Isaiah 53 and Human Sin

[dybmh]

YES, because JESUS is the "LORD" in Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"

Thank you, LOL, LOL, LOL, Oh my.

101G.

Whatever, however you choose to view Jesus, the blood sacrifice, the entire event, everything in the gospels is at best something extra. Not required in any way.

 

[dybmh]

Oh how right you are, it's God opinion. because an apostle is an ambassador. for an ambassador do not speak their, mind, (personal Opinion) but the one who sent him. in this case it is God almighty, JESUS, the Holy Spirit.

this is just 2 easy.

101G.

That is an opinion. If you choose to put your faith in authors who need to change scripture to create a theology, that is your choice. I have no reason to listen to them.

 

[dybmh]

lets see, Romans 8:5 "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit." Romans 8:6 "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace." Romans 8:7 "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." (READ THAT AGAIN). Romans 8:8 "So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." Romans 8:9 "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

101G.

Ignored... Romans is not word of God, just an opinion. You need to bring actual word of God to make the argument. If you can't and need Romans to do it, then that shows there is nothing valid about the claim.

 

[101G]

Whatever, however you choose to view Jesus, the blood sacrifice, the entire event, everything in the gospels is at best something extra. Not required in any way.

ECHAD, ECHAD, ECHAD

101G

 

[101G]

That is an opinion. If you choose to put your faith in authors who need to change scripture to create a theology, that is your choice. I have no reason to listen to them.

ERROR, ERROR, ERROR... LOL, LOL, LOL, opinion? that's your opinion, that's your CHOICE.... (smile)

101G.

 

[101G]

Ignored... Romans is not word of God, just an opinion. You need to bring actual word of God to make the argument. If you can't and need Romans to do it, then that shows there is nothing valid about the claim.

LOL, LOL, LOL, your OT scriptures, are not abiding.....

101G.

 

[PruePhillip]

Where do you see in Psalm 110 anything about any of that?
Abraham, according to that understanding, waits for God's right hand to save him throughout a particular battle and then, the battle is over with God and Abraham is victorious.

The other popular reading is that the writer of this psalm is speaking OF David who waited for God's right hand of salvation in a different battle.

Where is there any mention of a messiah in that psalm? Or resurrection?

THE Lord said to MY LORD. David's Lord was not God. His Lord was the suffering man who was rejected even of his own siblings and died a death unknown to people of his age - crucifixion.

 

[Brian2]

I'm not sure what crowd you mean. Isaiah 53 statres about whom it is speaking. The servant is identified in the text, and the speaker has reason to discuss this servant and not another. The question of the reference to Abraham is regarding Psalms 110, and, as I pointed out, relies on the use of a particular title which is used textually and specifically for Abraham.

Where in Isa 53 is the servant identified?
In Psalm 110 Christians have reason to say that the adonee of verse 1 is the Messiah, because that is how Jesus identified him. And the Jews of His day did not know how to answer so they also must have seen Psalm 110 as Messianic.
Adonee is used of many people so picking on one of them is not a sound identification policy and ends up with a number of possibilities. And of course some want the scribe of David to be the one speaking and calling David adonee, as if the scribe wrote a Psalm of David.
A method I use to identify a Messianic passage is to see that it is speaking about someone who will rule and judge the nations, like the Son of God in Psalm 2, so Psalm 110 is in that category.
But Jews have a less expansive role for the Messiah it seems and want to place others in that role.
This is amazing since I thought you Jews saw Isaiah 11 as Messianic and this tells us of that same person.
So in relation to this person I see the child of Isa 9 as the Messiah since he will rule on the throne of David forever.
And I see the one like a son of man in Dan 7:13,14 as the Messiah who is given an everlasting kingdom.
And I see the one appointed as the firstborn of God (Psalm 89: 24-29), higher than the kings of the earth as the Messiah also even if (and maybe also because) he is rejected by the Jews and killed.

 

[Brian2]

and how does that refer to a messiah, resurrection or being freed of sin and death? By the way, the verb in the verse is not in future tense. It is actually in past tense. "He struck kings..."

I presume the Jews have the Prophetic Perfect tense in their Hebrew grammar of the Bible.

 

[Brian2]

Part of that law includes paths, plural, for repentence, atonement, and return.

Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial parts of the Law by being the only sacrifice we need, the only atonement.
The Commands we follow to fulfill the Law are to Love God and our neighbour.

I disagree.

I was quoting Isa 64:6 but I can see that you may not agree when you follow the Commands of God. Yet for me, day after day I sin even when I want to do the right thing.

1) If the sacrifice worked as a ransom, then there is no need to accept it.
2) Jesus has no authority over any Jewish person.

The sacrifice is given as a gift for those who repent and accept the gift. Then we are forgiven and are not trying to be good enough to earn forgiveness for our sins.
Jesus has authority over everyone who has ever lived and who will ever live, but most don't know that.

Sorry, it cannot. It is an eternal covenant, God is not like a man to change its mind.

There are a number of covenants with the Jews. The one with Abraham is said to be forever and that seems to be passed on to Isaac and Jacob and then to Israel in the Mosaic Covenant which, along with the Law seems to be an addendum to the Abrahamic Covenant. Whether the law in commands and statutes is eternal or just for an indefinite time is something I am not sure of.
The New Covenant is also everlasting and is for the Gentiles.
Isaiah 55:3
“Incline your ear and come to Me.
Listen, that you may live;
And I will make an everlasting covenant with you,
According to the faithful mercies shown to David.

Ezekiel 16:60
“Nevertheless, I will remember My covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you.

Ezekiel 37:26
I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will place them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever.

Jeremiah 50:5
They will ask for the way to Zion, turning their faces in its direction; they will come that they may join themselves to the Lord in an everlasting covenant that will not be forgotten.

The Covenant of Moses with the Law is certainly something that will continue till the Jews accept the New Covenant and then there will be no need for the Law with it's commands and statutes because the Law will be in the hearts of all under the new covenant and it won't be a matter of Rabbis teaching the ins and outs of a law that is vague in places. God puts His Spirit in our heart and we all know God, from the least to the greatest and so we know what is against what God want and what He wants.
The Levis will always have people to be priests because everyone in the New Covenant is a priest under the High Priest Jesus.

I'm sorry, I really am. It doesn't say that.

That's true, but it is a Messianic Psalm about the same one who judges the nations and sits on David's throne forever. IMO there is only one who does that.
The one it seems is a priest forever and so has done the work of a priest. (The Messiah imo is Priest, King and Prophet)

Great, then why not apply that same logic to the eternal priesthood, the Mosaic law, and every other eternal promise?

If a promise or covenant is eternal it is eternal. The Law was for the Jews and it's requirements are fulfilled for Gentiles under the New Covenant if they Love God and their neighbour. But God want us to love others as a priority.
Micah 6:8 He hath shown thee, O man, what is good: and what doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

He actually did sin, it's just that Christians don't know the law to the point of noticing it. And I've mentioned it to a few Christians, and they always deny it. And this is where the trinity is useful, because, as God incarnate none of that actually matters.

Where does Jesus sin?

Again, this is applying the guilt offering model to something outside of that paradigm.

The guilt offering is something that God placed in the Law but goes beyond the Law to something that God wanted for all people and that certainly goes beyond the Mosaic Law paradigm but includes it. What is in the Law foreshadowed what was to come, a better Covenant with no animal sacifice and all knowing God because we have and listen to His Spirit.
Jesus was not a Levite priest but was a priest and Jewish priests were among those who were responsible for His death, but I guess that has nothing to do with it.

Read up on the offerings in Leviticus and then we can talk about Jesus as a guilt offering. It simply doesn't work. Something else is going on. And that assumes the gospel story is true, it requires that there is a hidden prophecy in Isa 53, it requires the actual words in past tense to be shifted to future tense, a change in the periodic nature of these offerings, and it requires a lowered expectation about what it means to be the suffering servant.

All of those progressively diminish the liklihood that Jesus was a guilt offering.

In Isa 53 the LORD makes the servant's life an offering for sin. (Isa 53:10) It does not have to follow Levitical sacrificial law to the letter.
And yes there is a hidden prophecy in Isa 53 even if the servant has nothing to do with Jesus. It is probably a use of the prophetic perfect tense.
I don't know what you mean by lowered expectation of the suffering servant.
In a sense of course it is Israel the nation that does fulfill Isa 53 prophecy but imo, as with other passages that are Messianic to Christians and mean something else to Jews, the prophecies in a Messianic sense fit better with the passages in a literal way.
So Jesus died and was buried but lived to see children. He was numbered among the transgressors and assigned a grave with the wicked and with the rich in His death.
In Psalm 89 the one appointed firstborn and who call God His Father and God is the King who was rejected and killed by the Jews.
In Isa 9 the child does sit forever on the throne of David.

 

[101G]

Where in Isa 53 is the servant identified?
In Psalm 110 Christians have reason to say that the adonee of verse 1 is the Messiah, because that is how Jesus identified him. And the Jews of His day did not know how to answer so they also must have seen Psalm 110 as Messianic.
Adonee is used of many people so picking on one of them is not a sound identification policy and ends up with a number of possibilities. And of course some want the scribe of David to be the one speaking and calling David adonee, as if the scribe wrote a Psalm of David.
A method I use to identify a Messianic passage is to see that it is speaking about someone who will rule and judge the nations, like the Son of God in Psalm 2, so Psalm 110 is in that category.
But Jews have a less expansive role for the Messiah it seems and want to place others in that role.
This is amazing since I thought you Jews saw Isaiah 11 as Messianic and this tells us of that same person.
So in relation to this person I see the child of Isa 9 as the Messiah since he will rule on the throne of David forever.
And I see the one like a son of man in Dan 7:13,14 as the Messiah who is given an everlasting kingdom.
And I see the one appointed as the firstborn of God (Psalm 89: 24-29), higher than the kings of the earth as the Messiah also even if (and maybe also because) he is rejected by the Jews and killed.

ALL of the OT is about the coming Messiah, Jesus, God in flesh. psalms 110:1 speaks of God himself in flesh as the "Lord". sitting at his Right hand symbolize being in POWER ....... in Flesh and bone as bared out in verse 5. same "Lord" only the emphatic form of H113, (Lord in verse 1), meaning in POWER, and that happen on the day of Pentecost, per John 17:5, and Revelation 5:6.

101G.

 

[101G]

Let's breakdown Isaiah 53. Isaiah 53:2 "For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him."

answer, Isaiah 11:1 "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:"
this is directly referring to the Messiah JESUS

the term in Isaiah 53:2, "Grow up" is not speaking of any biological growing up of a human, no the hebrew term is,
H5342 נֵצֶר netser (nay'-tser) n-m.
1. a shoot.
2. (figuratively) a descendant.
[from H5341 in the sense of greenness as a striking color]
KJV: branch.

"GROW UP" here, IDENTIFIES someone a PERSON, symbolically. definition #1. a shoot. what's another word for Shoot? answer "Grow Up". The KJV can translate it as "BRANCH". and Isaiah 11:1 states "a Branch shall grow out of his roots:" WHAT'S ANOTHER WORD FOR "BRANCH?" answer, shoot.

so clearly Isaiah 53 is speaking of the Messiah. so that ISRAEL as a whole nonsense want fly.

101G.

 

[101G]

Isaiah 53:2 "For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him."

"HE" shall "GROW UP" before "HIM". ,,,, HOW? back to Isaiah 11:1 "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:"

When “Stem is used as Noun in “The basic cause, source, or origin of something”. it means Root. and the passage, "Come forth a “Rod” out of stem/Root of Jesse. The Root of Jesse is God. Notice Root, and not Roots, with the “s” at the end. Now the “Rod” back to Genesis 49:10 "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be." the term Septre here is the Hebrew word: H7626 שֵׁבֶט shebet (shay'-ɓet) n-m.
1. a scion.
2. (literally) a stick (for punishing, writing, fighting, ruling, walking, etc.).
3. (figuratively) a clan.
[from an unused root probably meaning to branch off]
KJV: X correction, dart, rod, sceptre, staff, tribe.

The KJV can translate it as “ROD” …. BINGO, the Messiah.

Isaiah 11:1 "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch, (shoot/root), shall grow. (FRUIT), out of his roots:" notice now the "s" at the end of roots. his Roots is God/Spirit, the Holy Spirit that conceived that flesh and bone blood body in Mary, just as Isaiah 9:6 clearly states, "For unto us a child is born, (flesh bone and blood, Son of God), unto us a son is given: (Spirit, from above, Son of Man), and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." THIS IS JUST TOO EASY NOT TO UNDERSTAND.

Isaiah 4:2 "In that day shall the branch of the LORD be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel."
here, "the Fruit" is what to "GROW" in and a Branch shall grow. Isaiah 11:1 "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:" Grow here is fruit, it is the Hebrew word,
H6509 פָּרָה parah (paw-raw') v.
to bear fruit (literally or figuratively).
[a primitive root]
KJV: bear, bring forth (fruit), (be, cause to be, make) fruitful, grow, increase

and it can be translated as "INCREASE" also..... Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:7 "Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this."


Isaiah 4:2 "In that day shall the branch of the LORD be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel."

the Rod,
Psalms 2:9 "Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel."

Revelation 12:5 "And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne."

Isaiah 53 has the Lord Jesus, the Messiah, Shiloh, written all over it. but as the Lord Jesus, God said, "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches".

101G

 

[Brian2]

ALL of the OT is about the coming Messiah, Jesus, God in flesh. psalms 110:1 speaks of God himself in flesh as the "Lord". sitting at his Right hand symbolize being in POWER ....... in Flesh and bone as bared out in verse 5. same "Lord" only the emphatic form of H113, (Lord in verse 1), meaning in POWER, and that happen on the day of Pentecost, per John 17:5, and Revelation 5:6.

101G.

Why is Psalm 110:1 about God in the flesh?
I have heard Jews say that the Lord in verse 5 is God. This even though the verse 5 "Lord" is at someone's right hand, which makes Him sound like the "Lord" in verse 1 who is told to sit to the LORD's right.

 

[101G]

Why is Psalm 110:1 about God in the flesh?
I have heard Jews say that the Lord in verse 5 is God. This even though the verse 5 "Lord" is at someone's right hand, which makes Him sound like the "Lord" in verse 1 who is told to sit to the LORD's right.

answer, Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me."

Brian2, if you were to say, "MY OWN ARM", picked up a Rock. did 101G "ARM" picked up the rock for you? no YOUR OWSN ARM did, meaning YOU Brian2 picked up the rock, and not 101G.

please read Isaiah 63:5 again........ and then Isaiah 53:1 REVEALS who God's "OWN" ARM is. he himself in Flesh..... per Psalms 110:1. remember in the book of ACTS our brother Stephen saw the "Lord" standing on the Right hand of God, Acts 7:55 "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,"

note: do God have a Right side, or Right Hand? let's see, Jeremiah 23:23 "Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off?" Jeremiah 23:24 "Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD."

now, if God fills both heaven and earth, where is right side? physically ... thank you. God's right hand symbolize "POWER", please look this up.

in Isaiah 53, this is God himself, in flesh. so how did God get in that flesh? first dy being the ECHAD as the ordinal Last at the BIRTH of the flesh by Mary. but was he not G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') v. while in that flesh as a man? yes, per Phil 2:6, 7, & 8. so how did God ;power get in that flesh then? answer, he was ANNOINTED with his own Spirit, (Isaiah 63:5), the Ordinal First which explains, 2 Corinthians 5:19 "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."
now the ANNOINING as to how God, the Spirit got in that flesh with POWER. answer, Matthew 3:13 "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him." Matthew 3:14 "But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?" Matthew 3:15 "And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him." Matthew 3:16 "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:"

this also answer why Jesus the Christ in flesh in a G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') v state said, "I can do nothing of myself, yes, while in flesh, but upon being forsaken on the cross, (the Father, the Ordinal First left the body, for it was to be sacrifice. meaning now in the body without blood gthe full power of God in flesh can now be released.

this is too easy not to be understood.

so, that's why the Lord in Psalms 110: 1 is God in Flesh sitting, until his blood loss. and unto verse 5 now IN FULL POWER IN FLESH AND BONE

Oh this is just too easy.

101G.

 

[rosends]

THE Lord said to MY LORD. David's Lord was not God. His Lord was the suffering man who was rejected even of his own siblings and died a death unknown to people of his age - crucifixion.

that is indeed your understanding, but it is not at all in that verse, or in that Psalm.

 

[Brian2]

answer, Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me."

Brian2, if you were to say, "MY OWN ARM", picked up a Rock. did 101G "ARM" picked up the rock for you? no YOUR OWSN ARM did, meaning YOU Brian2 picked up the rock, and not 101G.

please read Isaiah 63:5 again........ and then Isaiah 53:1 REVEALS who God's "OWN" ARM is. he himself in Flesh..... per Psalms 110:1. remember in the book of ACTS our brother Stephen saw the "Lord" standing on the Right hand of God, Acts 7:55 "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,"

note: do God have a Right side, or Right Hand? let's see, Jeremiah 23:23 "Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off?" Jeremiah 23:24 "Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD."

now, if God fills both heaven and earth, where is right side? physically ... thank you. God's right hand symbolize "POWER", please look this up.

in Isaiah 53, this is God himself, in flesh. so how did God get in that flesh? first dy being the ECHAD as the ordinal Last at the BIRTH of the flesh by Mary. but was he not G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') v. while in that flesh as a man? yes, per Phil 2:6, 7, & 8. so how did God ;power get in that flesh then? answer, he was ANNOINTED with his own Spirit, (Isaiah 63:5), the Ordinal First which explains, 2 Corinthians 5:19 "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."
now the ANNOINING as to how God, the Spirit got in that flesh with POWER. answer, Matthew 3:13 "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him." Matthew 3:14 "But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?" Matthew 3:15 "And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him." Matthew 3:16 "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:"

this also answer why Jesus the Christ in flesh in a G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') v state said, "I can do nothing of myself, yes, while in flesh, but upon being forsaken on the cross, (the Father, the Ordinal First left the body, for it was to be sacrifice. meaning now in the body without blood gthe full power of God in flesh can now be released.

this is too easy not to be understood.

so, that's why the Lord in Psalms 110: 1 is God in Flesh sitting, until his blood loss. and unto verse 5 now IN FULL POWER IN FLESH AND BONE

Oh this is just too easy.

101G.

Thanks for that. Easy for you, not so easy for me.

 

[rosends]

Where in Isa 53 is the servant identified?

You make a couple of mistakes here:
1. The text of Isaiah doesn't actually have chapters -- they are a relatively recent and Christian insertion. so
2. Israel is explicitly identified as the servant 7 times throughout the book as a whole
3. The servant is never identified in the text as anyone else so any interpretation you make has to be an innovation, not native to the work

In Psalm 110 Christians have reason to say that the adonee of verse 1 is the Messiah, because that is how Jesus identified him. And the Jews of His day did not know how to answer so they also must have seen Psalm 110 as Messianic.

So Christians say it is messianic because their choice of "messiah" says so? That's circular and self-serving.

Adonee is used of many people so picking on one of them is not a sound identification policy and ends up with a number of possibilities. And of course some want the scribe of David to be the one speaking and calling David adonee, as if the scribe wrote a Psalm of David.

Yes, though it is used for its first times in reference to Abraham, it is also used for other people. And though the ideas in the psalm match a particular event in Abraham's life, some commentators see it as a reference to others like David. None of it is messianic, of course, but reference to historical/textual events.

But Jews have a less expansive role for the Messiah it seems and want to place others in that role.

Why do you think that? Are you aware of the Jewish idea of the role of the various anointed people?

This is amazing since I thought you Jews saw Isaiah 11 as Messianic and this tells us of that same person.
So in relation to this person I see the child of Isa 9 as the Messiah since he will rule on the throne of David forever.
And I see the one like a son of man in Dan 7:13,14 as the Messiah who is given an everlasting kingdom.
And I see the one appointed as the firstborn of God (Psalm 89: 24-29), higher than the kings of the earth as the Messiah also even if (and maybe also because) he is rejected by the Jews and killed.

So you find verses that seem to work with your personal idea of what the messiah is supposed to be and what the gospels describe, and you then decide that they are messianic. That is irrelevant to a Jew who understands the texts very differently and who has a set of messianic prophecies in his understanding that invalidate Jesus.

 

[rosends]

I presume the Jews have the Prophetic Perfect tense in their Hebrew grammar of the Bible.

Some understand it as such, in some cases. But clearly, the choice to apply it in a given verb-situation depends on how one sees the verse in question and its meaning.

 

[101G]

Thanks for that. Easy for you, not so easy for me.

all right listen, who picked up the Rock ..... the Head give directions to the Body... correct. understand, the LORD/Father directed the Body, his POWER/ARM to pick up the Rock. the Power is in the Body, here the ARM.

see, the head authorized or empowered the ARM to do something.... got it? that's why the Lord Jesus said, "I do nothing of myself".

see, as I gave the example an "ARM" of Flesh, as the POWER of an ARMY. no army just jump up and start fighting, nor do your OWN arn just pick up a Rock on it's own. it first must be A. Authorized, and then B. exercise, or given the power to carry out or execute the Mission.

one need to understand the difference of "POWER"... ,G1411, dunamis, and ,G1849, exousia.

101G.