Radak (David Kimhi) on Isaiah 8:20

  

Radak on Isaiah 8:20:1

לתורה ולתעודה. שבועה כאדם האומר בתורה יהיה כך וכך, וכן אם לא שבועה כמו אם לא שויתי ודוממתי, והדומים להם, יאמרו אלה שאמר, וכי יאמרו אליכם, תדעו באמת כי כן יאמרו אליכם כדבר הזה אשר אמרתי, וזהו דבר אשר אין לו שחר, פירוש אורה כלומר אין להם שום טעם ודבר חשוך ואפל הוא, ויונתן תרגם כדין תאמרון להון לאורייתא וגו', כלומר לאוב ולידעני אין לו מי שישחר פניו ויבקשנו, כלומר אין ראוי לכך, ובדרש אין לו שחר על עצמו אינו מזריח את השחר שהרי עינים לו ולא יראה ואיך יזריח על אחרים, ובדרש עוד אמר רבי סימון בארה אביו של הושע בן בארי נבא שני מקראות הללו, וכי יאמרו לתורה ולתעודה, ולא היה להם כדי ספר ונטפלו בישעיה ונבא לגלות עשרת השבטים כשגלה מלך אשור לראובני ולגדי הגלוהו עמם שנאמר בארה בנו נשיא לראובני ולגדי הוא אשר הגלה תגלת פלאסר: (source)

 

 

“To the teaching and to the testimony” — an oath, like someone saying, “By the Torah, it shall be so-and-so.” Likewise expressions such as “if not” are treated as oaths, as in “if I have not calmed and quieted myself,” and the like.

 

Those who say this and say, “And if they say to you...” — know for certain that they will indeed say to you words of this sort, as I have said.

 

“And this is a thing that has no dawn” — meaning, no light; that is, it has no meaning or substance. It is a dark and obscure matter.

 

Jonathan translated: “Thus shall you say to them, to the Torah, etc.” כלומר, to the sorcerer and the diviner: there is no one who will seek his face or ask for him; that is, it is not fitting to do so.

 

And in the midrash: “It has no dawn” — it does not itself bring forth the dawn, for it has eyes but does not see; how then can it bring dawn to others?

 

Another midrash says that Rabbi Simon said that Bereah, father of Hoshea son of Beeri, prophesied these two verses: “To the Torah and to the testimony,” and “And if they speak not according to this word.” There was not enough of his book, so it was attached to Isaiah, and he prophesied the exile of the ten tribes, for when the king of Assyria exiled the Reubenites and the Gadites, he exiled him with them, as it is said: “Bereah his son, a prince of the Reubenites and the Gadites, he it was whom Tiglath-pileser carried away.”

 

R. C. Evans (RLDS) on Divine Embodiment

  

The cry is heard, “God is a Spirit.” Surely, we both believe and teach that. Now read it, “God is a Spirit, John 4, 24, the indefinite article “A” in this quotation gives us to understand that God is a Spirit, among more, and of the Angels, He saith, who maketh His Angels spirits and his ministers a flame of fire,” Heb. 1:7. Now this shows clearly that while “God is a spirit,” yet so are Angels. He is an individual Spirit among others, having shape and form. Your confession of Faith says, “In Unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power and eternity, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.” Con. of Faith, Ch. 2. If it be true that God has no form, then how can he be a “Substance.” You forget, as do your church, that you speak of Christ as being one of the three persons of the Godhead, and the same substance as the Father. May I ask you to enquire of your Sunday School children, they will likely inform you that Jesus was born and lived and Had a body, had parts, had passions, that He died, and rose again, and that He ascended to heaven and sits on the right hand of His Father, and that same Jesus who went to heaven will in like manner come again to earth. Yet you sneer at me because I say God has a body, has a form, has passions—Love is a passion. Now to be brief on this point, I affirm that the Bible teaches that God has body, parts, and passions. The Presbyterian Confession of Faith denies this. Now to the Bible. Just as it reads. I prefer it to the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, or to your sermon, which contradicts it. “And God said, let us make man in our own image, after our likeness,—So God created man in his own image.” Gen. 1:26-27. You may say, this was the moral image, or likeness of God. It does not say that. All the facts disprove it, and your church teaches that man is morally depraved and most of them were by your God foreordained for eternal torture. Of this more will be said later. But to continue, And Adam lived an hundred years and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image, and called his name Seth. Gen. 5:3. Here we cannot avoid the conclusion that God made Adam in His image and likeness. Adam begat a son in his image and likeness, and Paul caps the climax on this point when he said, “Christ was the express image of His Father’s person.” Heb. 1:1-3. If you had an image of Napoleon the Great, carved in marble, and a good likeness of Queen Victoria taken by a first class photographer, would you not have a good idea of what these two celebrated persons looked like?

 

Paul wrote to the Philippians, 2:6, that Christ being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God, and that same Jesus speaking to the wicked Jews said, (speaking of the Father), “Ye have neither heard his voice nor seen his shape,” John 5:37. Here we have something concerning God having Form, shape, A Person, the same substance as Christ and that Christ was the express image of his Father.

 

That the Bible says that God appeared unto men and conversed with them . I submit the following: Gen. 17:1-22; Gen. 18:1-33; Gen. 32:24-32; Gen. 35:9-12; Ex. 24:9-14; Ex. 33:9-23; These all show that God Almighty appeared to men, that He talked face to face with some of them. You may try and make it appear that at times God appeared through the medium of an Angel, well I admit it, but we have learned that Angels are spirits. Are Spirits immaterial beings, or are they material substance? We hear of them coming and going, talking and walking, eating and drinking. To me, this all proves that Spirits are material beings, and God is a Spirit.

 

Yes, Doctor McKenzie, I believe that God is a spirit, that he has form, that he has a body, parts and passions, that he made man in his image and likeness, that Christ was the express image of his Father’s person, that both the Father and Son will mingle with men in the eternity be- yond death when this mortal body will become a spiritual body and this corruption shall put on incorruption, when Christ shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body. If you do not know that this is the hope of both the former day saint as well as the Latter Day Saint, then you have no right to make a profession of Christianity. (R. C. Evans, Letter to J. A. McKenzie, February 28, 1917, rep. Controversy Between Bishop R. C. Evans, of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Toronto Ont. and the Reverend J. A. McKenzie, of the Presbyterian Church, Ont., pp. 19-21, Bound Tracts: no. 13, Community of Christ Library, copy in my possession)

 

 Further Reading:

Lynn Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment

Martin Luther on Isaiah 8:20 Being a Reference to Scripture and Oral Preaching

  

20. To the Law rather, and to the testimony, that is, the Law must be consulted rather than the mediums. The teaching must be sought from God alone, so that one may be your master, Christ, as Matt. 23:10 says. But this takes place through the medium of Scripture and oral preaching. The “Law” is Scripture, and the “testimony” is oral preaching. He who reads Scripture in an unfeigned and humble spirit does not read it without fruit. In this way you have recourse to the Law. That is to say, the Law and the testimony should be consulted. (Martin Luther, Lectures on Isaiah: Charters 1-39, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann  [Luther’s Works 16; Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999], 95)

 

Graham Stanton on the Lack of Meaningful Parallels Between Matthew 11:28-30 and Sirach 51

Arguing that purported parallels between Matt 11:28-30 and Sirach 51 “are probably misguided,” Graham Stanton noted that:

 

(a) The verbal links between Matt 11. 28-30 and Sirach are in fact quite slender. Only two words, 'toil' and 'yoke', and one phrase, 'find rest', from these three Matthaean verses are found anywhere in Sirach. The verb 'toil' is found twice with reference to the search for Wisdom, but at Sir 6. 18 and 51. 27 the sense is very different: the emphasis is not on the toil needed to find Wisdom, but on the ease of the task.

 

(b) There is nothing in Sirach quite comparable with two of the most important clauses in Matt 11. 28-29, the group addressed as 'all who toil and are heavy laden' and the reference to Jesus as 'meek and lowly in heart The portrait of Jesus as 'meek and lowly' is difficult to square with the portrait of Sophia which we find in the Wisdom writings. At Sir 24. 1, which introduces the so-called Sophia myth, Sophia speaks with pride. In Prov 1. 20ff. and again at 8. 1ff. Sophia lifts her voice and cries aloud. She stands by the gate and calls aloud in a rather arrogant manner.

 

It is, I think, not a coincidence that at the very point in 11. 28-30 where we seem to be a long way from the Wisdom tradition, we can see, in all probability, the evangelist's own hand. Many of the words in 11. 28-30 are not found elsewhere in the gospel, but 'meek' and 'lowly’ are used by the evangelist and, as we shall see in a moment, they accord well with his portrait of Jesus. So the words 'for I am meek and lowly in heart' may well be Matthew's own addition to his source.

 

As is well known, elsewhere Matthew does add interpretative phrases and clauses to his sources: there are classic examples in his version of the Lord's Prayer and the Beatitudes. In support of this suggestion we may note that v. 28 and v. 29a and c are parallel statements:

 

Come unto me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

 

Take my yoke and learn from me, and you will find rest for your souls.

 

Both statements are undergirded by the 'reasoning' of v. 30:

 

For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

 

It is verse 29b, 'for I am meek and lowly in heart, which breaks up the flow of the 'argument in this short section, and which seems to come from the evangelist's own hand. If this proposal is correct, the evangelist's redactional addition runs directly counter to the Wisdom tradition. But

even if this specific suggestion is not accepted, it is clear that 'I am meek and lowly in heart' is out of character with the portrait of Sophia in the Wisdom writings, but very much in line with Matthew's portrait of Jesus, as will be shown below.

 

(c) I find it difficult to see how either Matthew or his readers could make the jump from v. 27 where Jesus is presented as 'the Son' to v. 28, where, it is alleged, Jesus is Sophia /Wisdom. It is hot just that Wisdom is a feminine noun in both Hebrew and Greek. In the Wisdom tradition Sophia is always portrayed in strongly female terms. Those who search and seek after her are always men: sexual imagery lies just beneath the surface in many passages. A similar point is made by M.D. Johnson when he insists that 'it would have been as incongruous to ancient Jewish sensibilities as it is to ours to speak of Lady Wisdom being incarnated as the Son”’.

 

In short, it is not at all clear that Matthew identifies Jesus as Sophia. The use of some Wisdom themes in 11. 28-30 is not being disputed, but they do not seem to be the key to the passage as it now stands in Matthew’s gospel. Whatever may have been their origin, the evangelist has redacted these verses, probably by adding his own portrait of Jesus as ‘meek and lowly in heart’, but certainly by placing them in their present position within his gospel. (Graham Stanton, “Matthew 11.28-30: Comfortable Worlds?,” in A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992], 368-71)

 

 

Samantha L. Miller (2020) on New Testament Texts that Speak of the Devil Playing a Positive Role

  

Chrysostom writes, “The devil, if you would understand, is even useful to us—if we use him correctly—and he helps us and we gain great things, not ordinary things. And this we demonstrated from Job.” (De diab. tent. 1.4) Again, Job is the exemplar of virtue in the face of the devil’s work, showing the congregation that, employed properly, the devil can be “useful” (chrēsimos, χρησιμος) to them. If the congregation has a proper understanding of who the devil is and what his goal is, the congregation may “use” (chraō, χραω) the devil, or their knowledge of the devil, to gain advantages over him and benefits for themselves. The clause “if we use him correctly” is significant. Chrysostom’s aim is to teach his congregation the proper way to use the devil so that they may gain great benefit, salvation itself.

 

Chrysostom’s other example of using the devil for one’s own profit is Paul, who writes to the Corinthians to hand over the fornicator to the devil so that the flesh may be destroyed but the soul saved (1 Cor 5:5). Chrysostom tells his congregation to take from the devil whatever chastisement comes, for this will rid a person of his impurities and earthly desires, making it possible for the soul to be saved. The devil is only allowed to punish as much as God allows, so the devil cannot destroy a person completely. As an extreme example of the profitability of the devil, Chrysostom writes, “Behold even the devil has become a cause of salvation, but not because of his own disposition, but because of the skill of the Apostle.” (de diab. tent. 1.1-2) It is possible, therefore, for the devil even to be an aid to salvation, if one is skillful enough to use him rightly.

 

Prior to this point in the homily, Chrysostom has been expounding the reasons why God allows the devil still to roam the earth and wreak havoc. People can only win crowns if they can exhibit their power, so if there is no adversary against whom to struggle, the righteous person cannot win a crown. (De diab. tent. 1.1-2) This is another way to use the devil. To struggle against the devil is to become stronger, better able to resist, to forge one’s character out of stronger steel. Chrysostom seems to believe this is an intrinsic benefit of struggling. His illustration is that of a wrestler. Even if the wrestler’s antagonist has been taken away at the last minute, the wrestler who has prepared well, who has done all his exercises for his practice, whether in the end there is an antagonist or not. (De diab. tent. 1.1-2) (Samantha L. Miller, Chrysostom’s Devil: Demons, the Will, and Virtue in Patristic Soteriology [New Explorations in Theology; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2020], 74-75)

 

Keith C. Warner on Justification being a Process and Transformative

  

Justification: A Process and a Condition

 

Justification is both a condition being a lifelong process of obedience.

 

As a condition, justification means to be cleansed from sin by the blood of Christ and to stand before God forgiven, spotless, blameless, and guiltless as a result of claiming faith in Jesus Christ and baptism unto repentance. All the covenants we enter into through ordinances must be ratified as eternally valid and binding by the Holy Spirit of Promise.

 

As a process, justification is a lifetime of enduring to the end — retaining a remission of sin and remaining in right standing with God. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that to be justified before God, we must love one another, overcome evil, visit the fatherless and the widow in their afflictions, and keep ourselves unspotted from the world.

 

Justification is not only acquittal from guilt but also being regarded as righteous in a future day of divine judgment. To conclude: justification is a journey, a direction, and a process, as well as a condition and a state of being. (Keith C. Warner, Infinite Atonement: Jesus Christ’s Atonement, 3 vols. [Kirk Jotter Publishing, 2026], 1:414)

 

Compare:

 

Simply put, justification means being forgiven of our sins through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ and through the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit. . . . Paul described justification with the God verb dikaioo, meaning “to make righteous.” He summarized it in these words: “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Therefore, being justified only by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus . . . that he might be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” (JST Romans 3:23-26) (Keith C. Warner, Infinite Atonement: Jesus Christ’s Atonement, 3 vols. [Kirk Jotter Publishing, 2026], 3:352)

 

 

Keith C. Warner (2026) on the Importance of the Ascension of Christ

  

WHY ASCENSION

 

Why did Christ ascend into heaven? The answer: our Savior’s Ascension was a necessary part of the Atonement. It was the culmination of our interceding Redeemer’s redemptive work—the climax of his great and last sacrifice. It was expedient that he ascend into the presence of our Heavenly Father to forever make intercession for us.

 

The resurrection and ascension stands together. If our atoning Messiah had not risen from the dead, out faith would be “in vain.” If our propitiating Redeemer had not ascended bodily into heaven, there would be no celestializing intercession made in the presence of our Heavenly Father.

 

Our Lord’s first message, after his resurrection, was to tell Mary to report to the Apostles: “I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and to your God.” (John 20:17) (Keith C. Warner, Infinite Atonement: Jesus Christ’s Atonement, 3 vols. [Kirk Jotter Publishing, 2026], 3:92-93)