oneness Pentecostals make out the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be One Person who, like a quick-change artist, changes personas and deceives us, by praying to himself, into thinking the Son is not the Father.

The Jehovah Witnesses demote Jesus to an angel who became or will become “a god.”

Argument from Science

Einstein showed that mass, energy, time, and space interrelate, and astronomy and physics show that the universe had a beginning. From this, we learn several ways that modern science confirms Bible claims that have stumped sects and heretics for millennia:

• If, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, then God must have created time and space.
• If God has creative power over space, then He can be omnipresent. He “stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in” ( Isaiah 40:22).
• If God has creative power over time, then He can know the future. Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done… (Isaiah 46:10).
• If God has creative power over time and space, then He can be omniscient. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do (Hebrews 4:13).
• If God has creative power over time and space, then He can enter His creation as three Persons.

It took nearly two thousand years for science to catch up with the Bible’s claims that:

• There has been, is, and ever will be, exactly one God.
  (Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the LORD, And besides Me there is no savior (Isaiah 43:10–11). This eliminates Jesus becoming “a” god or even the Savior, if the Trinity is false. Sorry, JWs and Mormons!)
• The Father is God
• The Son / Christ / Jesus is God
• The Holy Spirit is God
• The Father is not the Son
• The Son is not the Holy Spirit
• The Father is not the Holy Spirit 

To be precise, science does not teach the Trinity, but it shows that the tri-une God is possible. For learning about the Trinity, we turn not to science, but rather to God’s revelation of Himself.

Back to Isaiah 42:8: Others claim that the verse disproves the Trinity (that is, the “tri-une” nature of God), but they err. Badly. If the three Person are one God, then the sharing of glory, worship, or divinity among those Persons does not contradict the verse at all. 

Argument from Creation

Let’s back up to verse 5. (By the way, read the context. It’s a beautiful prophecy about Jesus!)

• Thus says God the LORD,
  Who created the heavens and stretched them out,
  Who spread out the earth and its offspring,
  Who gives breath to the people on it
  And spirit to those who walk in it,

Compare it to Isaiah 44:24:

• Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone…

…and then compare it to John 1:3, which says of Jesus:

• All things came into being through Him [the Word], and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being

and Colossians 1:16–17:

• By Him [the Son] all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (*) (See also Hebrews 1:2.)

So, within the immediate context of Isaiah 42:8, we have a claim that YHWH is the Creator, yet the same is claimed of Christ elsewhere. If the Trinity is a correct model, then the claims do not contradict. But if the Trinity is false and Christ was merely an archangel or a son born on another planet, then Isaiah 42:8 is false.

• Tangent: Colossians 1:15 uses the word firstborn. Those who deny Christ’s divinity ignorantly jump on that word to show that He was a born or created person. They do this despite the statement immediately following and the statement in John, which say that all created things were created by Him.
  
  They also do this in ignorance of the meaning of firstborn. The word does not mean first one born; it means preeminent one. If you trace the word throughout the Bible you will find that the word often applies to a leader even though he came later in the birth order. For example, as Israel devolved, different tribes bore the title firstborn at different times because God had reassigned leadership. Thus, the meaning indicates preeminence and does not indicate that Christ was created.

Argument from Shared Worship

Look at Isaiah 42:8 again. Glory received from man means worshipful praise, honor, and thanksgiving. Note the Hebrew poetic construction, using parallelism to repeat the same thought. I AM does not share His glory. And yet, Jesus never refused worship.

• After coming into the house they [the magi or “Wise Men”] saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell to the ground and worshiped Him. (Matthew 2:11).
• After Jesus walked across the lake, those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, "You are certainly God's Son!" (Matthew 14:33).
• Upon seeing the scars of the crucifixion in the resurrected Jesus, Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28)
• The Father Himself says, "And let all the angels of God worship Him [Jesus]” (Hebrews 1:6).

and the epistles predict universal worship of Jesus:

• [A]t the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:10–11). Notice that glorifying Christ glorifies the Father. Also notice that Christ shares the title of Lord with the Father.
• In John’s vision, he saw a multitude of angels and saints saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing." (Revelation 5:12)

Argument from Shared Glory

You already saw evidence of Jesus sharing glory with the Father (Revelation 5:12). Jesus Himself claimed to share the Father’s glory, praying:

• Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was… Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. (John 17:5, 24). 

(See also Hebrews 1:3.)  Note that Jesus’s words reinforces the argument from creation, as well.

Argument from God's Mouth

Even God calls Christ, “God.”

• But of the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom. (Hebrews 1:8)

If the Trinity is false, then either Isaiah 42:8 is false, or Jesus, the angels, the saints in heaven, and His followers on earth were all blasphemers, and numerous passages throughout the scriptures are false. But if the scriptures are true, and Isaiah 42:8 is true then the Trinity has to be true. 

The Trinity is the only model of the relationships between God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit that explains all the scripture’s claims. And since the three Persons are One God, their sharing of glory and worship is not an issue.

- - - - 

Since I posted the bulk of this on Quora, I can't copyright it. But I will ask that credit be given where credit is due.

Regeneration or Faith First?

Addressing one aspect of God's sovereignty, Hyper Calvinists claim that God regenerates a person's spirit. As an extreme application, you don't have to repent from dead works and put faith in Christ's gift of redemption to be saved; if you believe, it's because you've already been saved.

The reasoning goes that a man does not give birth to himself (John 3:3-8) and that people dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1) cannot choose to believe the gospel (1 Corinthians 2:14).

God's act of regenerating is part of the process of salvation. God must regenerate

1. before faith OR
2. simultaneously with faith OR
3. subsequent to faith

If either (1) or (2) is true, then God cannot save through faith. This contradicts Ephesians 2:8.

For by grace you have been saved through faith....

Therefore, (3) must be true. Regeneration must follow faith.

The argument that dead men cannot have faith depends on "dead" meaning "devoid of animation." If that definition were true, then the "dead" in hell could not perceive torment. "Dead" must have a different meaning.

Namely, as physical death is separation from the body, spiritual death is a separation from God that includes disability with respect to righteousness. This definition of "death" allows that God can partially heal spiritual disability and give faith to the "dead" before regeneration.

Thus, God can give faith, then save (regenerate) through faith; and Ephesians 2:8-9 is not violated. 

Silence In the Search

Atheist: I want to believe so hard. I've prayed to God to help me find faith, to guide me, just even a tiny shred of light in a dark world. So far, even trying to be open as possible, it's been resounding, deafening silence.

I have the same struggle, though I'm a believer. I want that "shred of light in a dark world," too. Here are some differences in our thinking.

The light does not come through the world. The world is corrupt. Whether you attribute that to the Second Law of Thermodynamics or to the consequences of sin, everything tends toward decay and evil. Although there are philosophical arguments that make God highly probable, the world is the wrong place to look for light.

God is not an impersonal force that we can test in a laboratory. He is personal. Like us, He generally does not hang with those those who are hostile or untrusting. When we trust our senses, we trust ourselves (which are part of the world) and the world itself -- which, apart from God's interference, has no light.

We not only look in the wrong place, but we look for the wrong reasons. Look at the counterfeits, the televangelists obsessed with self-esteem, worldly prosperity, vulgar displays of "power," and worked-up emotional experiences. They all look to worldly experience, too. But that's not where God reveals Himself.

The hindrance to faith is usually love of something that offends God. For many, that offense is a practice that they know they'd have to give up. Some rationalize that the practice is not sinful, but the really arrogant ones admit they don't care whether it's sinful. Others stumble over their pride. Some refuse to replace their idols with the biblical concept of God, while others justify themselves. Self-justification takes the form of believing one is righteous enough to stand in God's presence or that one can earn such righteousness.

Faith in God requires a context of need. We cannot realize that need until we face the ways we offend God, ways that render us unworthy to stand in the unbearable light of His holy presence. The prophet Isaiah wrote, "the LORD’S hand is not so short that it cannot save; nor is His ear so dull that it cannot hear. But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear."

Humbly facing that diagnosis sets the context for the cure. The cure is a gift. Like a big brother taking his younger sibling's punishment, God, as Christ, suffered our sentence for us. He offers that as a gift, to be received as a gift. That entails two conditions.

First, remember that part about humility? We can do nothing to earn the gift. We cannot do ceremonies or good deeds to compensate for the bad we've done. We already owe it to God to do good, and we cannot pay with what we already owe. Neither can we earn the gift without insulting the Giver's capacity, resources, and generosity. (Most "Christian" churches violate this!)

Second, since there's nothing we can contribute to earn the gift, all we can do is quiet our minds and trust. To trust ourselves, our experiences, or our feelings is to distrust the Giver. God rewards trust. Sometimes He exercises our trust with trials or silence; sometimes, He shows people supernatural evidence (that cannot be repeated or shared with others). But it starts with enduring trust.

I used to wish I were a Pentecostal. (That has a strong parallel with what the seeking atheist describes.) It would be so much easer being able to walk by sight rather than by faith. However, according to the Bible, if my faith endures, my reward will be greater than that received by those who believe because they experienced (or thought they experienced) something miraculous.

This is not blind faith that believes despite the evidence. This is informed faith that puts the evidences together and then acts on the probability.  We all have some light. We do not all receive it. Some, like the person who asked the question, are too busy collecting arguments against it to learn why those arguments are flawed. (You'd have to read the whole of his conversation to know that he falls in that category.)

Your challenge, then, is not to convince God to prove Himself to you, but to decide whether you are going to admit your need and then trust the cure for everlasting benefits, no matter what it costs you in this world.

- - - -

Since I originally posted this on Reddit, I can't copyright it; and I'd welcome anyone to use it for personal or non-profit used, anyway; but I hope that if you use it, you will give credit where credit is due.

Another Child of God like Jesus

Asked on Quora: Would God ever have another child and let him come to Earth like Jesus?

Summary Answer

No. It's a silly question to any Christian, but the reasons behind the answer are an instructive exercise.

Background

The Bible makes three claims about the nature of God.

• Exactly one God has existed, exists, and will ever exist.
• Modern physics shows that mass, energy, space, and even time are intimately intertwined. If God created the heavens and Earth, then God created time and space. Having creative power over time and space, God is able to exist in and experience time and space as three identical Persons.
• The three Persons voluntarily adopt separate and complementary roles, self-identifying as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in accordance with the roles.

Many people, instead of following a model that reconciles the three claims, reject one or more of the claims. They can argue that the following explanation is incorrect, but they cannot argue that it is a spurious or held by a minority.

God existed outside of time (which I will call “eternity”) and space as a Unity and exists within His creation as a Trinity of Persons (not a trinity of gods).

Accepted doctrine stops there. Many believe God exists only within time, but science says that time had a beginning. That leaves unanswered the question of how the three Persons could have the same essence and be one God.

I counter that the choice is not either eternal or temporal. I believe God exists both outside time as a Unity of substance and a Trinity of personhood and inside time as a Trinity. For me, accepting that God’s creative power enables Him to be both One God yet three Persons fits all the evidence in the Bible. And it is consistent with science. It also explains how God can be omnipresent and omniscient (including knowing the future).

How the Son became the Son is unclear. There are a passages that say Jesus and the Holy Spirit “proceed from” the Father. However, this could be interpreted either as a duplication of essence or as a sending forth, like a soldier who is sent on a task by an officer.

The sending meaning is far more likely. First, we know that the Father has assigned duties to Son and the Spirit. Second, sending implies sequence, and sequence must occur within time. Since the Son and the Spirit took part in creating time, the Father could not have duplicated Himself within time. “Proceed from” must mean that the Son and the Spirit were sent.

Detailed Answer

Having a child and letting him/her/it come to Earth reflects an image of God like that of humans creating children within time. Human children and parents are separate entities. In contrast, if God is a Unity outside of time, and God created time, then the Son did not come into being during time’s existence. That is, God could not “have” a child like the Son because the Son has always been.

Suppose God “had another child.” Since the new child comes into being within time, he/she/it cannot be eternal like the Son is. The child would also have limited experience, knowledge, and power. Moreover, the term “child” implies a need to mature, which the Son did not need to do. The Jesus body had to mature, but the divine Person, God the Son, did not. Since the new child would have an inferior nature, he/she/it might be similar to a great angel but could not be God. Since “another” implies of the same kind, the new child would not be “another.”

Here’s another reason why God could not “have another child.” God calls the second Person the Son primarily because that label fits the role. Consistent with that label, John 3:16 calls Jesus only-begotten. Many translations dilute the term. “One and only” is only half wrong because it conveys the metaphorical meaning of only-begotten. However, it fails to convey the literal meaning.

Here, a bit of language definition helps. Beget and conceive are counterpart words. Whereas a female conceives and births a child, a male begets a child. The accounts of the witnesses say that God, through the power of the Holy Spirit, turned one of Mary’s eggs into an embryo. While the Son already existed, He clothed himself with that body and subjected Himself to all the burdens and infirmities that we experience.

Only-begotten, then implies three things.

• God begot the Jesus body through creative power.
• The Son has the same nature that the Father has (that is, He is God).
• Jesus, Son of God, is one-of-a-kind.

If God “had” another “child,” then Jesus would not be the only-begotten. By calling Jesus “only-begotten” in the scriptures, God would be a liar. Since God is Truth, lying would make Him not God. God cannot be both Truth and liar or both God and not God.

Let’s forget God’s honesty for a moment. God could beget another body, but the same Son would have to inhabit it. However, upon His resurrection, God re-vivified and transformed Jesus’ body into a transcendent body. Jesus still has that transcendent body in heaven and would have to discard it in order to inhabit the newly begotten body. If the Son took on a new body, we couldn’t recognize Him either in heaven when we die or on earth when He returns. 

Even worse, if the Son discarded His Jesus body to inhabit the new one, the Jesus body would die again. That contradicts explicit statements that the transcendent body is immortal.

So the terms have (meaning, the verbs create, beget, or birth), child, and another all reflect ideas that conflict with what we can learn about God from the Bible. For multiple logical reasons, God could not “have another child” or “let him come to Earth.”

Since this answer was posted on Quora, a copyright would have no force. However, I can ask that if you use it, please give credit where credit is due.

Difference between God Repenting and Man Repenting

Repent literally means "to change one's mind." 

God's repentance (Genesis 6:6) did not result in change because what He was doing was already good and right. Our repentance should motivate change because what we do is wrong.

Many modern translations use the words "regret" or "sorrow" in Genesis 6:6. God repented in that He felt the sorrow that He knew would come; but He did not change His master plan.

The word applied to us means to change one's mind. We repent in that we recognize that our sins are evil and that they condemn us. Abandoning our self-righteousness, we surrender to God's mercy and grace; and then rather than us changing ourselves, He changes us.

In the context of God repenting in the times of Noah, it means He sorrowed about having created man, even though He knew ahead of time what would happen. It's like the difference between knowing in theory that something's going to hurt and then knowing the pain by experience. 

There's a similar concept where it says Jesus learned obedience. That is, He knew the concept and was perfectly obedient; yet experiencing it brought a new dimension to it. 

Repentance in Genesis 6:6 does not mean that God changed His perfect plan. Whereas God repented about what's right and did not change His plan or actions, we repent from what's wrong, and as God enables us, our repentance motivates changed actions, "fruits worthy of repentance."

We repentant concerning:

• rationalizing our sins
• denying that our sins are sinful
• ignoring the consequences of our sins ("God will just forgive me.")
• ignoring responsibilities ("Am I my brother's keeper?")
• false gods
• false approaches to God (e.g., Catholic mixture of faith and works)

There's a spreading heresy to watch out for. Many are overreacting to the sloppy agape of New Evangelicalism. New Evangelicalism preaches redemption without the need for redemption. It promotes Jesus as friend and provider without explaining sin and God's provision for forgiveness.

The new message is an old one. It claims that repentance means you have to overcome your sins before putting faith in Christ. This is a heresy because it mixes works and faith. Repentance from self-righteousness means surrendering to your inability. The man accepted by Christ says, "I cannot overcome my sins; I deserve damnation. I give up! God, help me!"

Copyright 2019, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for personal use, but please give credit where credit is due.

Isaiah 41:14

What is the meaning of Isaiah 41:14?

• “Fear not, you worm Jacob, You men of Israel! I will help you,” says the LORD And your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel. (New King James Version)

Historical context

In the seventh century before Christ (the 600’s), Babylon had conquered Israel’s northern kingdom (which was called Israel). Babylon’s king had killed or carried away the prominent people into captivity and left the common people to tend the land and pay taxes to Babylon.

Isaiah 41 addresses the captives in Babylon, giving them hope of a return and self-rule. Moreover, it gave them hope for a just and holy society that honored God.

The prophet Isaiah lived in the eighth century, so the book of Isaiah gives the impression of predicting the captivity and the promised return. Analysis of language and other factors, however, leads to belief that Isaiah merges three books into one. Chapter 41 is in the second book, which was allegedly written by a priest or prophet who lived during the Babylonian captivity.

Regardless of whether God revealed the second section predictively through the prophet Isaiah or contemporaneously through a priest living in Babylon, chapter 41 is part of a message to those living in captivity.

Before Babylon’s attack, Israel had suffered due to apostate leaders and a decaying society. Instead of driving out the people of the land, Israel had allowed them to stay, intermarried with them, and first tolerated, then embraced their religions. Political correctness was their downfall as they embraced cultures and religions that respected violence, sexual perversions, and even child sacrifice. The corruption saturated Israel from the masses to the kings and priests.

Finally, God had enough with this nation that had failed to represent Him. He removed His protection and allowed Egypt from the south and Babylon from the north to destroy the nation. Earlier, Israel had split into a northern kingdom, “Israel,” and a southern kingdom, “Judea.” Judea followed Israel into corruption and, just a few generations later, was also conquered by Babylon.

Chapter 41 addresses the time during exile in Babylon. It predicts a restoration of God’s favor and a return to the land of Israel led by the people of Judea.

Interpreting

The rule, “Never read a Bible verse,” demands reading passages in their context. We could go back a couple of chapters, but I’ll start with verse 9.

Hebrew poetry employs a lot of repetition, parallelism, and symbolism. Jacob was the ancestor whom God renamed Israel, so “worm Jacob” symbolizes the collective, “men of Israel.”

When someone is called a worm or calls himself a worm, it describes being pathetically weak, worthless, and vulnerable. David expressed such in Psalm 22:6: “But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by men and despised by the people.” That is how the people of Israel felt in captivity. And when we catch a vision of how great and holy God is, we see ourselves the same way. There is no room in God’s economy for pride of ancestry, of membership in organizations, or of accomplishment. If we become or do something good, it is to God’s credit, not ours.

God reminds Israel, “You are My servant. I have chosen you and not rejected you.” Some among Jews believe they are “God’s chosen” for salvation, but actually, they were God’s chosen to represent Him. (That changed, at least temporarily, after they rejected Jesus, but that’s another topic.) Imputed righteousness has always come as it came to Abraham, through faith, and not through inheritance of righteousness.

“Do not fear, for I am with you;” verse 10 reassures. “Do not anxiously look about you, for I am your God. I will strengthen you, surely I will help you, Surely I will uphold you with My righteous right hand.” God promises His strength and protection. Note that this happens in connection with His holiness, not with theirs.

Furthermore, in verses 11–12, God promises victory over the people and nations that opposed Israel. “Behold, all those who are angered at you will be shamed and dishonored…. Those who war with you will be as nothing and non-existent..” Retribution was promised not only against the distant empires of Egypt and Babylon, but also against Israel’s immediate neighbors, and even enemies within.

The first part of verse 14 continues the idea from verse 13.

“For I am the LORD your God, who upholds your right hand,
Who says to you, ‘Do not fear, I will help you.’
Do not fear, you worm Jacob, you men of Israel;”

The end of verse 14 may be a bit trickier, depending on which translation you use.
Literal translation

• “… I will help you says Yahweh and your Redeemer the Holy One of Israel.”

New International Version

• “…I will help you. I am the LORD, your Redeemer. I am the Holy One of Israel.”

New King James Version

• “…I will help you,” says the LORD And your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.

New American Standard Version

• “…I will help you," declares the LORD, "and your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel.

Notice how the NIV breaks the flow by turning one sentence into three. The NKJV and NASV translations are equally acceptable. The NKJV is more literal, but the NASV insertion of the verb “is” agrees with many instances where even the KJV inserts the verb because the Hebrew text omits that verb.

In all cases, the Lord assigns to Himself the titles of Redeemer and the Holy One of Israel. This is consistent with Isaiah 43:3 For I am the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior…, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 48:17, Isaiah 49:26, and Isaiah 60:16, among many others.

Note another rule: Define terms by comparison with similar expressions used in the same context or by the same author.

Verse 15 makes the cause of Israel’s enemies’ disappearance more explicit: “Behold, I have made you a new, sharp threshing sledge with double edges; You will thresh the mountains and pulverize them, And will make the hills like chaff.” God declares in figurative language a promise to give victory to Israel, but Israel must go out and claim it in battle.

Conclusion

The plain sense of the verse is a promise by God to give victory to the defeated, miserable captives in Babylon, and God describes Himself as Redeemer and Holy One of Israel. Those titles also describe the promised Messiah, but that is not the meaning in this verse.

Unitarians such as the Jewish, Jehovah Witnesses, and “modernist” Christians, and polytheists such as Latter Day Saints (Mormons) have a problem. Those who recognize that the Tri-une model (the Trinity) best fits all the evidence in the scriptures can take the shared title in stride.


I posted this answer on Quora, so I cannot copyright it. However, I'd appreciate credit where credit is due. -- Richard Wheeler

God Judges Whose Sins?

Bible contradictions usually depend on a misunderstanding of one or the other side of the seeming paradox. A Quoran asked,

Why do we continue to blame Adam and Eve for us being sinners and remaining in our sinful ways when God judges each of us personally? Why are we able to blame Adam and Eve for our sins? Why do we blame others [Adam and Eve] for our own sins?

If you visit the question on Quora, please read the answer by Brian S. Holmes for a thorough and accurate answer. Also read the final paragraph in Barbara LeMaster’s answer for a great illustration. (Skip the first part, though.) Here, I answer the question in my own words to make sure the point gets across.

Prologue

Since Adam was the head of his family, let’s simplify “Adam and Eve” to just Adam. As the older, more experienced spouse, and as the one God had spoken to, Adam had a responsibility to fully inform Eve and guard her against error. And although Eve was deceived into sinning, Adam knew what he was doing. So his share of the responsibility was far greater.

Answer

The question assumes that God judges us for what Adam did. He does not. What we do judges us now, and He will one day pass sentence. Notice the distinction between creating guilt and passing sentence.

God’s holiness and glory are unbearable. God, “dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” (1 Timothy 6:16). When that glory is revealed, we cannot bear it. “Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them” (Revelation 20:11).

It is our guilt, not our heritage, that disqualifies us from defiling God’s presence. Unless redemption intervenes, we will stand before Him for sentencing in accordance with our own thoughts and actions. “And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne…; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds” (Revelation 20:12–13).

“Deeds” includes both deeds of thought and deeds of action. You should be able to complete this quote from 1 Samuel 16:7: “Man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord….” That is why Jesus said that if we so much as hate someone without just cause, we are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:22) and if we look at a non-spouse with sexual desire, we are guilty of adultery (Matthew 5:28); and coveting is listed in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:17).

Adam needed redemption from the sin that gave us our tendencies, but we need redemption from how we act out out those tendencies. For our sins, we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Postscript

The text above is very bad news. It gets much, much worse if you look it up and read it in context. It would be incomplete without the good news that complements it. The bad news gives context to, value to, motivation for the good news.

In the midst of the quotes from Revelation above is a reference to the Book of Life. Those whose names are written in the Book of Life will not be subject to that awful judgment. The label “dead” does not apply to them, and their judgment, a separate occasion, results in reward instead of in sentencing.

(The judgment in Revelation 20 is called the Great White Throne Judgment. The judgment of the redeemed is called the Bema Seat Judgment. It is comparable to the judgment of winners at the Olympics in which they receive medals as rewards.)

Redemption is held out as a gift, ready to be applied to all who receive it. The conditions include changing our minds about our sins and trusting Christ for his substitutionary sacrifice on our behalf.

Our worst sins include preferring a false image or mental model of God (or worse, rejecting Him outright), rationalizing our sins, trusting in self-righteousness, and prioritizing earthly desires above relationship with God. Violating do’s and don’ts like the Ten Commandments merely enacts those sins. A responsible sinner admits, “I am guilty, my guilt condemns me, and I cannot justify myself in any way.” That is the repentance side of the coin.

The reverse side of the coin is faith toward God. Not just any God that we imagine, but God as He has revealed Himself to be: namely, God as Creator (whether via Creationism or Theistic Evolution is irrelevant); and as Creator of time and space, existing in His creation as three equal Persons who voluntarily fulfill distinct roles. “Christians” with limited imaginations create idols by rejecting God’s triune nature, but the “Trinity” is the only model of God that fits all the revealed evidence.

Faith toward God excludes faith toward heritage, church membership, and self. Redemption is a gift received, not wages deserved. Gifts and wages are mutually exclusive, as are faith and works. Because of our pride, many, if not most, Christian churches try to mix faith and works. They add various do’s and don’ts such as ceremonies, deeds, and refraining from sins. Some sneak the do’s and don’ts into repentance by saying that it includes changing our behaviors. Some sneak them in by saying you need the do’s and don’ts in order to hang on to the gift. They fail to recognize that changed behaviors results from receiving the gift rather than causing or securing it. Refusing to receive the gift as a free gift insults the Giver.

Within God’s character lies a tension between His attributes. God is love, but he is also holy and just. Justice drives judgment, but Love drives redemption. Love does not mean simple forgiveness. Justice must be served. That is why God the Son took our place in judgment. Being God, He bore a sentence that would have destroyed us. And being God, he could not be held by death. The resurrection is proof, not only of His identity, but also of the new life that God offers as a gift.

The question applies to all of us: Do I, knowing my condemnation, receive the gift as a free gift from the God Who is?

Since I posted the bulk of this on Quora, I cannot copyright it. However, I hope that if you copy it, you will give credit where credit is due.

Calvinism Exaggerates Meaning of Spiritual Death

Defining spiritual death

Just as the Arminian idea of Free Will is an exaggeration, the Calvinist definition of spiritual death is, too. Here’s what I derive about it from Scripture: 

• The lost are dead to God, as when the prodigal’s father declared his wandering son dead [to himself]. (Luke 15:24) Technically, “dead” is a metaphor. It uses a physical condition to describe a relationship.  
• The lost are incapable of receiving spiritual truth (1 Corinthians 2:14) because Satan has blinded them. (2 Corinthians 4:4). This speaks to loss of ability, not cessation of function.
• We might say that dead men do not see, but we do not say that they are blind. Only the living can be blind. (ibid.) Again, “blindness” describes disability without cessation of animation.
• If a person’s spirit is enslaved by sin, it cannot be non-functional. (ibid.) A spirit must be functional in order to lust and then obey that lust. 
• The spirits of the dead are conscious in hell, so “the spiritually dead” must not mean “non-functioning spirits.” Non-functioning spirits could not attempt to justify themselves, weep, gnash teeth in rage, or be tormented. (Luke 16:23, and any passage that describes the judgment where the “[spiritually] dead” stand before God) 
• The Second Death does not mean a cessation of function. (Revelation 14:11)

This leads one to conclude that “spiritual death” describes the condition of an animated spirit that is addicted to sin, disabled with respect to spiritual truth and righteousness, estranged from God, and under sentence to the Second Death. This places me between Arminian unqualified free will and the Calvinist idea that regeneration precedes faith, because it implies that the Spirit can temporarily or partially reverse bondage and blindness without having regenerated the person. 

Defeating spiritual death

The Spirit uses three ingredients to bring about the action of placing faith:

• convicting of sin
• enlightening the understanding
• bestowing faith

These are initial gifts that free a person from spiritual blindness sufficiently to consent to what the Spirit is doing. This is not regeneration, but it leads to it. Regeneration is the bestowal of permanent gifts including a new heart, freedom from sin’s enslavement, reconciliation with God, and many polysyllabic blessings. 

This is not God “forcing” conversion. The Spirit convicts the conscience of sin through enlightening the mind so that the preaching of the Law brings guilt and fear of condemnation. This frees one to turn away from various forms of false belief — false religion, self-righteousness, rationalization of sins — which we call repentance. (Note: “Fruits worthy of repentance” are distinct from repentance itself.) The Spirit also bestows understanding of and belief in the gospel. This frees one to trust Christ. 

Rather than God “forcing” us to convert, the Spirit, in three areas, frees us to respond to the irresistible beauty of God’s offer. Being freed (*), we respond in repentance and faith, like a moth drawn to a flame or a baby drawn to the mother’s breast. And when we consent, God regenerates us, completing the process. 

Consenting (which might take the form of asking through prayer) is not a work. Rather, it is a cessation from work. Many people fold the putting away of sin into repentance, that that turns repentance into working for the gift of salvation -- which is a contradiction in terms! Repentance is a change of mind that, together with regeneration, results in putting away sin. 

Part of the idea here is that a dead man cannot put away sin. He is, after all, enslaved by it. Earning salvation through either good works or through giving up sinful actions might be the very things he needs to repent from! The actions that give proof of the change of mind can only come after regeneration. 

(* Perhaps the Arminian would be more comfortable if I said, “having had our free will further freed.”) 

Copyright 2019, Richard Wheeler: Permission granted for personal use, but please give credit where credit is due.