The Messiah (called David) is the firstborn from the dead and the head of the resurrected Israel.
David is definitely another name of the Messiah.
- Ezek. 34:23-24 speaks of a coming time when “David” will be the Shepherd.
- Ezek. 37:24-25 goes on to say that David will be their prince forever and is clearly about the Messiah the future head of Israel.
- Hosea 3:5 we find that in the latter days they'll seek “David their king”.
- Amos 9:11 the tabernacle of David will be raised up again.
- Zech. 12:8 the house of David will be as God.
I do not disagree that the Messiah, as the son of David, is sometimes called by David's name. That doesn't mean that all the times the name David is mentioned, the reference is to the Messiah.
In verse 39 of Psalm 89; you will notice the whole direction of the Psalm shifts. Before verse 39 God was talking about the Messiah that was coming. From verse 39 David complains because these promises of God do not seem true for his present life which was full of troubles.
From verse 20-38, the Psalmist is describing G-d's promises to David. From verse 39-46 the Psalmist complains that despite the promises, G-d seems to have treated David to trouble. Verses 47-53 has the Psalmist pleading with G-d to remember and realize His promises to David.
It's my belief that “But” is an important objection from David here in verse 39.
Ethan, but whatever.
David's actually right because he(although anointed and the king) is not the person God was speaking of. This translation says "[like the]" whereas the JPS(and KJV) say "Even" the sure mercies of David. The "Like the" is in brackets because it's not in the Hebrew. It clearly means that the “covenant” is the same as the sure mercies of David.
It's my translation. I put it in brackets because as you said it's not in the Hebrew. There's actually nothing in the Hebrew. The literal translation is "and I will cut it / for you / covenant / eternal / kindnesses / David / the trustworthies". So there's no "like the" and no "even".
The interpretation that I'm presenting is that the verse is comparing the covenant that G-d will make with the nation, to the covenant that G-d had already made with David. G-d's covenant with David was described using these very same terms in Psalm 89 and the verse here is making a comparison to that covenant.
I don't disagree about the Word of God. But, the implications of this covenant called the sure mercies of David are eternal life through the resurrection. In other words if they listen to the Word then they'll be given the sure mercies of David. I never said otherwise. The sure mercies of David are going to be extended to them and they'll have eternal life through “David”. (That is the David the Messiah)
The problem as should be clear, is that the "sure mercies of David" is a reference to the Davidic covenant ie. that G-d would keep the kingship in David's family as described in Psalm 89. A person not of David's family can't receive this covenant because that would contradict the covenant.
I do not consider what I said baseless opinion whatsoever. Let's go over what I said:
First I claimed that the sure mercies of David are a promise of endless life.
And this claim has already been defeated as above.
This is proven because first of all it says “your soul shall live”
This is not a good proof. "Your soul shall live" is described as an effect of "listen". The covenant G-d makes is a consequence of having "incline[d] your ear" and "listen[ing]". The "your soul shall live" is in the wrong place to be a consequence of the covenant.
and we realize that God is not talking about only this current life, but God means eternal life.
How do we realize this?
Secondly, it says it is an “everlasting” covenant. Therefore if God makes an everlasting covenant with you then you must live forever in order for Him to keep His Word.
Uh. Seriously? Gen. 17:6? 17:13? Ex. 31:16? It just means that the covenant will be in effect for the nation, eternally.
Secondly, I claimed you must be joined with “David” to get the covenant. I logically came to this conclusion because of the fact that the “everlasting covenant” is called the “sure mercies of David”. So, therefore we must be with this “David” if we want this covenant.
Yes, I understand that you claimed this. The problem is that this claim is faulty as explained above.
Hebrew is probably just as symbolic if not more so. English was made symbolic on purpose by people, but some of it also seems beyond human and divine to me. The world is ruled by secret power and hidden knowledge.
My practice has been to ignore the tin-hat arguments.
I used that translation because it translated the “body” as literally singular tense unlike many other translations which are not so exact. I do not care whether the "my" is capitalized or not. The point is about the “body” or “carcass” if you will.
But your reasoning for doing so is theological, rather than what the text may have meant to convey. There are many examples throughout Jewish Scriptures of singular nouns used to mean a collective. So the correct way is to explain why that shouldn't be the case here.
Just a poetic expression? Then explain why in Daniel 7:13 Daniel sees someone like the Son of man(singular tense) but later on in verse 27; the angel interprets this as “the people of the saints of the Most High” which is plural. It's obvious that there is one body comprised of many people. This is spiritually discerned. The Messiah the "Son of man" is the head of the body.
The phrase "son of man" means "person" in Hebrew. It doesn't mean that it's one body comprised of many people. It means that the verse is using the Messiah as a representative for a collective, namely, the nation he leads. This is very common in the Books of the prophets. For instance, Isaiah 28 refers to the Israelite kingdom as "Ephraim" which is literally a reference to Jeroboam's royal line, him being from the tribe of Ephraim. It doesn't mean that Jeroboam is the head of the body. It means that if someone would have a vision of Jeroboam doing something, we'd interpret that as referring to the entire Northern Kingdom. That's all that's happening in Daniel 7.
However, Daniel 7 has nothing to do with Hosea 13. Hosea 13, like Isaiah 28 is talking about the people of the Northern Kingdom.
Like I said, it's spiritually discerned.
This phrase has no meaning to me.
He is one person and the head of the body of all those resurrected. Because He is firstborn as Psalm 89 says. Even you know what I mean if I were to say the “head of so and so corporation is ...” This word “head” is connected with the Messiah the future “head” of both Judah and Israel in Hosea 1:11.
Except that we've already explained how Psalm 89 isn't about the Messiah and neither is Hosea 13. Your building constructs out of air.
Foreshadowing is throughout the Torah; however it's spiritually understood.
You keep using this word "spiritually" and every time you use it, it seems to mean "despite the evidence against, I'm right because my mind tells me that I am." Which is kind of ridiculous.
But, you cannot explain why both David and Israel are the firstborn of God as it says in Psalm 89:28 and Exodus 4:22-23. This is only explained when we understand that David = Messiah and Messiah = Israel.
That's absurd. Firstborn is a entitlement designation. G-d isn't saying that the nation of Israel or David had become the first to break through their mothers' wombs. Among the nations, Israel has the greatest entitlements and among individuals, David has the greatest entitlements. That's all it's saying. David isn't the Messiah and the Messiah isn't Israel. And Israel isn't Jeroboam and Jeroboam isn't a table. These are all separate principles.
Then the apparent contradiction is explained. Israel and David are names of the Messiah. Just as Immanuel, and Abi-ad, Sar-shalom etc. Btw, David is again connected with the term “firstborn” in Zech. 12:10.
Btw. not a single word in these two sentences is accurate.
It is about Ephraim; the metaphor(if you will) is that Ephraim has died and must be resurrected. But, verse 14 is also literally valid as speaking of the actual resurrection; because God will be true in everything.
The thing about a metaphors is that they're not literally true. "G-d will be true in everything" is not a valid argument unless you prove that every possible interpretation of every single verse must happen. Which is ridiculous. Did Abraham literally pick up every item he owned and handed it to Isaac per Gen. 25:5? Do the ships of Tarshish need to literally wait per Isa. 23:1?
In reality, what you've done is applied some theological principle your religion taught you, to the verse, because of similar wording in your principle and the verse. Rather than deriving from the verse, what it is attempting to convey. You've completely ignored the context of the verse and the inappropriateness of applying that principle here.
If you're ransomed from the grave then there must be payment given. If payment is given then show from your understanding how God pays for the resurrection.
Well, I do it by disagreeing with your initial given. The word you are translating as "ransom" doesn't mean "to redeem with money". It means "to redeem". Money is simply the way that most redemption happen, ie: a kidnapping ransom. See Psalm 55:19 (18 in Christian Bibles) where the same word is used.
I never said otherwise. I believe God is saying here that He will not change His mind when He decides to destroy death. This "repentance" will be "hid" from God. What could possibly hide this from God? Let me know what you think.
You're right, except you're also wrong. This verse isn't saying anything about destroying death. It's a metaphor talking about G-d redeeming the Northern Kingdom and like you say, not regretting or changing his mind once He does so. It's not saying that something will be literally hid from His eyes, it's a metaphorical way of saying that He won't regret what He'll do.
So:
1. there is a ransom
2. Something ensures that God will not change His mind. To me it is obvious that the blood of the sacrifice hides their sins so that God will not regret redeeming them from the grave. As it says in Isaiah 53:8 He was cut off out of the land of living for the transgression of my people. And in Isaiah 52:15 we see He sprinkles many nations (with blood as Moses sprinkled the people).
So:
1. There is no ransom.
2. What G-d won't change his mind from, is saving the 10 tribes. G-d's decision is what ensures what He will do.
You're only thinking of this present time. Of what seed are those resurrected in the coming world?
Can we get a little context for this question.
The fact is in Isaiah 49:3 God says ‘Thou art My servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.’ This cannot be about the Hebrew nation because in verse 5 we find that whoever this Israel is was formed in the womb to bring Jacob back to Him(God). So, this Israel was formed to bring the Hebrew nation back to God. Therefore, Isaiah 49 cannot be talking about the Hebrew nation. Otherwise it doesn't make sense. It's clearly about the Messiah the eternal Israel.
No, it's Isaiah. That passage is about Isaiah. G-d calls him after the name of the entire nation. He's been designated since before birth, to give prophecy to the Jews and the following prophecy is one that will lighten the burden of the exile for the Jews because it speaks about the hope of the Redemption.