text size

Top comments

{{ annotation.praises_count }} Likes
{{ annotation.creator_alias }}
{{ annotation.creator_score }}

There are no comments yet. Be the first to start comment or request an explanation.

1 Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations. 2 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. 3 Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy: they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. 4 For thou hast broken the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, as in the day of Midian. 5 For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire. 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. 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. 8 The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel. 9 And all the people shall know, even Ephraim and the inhabitant of Samaria, that say in the pride and stoutness of heart, 10 The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones: the sycomores are cut down, but we will change them into cedars. 11 Therefore the LORD shall set up the adversaries of Rezin against him, and join his enemies together; 12 The Syrians before, and the Philistines behind; and they shall devour Israel with open mouth. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still. 13 For the people turneth not unto him that smiteth them, neither do they seek the LORD of hosts. 14 Therefore the LORD will cut off from Israel head and tail, branch and rush, in one day. 15 The ancient and honourable, he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail. 16 For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed. 17 Therefore the LORD shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one is an hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still. 18 For wickedness burneth as the fire: it shall devour the briers and thorns, and shall kindle in the thickets of the forest, and they shall mount up like the lifting up of smoke. 19 Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts is the land darkened, and the people shall be as the fuel of the fire: no man shall spare his brother. 20 And he shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied: they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm: 21 Manasseh, Ephraim; and Ephraim, Manasseh: and they together shall be against Judah. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

read all comments

1 Enakshi Ganguly = "Source: http://broadneckbaptist.blogspot.com/2011_01_01_archive.html"
2 Enakshi Ganguly = ""One of the more subtle things Matthew likes to do is teach via a sort of “sacred geography”...Zebulun and Naphtali were the very first tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel deported by the Assyrians 700 years before Matthew wrote. It has been an extremely long time since that region was called the area of Zebulun and Naphtali. So to get the hang of how odd it is that Matthew describes the area in that way, imagine a modern-day writer referring to Paris as being in the “territory of the Franks”.  We immediately grasp that Matthew is trying to get us to think historically.  He then follows this up with a citation from Isaiah.  And not just any part of Isaiah, but Isaiah 9:1-2 which is right in the heart of what scholars call “the book of Immanuel” found in Isaiah 7-11 and which Matthew has already quoted twice before.  His point then?  That Jesus — the son of David — is beginning his restoration of the Davidic kingdom (and his transformation of it into the kingdom of heaven) at ground zero where God’s covenant judgment had fallen seven centuries before."Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/01/land-of-zebulun-land-of-naphtali-galilee-of-the-gentiles.html#ixzz3LJREn5Kd"
3 Enakshi Ganguly = "Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moab"
4 Sara Di Diego = "Darkness could mean many things or all the possible things.  Darkness could symbolize calamity, ignorance, idolatry, and/or crudeness.Work Cited:http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/wesleys-explanatory-notes/isaiah/isaiah-9.html"
5 Vin P = "There is an expression called “prophetic perfect.” C. Hassell Bullock explains in An Introduction To The Old Testament Prophetic Books, Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007, “It has been recognized that the prophets often envisioned future events with such confidence of their reality that they spoke of them as having already occurred.” This is an example."
6 Enakshi Ganguly = ""Centuries earlier, God’s people had been slaves of another enemy called Midian, for 7 years. But then God appointed Gideon, a most unlikely hero, to free them (see Judges 7:15-25). It was such a wonderful surprise that the nation long remembered the story. Isaiah himself mentions it twice more (see 10:26 and 60:6)."Source: http://www.easyenglish.info/bible-commentary/isaiah1-9-lbw-nh.htm"
7 Cary W = "Jesus is given all the most glorious names of God here.  A counselor, Father and a Prince of Peace...who could ask for anything more of God?"
8 Sarah R = "This verse also has the Trinity represented.Wonderful Counselor = Holy SpiritMighty God & everlasting Father = God the FatherPrince of Peace = JesusThree personifications of one personal, almighty, holy God."
9 Yaakov ben Chaim Tzvi = "Let us look at two translations of this prophecy, the Hebrew version of Isaiah 9:6 says “For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name the prince of peace.” Next, let us look at the Christian King James Version of the Bible 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, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” There are multiple errors in the translation of this passage which we shall now discuss. First of all, let us look at the tense in this sentence. Isaiah lived 800 years before the birth of Jesus. Isaiah 9:6 says a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us and the authority is upon his shoulder. Had this prophecy been referring to Jesus, the birth would have been future tense, a son will be born a son will be given to us and the authority will be on his shoulder. Instead, the Hebrew Scriptures speak of an event that already happened, eight hundred years prior to the birth of Jesus. Even the KJV says “unto us a child is born, unto us a child is given” past tense.  however the tense following that sentence was modified for “the government to be [future] on his shoulders” instead of "is on his shoulders" which is inconsistent with the rest of the text in the passage. In addition to the translational error in tense which changes an event that already happened into one that will happen; the KJV also changes the punctuation so that the child is called “Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace”. The correct punctuation in Hebrew says that this child who is the wondrous advisor was called the Prince of Peace, by the mighty God, the everlasting father. In other words, it was God who called the name of this child, the prince of peace. In addition, in Chapter 8, God calls the name of the child Immanuel just as Isaiah prophecied. Not that the child would be called God, but that he would be called by God the name Immanuel. By re-positioning the Hebrew punctuation, the KJV misleads the reader into thinking that God himself is being born by being called, the mighty God. In fact, the reason this event is in the past tense [800 years before Jesus] was because this was speaking about the birth of King Hezekiah in the previous chapter [Isaiah 8]. King Hezekiah was called ‘Sar Shalom’ which means prince of peace in Hebrew. If one reads Isaiah Chapter 8 and Chapter 9 together, one will see that the Child that was born was the child in the previous chapter and not the birth of Jesus eight centuries in the future. The use of past tense on a future prophecy, as well as the re-positioning of punctuation proves that this prophecy could not possibly be referring to Jesus born centuries later from the time this was written. This is nothing more than an error in translation and punctuation which is obvious if one reads the entire chapters 8 and 9 in succession."
10 Sarah R = "In John 16:33 Jesus said, "“I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”""
11 Sarah R = "Jesus came from the bloodline of David (see genealogies in the beginning of Matthew and Luke) and as Jesus is alive and will reign forever, therefore the throne of David will be continued forever. When He returns to claim His people, there shall be peace at last."
12 Yaakov ben Chaim Tzvi = "Question:I am curious to know what happened during the 400 years or so between the Torah and the New Testament. Also, did the Jews have a king during Roman Era at all, and what was the function of the Sanhedrin? Why do they say Jesus was the king of the Jews? To which Jews are they referring? Also, as far as the line of David goes, can we trace Mary and Joseph back to David? Were they even from any tribe at all?Answer:I am going to assume that in your first question you are asking whether there was a legitimate Davidic king over the Jewish people during the Second Temple period. If this is in fact your question, the answer is no. Although there was a royal crown held by both the dynasty of the Hasmoneans and Herod, they were not legitimately anointed kings over the Jewish people, because they were not heirs to the Davidic throne. Rather, they were priests descendants from the tribe of Levi, not Judah.The answer to your second question is the Sanhedrin was the Jewish court system in the land of Israel, not the seat of a king.With regard to your third question, when Christians refer to Jesus as king of the Jews, they are asserting, in essence that Jesus was the messiah, and the final heir to the throne of David. This claim, however, is self-defeating because it undermines the Christian claim that Jesus was miraculously conceived of a virgin.According to both Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born of a virgin. This claim, however, completely shatters the core Christian claim that Jesus was a legitimate heir to David’s throne and king of the Jews. The virgin birth myth undermines this fundamental Church teaching because tribal lineage is traced only through a person’s father, never the mother. This principle is clearly stated in the Torah:And on the first day of the second month, they assembled the whole congregation together, who registered themselves by families, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names from twenty years old and upward, head by head.(Numbers 1:18)According to Christian teachings, Jesus had only a human Jewish mother, and was not related to Joseph. A human Jewish father, however is essential for anyone to be a legitimate heir to the throne of David, which the real messiah will be.With regard to your final question, Mary’s genealogy is completely irrelevant to Jesus’ supposed lineage to King David. For good reason, nowhere in the New Testament is Mary’s genealogy recorded. As mentioned above, matrilineal ancestry is irrelevant to tribe identification. Both the first chapter of Matthew and in the third chapter of Luke contain a putative genealogy of Joseph alone. Although these two genealogies completely contradict each other, neither suggests that Mary was a descendant of king of David. Joseph’s genealogy is irrelevant to Jesus because according to two out of four Gospels claim that Joseph was not Jesus’ father. The author of the Book of Mark, the earliest of the four Gospels, knows nothing of a virgin birth, and accordingly, begins his book with the baptism of Jesus. The Book of John contains no infancy narrative.It should be noted that both Catholic and Protestant traditions hold that whereas Matthew’s genealogy is that of Joseph, Luke’s genealogy is of Mary. Although this tradition is nowhere to be found in the New Testament, it was a necessary doctrine for the Church to adopt.Nowhere in the third Gospel, or in the entire New Testament, for that matter, is there a claim that Mary was a descendant of the House of David. On the contrary, Luke plainly asserts that it is Joseph who was from the House of David, not Mary.To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.(Luke 1:27)In fact, Luke claims that Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth, who he says was a descendant of Aaron the high priest,1 placing her in the tribe of Levi, not David’s tribe of Judah. Moreover, in Luke 2:4, the author writes that the reason it was necessary for Joseph and Mary to return to Bethlehem was because it was Joseph, not Mary, who was from the House of David.And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David.(Luke 2:4)There are a number of reasons why the Church sought to claim that Luke’s genealogy of Jesus is traced through Mary’s line. To begin with, Paul claims in Romans 1:3 that Jesus was from the seed of David after the flesh. This has always been understood to mean that Paul was claiming that King David was the biological ancestor of Jesus. At the time when Paul penned the Book of Romans, he was completely unaware that Christendom would eventually claim that Jesus was born of a virgin. Consequently, the Church desperately needed Paul’s statement to correlate with the virgin-birth story.This dilemma was solved by the assertion that whereas Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus was traced through Joseph’s line, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus was through Mary’s lineage. In this way, Jesus could now be from the seed of David after the flesh through Luke’s genealogy. Likewise, establishing Mary’s lineage to King David, Luke’s genealogy ostensibly solves the problem of what to do with Romans 1:3 (Paul), and enables the Church to claim a physical link between Jesus and King David.Finally, it seeks to resolve an awkward discrepancy between the conflicting genealogies contained in the books of Matthew and Luke. Whereas in Matthew’s genealogy, Joseph’s father is Jacob,2 in Luke’s genealogy it is Heli.3 By claiming that Luke’s genealogy is of Mary, Heli becomes Mary’s father and Joseph’s father-in-law.Sadly, Christendom’s far-fetched resolution to the Gospel’s conflicting genealogies has satisfied the unlettered minds of billions of parishioners worldwide.Yours,Rabbi Tovia SingerLuke 1:5 Matthew 1:16 Luke 3:23 "
13 Sara Di Diego = "God made a covenant to David that he, and all his descendents, would have the throne.  Thus the messiah would have to come from this line.Work Cited:http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/wesleys-explanatory-notes/isaiah/isaiah-9.html"
14 Sara Di Diego = "Rezin was king of Syria or Aram.Source:http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/File:King_Rezin_-_Kings.jpg"
15 Enakshi Ganguly = ""People from Philistia, which was a nation near Judah and a frequent enemy of God’s people."Source: http://www.easyenglish.info/bible-commentary/isaiah1-9-lbw-nh.htm"
16 Enakshi Ganguly = ""‘He lifted his hand’ is a common expression (form of words). Its origin goes back to ancient Egypt. The words suggest a king who lifts his royal mace (heavy stick) to strike down his enemies (see also verses 17 and 21; see also Isaiah 10:4 and 14:26-27)."Source: http://www.easyenglish.info/bible-commentary/isaiah1-9-lbw-nh.htm"
17 Enakshi Ganguly = "The Lord will punish the rulers of Israel.Source: http://www.easyenglish.info/bible-commentary/isaiah1-9-lbw-nh.htm"
18 Sara Di Diego = "The leaders described here mean the false prophets of the people, who "cause them to err" by giving false prophecies and suggestions, since they are not truly with god.Work Cited:http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/wesleys-explanatory-notes/isaiah/isaiah-9.html"
19 Enakshi Ganguly = ""Manasseh and Ephraim were the names of two sons of Joseph. Their later families formed *tribes and were called by the same names."Source: http://www.easyenglish.info/bible-commentary/isaiah1-9-lbw-nh.htm"
20 Enakshi Ganguly = ""at the time of David and Solomon, the capital of the country called Israel. During the time of Isaiah, Jerusalem was the capital of the country called Judah."Source: http://www.easyenglish.info/bible-commentary/isaiah1-9-lbw-nh.htm"