The interpretation of AIŌN in Micah 5:2 as referring to “remote past” rather than “eternity” is argued by W. Edward Glenny in his commentary on Micah. He suggests that the phrase EX HĒMERŌN AIŌNOS in Micah 5:2, when paralleled with other biblical texts such as Amos 9:11, refers to Davidic history rather than an eternal timeframe. Glenny asserts that the phrase should be understood in the context of "days of old" (David's time) rather than denoting eternal preexistence of the Messiah.
This interpretation stems from the fact that, in some cases, AIŌN can refer to historical or generational timeframes, especially when paired with temporal markers like "days" or "years." For example, in Micah 7:14 and Amos 9:11, similar phrases refer to historical eras rather than to eternity. Therefore, according to Glenny, the terms EX HĒMERŌN AIŌNOS in Micah 5:2 are better understood as a reference to David’s reign and lineage rather than implying that the Messiah has eternal origins.
While Glenny focuses on Davidic history, he does not fully address the broader biblical and theological context where AIŌN and OLAM frequently denote eternal realities, especially when referring to divine actions or persons. For instance, in passages like Psalm 90:2 or Isaiah 9:6, OLAM clearly refers to eternity, indicating that the Messiah, often linked to divine attributes, has an eternal origin.
Other Jewish sources, including the Targum Jonathan and traditional rabbinic interpretations, see Micah 5:2 as pointing toward the Messiah’s preexistence, often interpreted as eternal. The Targum uses the phrase "from the days of eternity," which lends support to the understanding of AIŌN as denoting more than just historical past but a transcendental, eternal aspect of the Messiah’s origin.
In Matthew 2:6, Micah 5:2 is quoted concerning the birth of Christ. Given the New Testament’s portrayal of Christ as eternal (John 1:1), the interpretation of Micah 5:2 in this broader scriptural context favors an eternal understanding rather than just a historical Davidic context.
Thus, while Glenny provides a valid historical interpretation, the stronger scriptural, linguistic, and theological evidence supports the understanding of AIŌN in Micah 5:2 as referring to the eternal preexistence of the Messiah, in line with traditional Jewish and Christian interpretations.
"For instance, in passages like Psalm 90:2 or Isaiah 9:6, OLAM clearly refers to eternity, indicating that the Messiah, often linked to divine attributes, has an eternal origin."
RE: Isa 9:6. What do you believe the term Father refers to in this verse? The Father's relationship to the Son, or the Son's relationship to humanity?
Here the Messiah is called the Eternal Father, so it is about the Son's relationship with humanity.
Our Father is not "only" God the Father, from whom the divine Logos was born before all AIŌNs, but also the Son. Humans are in a father-child relationship with the entire Godhead, including Christ, not just the person of the Father.
So when we pray the The Lord's Prayer, by saying "Our Father, who art in heaven...", we are addressing the entire Godhead.
In fact, due to the Perichoresis, it is essentially impossible to worship and pray separately exclusively to a divine person, that it does not include the entire Godhead.
I agree that it is in regards to the Son's relationship with humanity.
The issue for me then arises contextually with what you claim is the meaning of eternal in this verse. While we gain eternal life through the Son and the human race will benefit from it for it's eternal future, it makes no sense to apply the meaning of that to the eternal past. Jesus, also, will never die again. Humanity had a beginning, the relationship of the Son with humanity had a beginning. Reading 'no beginning' into the word 'eternal' in the verse is not warranted.
Isa 9:6 is not the same as Psalms- 'eternity to eternity.'
Your concern centers on whether "eternal" (as applied to the Messiah) implies no beginning in terms of His relationship with humanity. You correctly observe that humanity had a beginning, and the Son’s role in relation to humanity began at a specific time.
Your argument that the term "ETERNAL" ('AD) in Isaiah 9:6 only applies to the future, excluding the eternal past, is a limited interpretation. The term 'AD (עַד) carries the connotation of perpetuity without limitation to time, encompassing both eternity past and future. In Hebrew thought, especially when referring to God or the Messiah, eternity doesn't just begin at a specific moment in time—it is always. Thus, when the Messiah is called the "Everlasting Father" in Isaiah 9:6, it underscores His nature as eternal—not merely in His relationship with humanity but in His divine essence itself.
In this context, the Son is eternal in the fullest sense of the word, which includes no beginning and no end. To interpret 'AD as only applying to the Son's relationship with humanity from a certain point onward neglects the broader biblical use of the term when it comes to God and His attributes. The Son, being called the "Everlasting Father," reflects His divine identity, which is timeless, as He exists both before time began and after its fulfillment.
When we read Isaiah 9:6, the title "Everlasting Father" (אֲבִיעַד, AVI-'AD) is a profound revelation of the nature of the Messiah. The Fatherhood here does not strictly relate to God the Father’s role in the Trinity but describes the Messiah’s relationship with His people and creation. However, the eternal aspect of this title, "Everlasting," must be considered in the divine sense, which encompasses both the past and the future. This is especially clear in how similar language is used elsewhere in Scripture to describe the eternality of God.
You mentioned that Isaiah 9:6 is not the same as Psalms' phrase "from eternity to eternity" (e.g., Psalm 90:2). The Psalms frequently use poetic expressions to describe the eternality of God, but this does not mean that other passages, like Isaiah 9:6, do not refer to eternality in both directions. In fact, Isaiah 9:6 affirms that the Messiah is eternal in nature, which is fully consistent with how Christ is described elsewhere in Scripture (John 1:1-2, Colossians 1:16-17). To restrict eternality to the future alone misunderstands the biblical use of the term "eternal" in many contexts, including its application to Christ's divine nature.
While the Son’s specific mission as Redeemer and High Priest began in time through the incarnation, His divine existence did not begin with His earthly life. His role as the Everlasting Father in Isaiah 9:6 highlights His timeless and eternal existence, through which He continues His care, guidance, and authority over His people forever. To suggest that the Son only began His role in eternity after the incarnation fails to account for the pre-existent and eternal nature of the Messiah that the Scriptures consistently affirm.
Thus, Isaiah 9:6 must be understood in a broader theological context: the Messiah is eternal both in His existence and in His redemptive mission. His Fatherly care for humanity is grounded in His divine, eternal nature that spans from the eternal past to the eternal future. The title "Everlasting Father" testifies not only to His future role but also to His pre-existing divinity.
"The term 'AD (עַד) carries the connotation of perpetuity without limitation to time, encompassing both eternity past and future."
What other scripture uses 'AD in that way?
Even the Latin Vulgate on Isaiah: "the Father of the world to come."
Contextually: continue into vs 7. Rulership, peace and the kingdom: established at a point in time (relationship to humanity), to which there would be no end.
"To restrict eternality to the future alone misunderstands the biblical use of the term "eternal" in many contexts" - maybe in other contexts, but not this one.
The term ‘AD (עַד) indeed carries the meaning of perpetuity, not limited to either past or future but encompassing the concept of ongoing, eternal existence, which is a key attribute of God. Let me provide examples where ‘AD (עַד) is used to convey a sense of perpetuity:
Exodus 15:18: "The Lord shall reign forever and ever (l’olam va’ed - עוֹלָם וָעֶד)," where ‘AD (עַד) signifies an eternal reign.
Psalm 104:5: "He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter forever and ever (‘AD olam - עַד עוֹלָם)," with ‘AD again indicating perpetuity without end.
These verses highlight the use of ‘AD in a context of eternal, unending time.
In the Vulgate, "Pater futuri saeculi" means "Father of the age to come," which focuses on the Messiah's future reign rather than explicitly denoting past eternality. However, this translation is not a limitation of His divine essence. It is a future-oriented phrase, emphasizing the everlasting nature of the Messiah’s role as a fatherly ruler for the coming age, a theme consistent with eternal kingship. This interpretation primarily emphasizes the Messiah's eternal rule into the future, not negating His eternal past. The broader scriptural usage of terms related to eternity—such as OLAM (עוֹלָם)—often involves divine attributes that extend beyond the limits of time. The focus on the Messiah’s eternal kingship in Isaiah 9:6-7 doesn’t exclude His eternal nature before the incarnation.
In Isaiah 9:7, the description of an established, unending kingdom corresponds to the Messiah’s role as eternal ruler. The expression doesn’t limit His existence solely to the future but affirms an ongoing, unceasing dominion.
To assert that ‘AD in Isaiah 9:6 *only* refers to the future misunderstands the term's use in biblical contexts related to God or the Messiah, where ‘AD can represent the eternal nature of divine rule, embracing both past and future without limitations. Therefore, restricting ‘AD to future eternity alone overlooks the fuller theological and biblical scope in which God’s—and by extension, the Messiah’s—existence is eternally present both before and after time itself.
AD just means "again". Eternity and again - I don't think so. To the horizon and again, maybe. Why would one need to add any additional term to OLAM If it meant eternity in time or distance? Isaiah 9:6 translations are generally dubious.
If it assets Jesus, eternity , would it not do the same for David? There is no indication in the text that the word means different for different “christs”
They can try and refer to John 2”1 but that doesn’t really work
You claim that ‘AD "just means 'again'" and questions its association with eternity. However, ‘AD is a versatile Hebrew word with several meanings depending on the context:
1. Temporal Sense: "Forever," "eternity," "everlasting": Denoting an unending duration into the future. "Until": Signifying a point in time up to which something occurs.
2. Spatial Sense: "Up to," "as far as": Indicating a physical extent or limit.
3. Adverbial Sense: "Still," "yet": Conveying continuation, occasionally "again": Though this is a less common usage.
There are numerous instances where ‘AD is used to express the concept of eternity or everlasting duration, especially in relation to God:
Exodus 15:18: YHWH yimlokh l'olam va'ed - "The LORD shall reign forever and ever." Here, ‘AD (va'ed) amplifies 'olam ("forever") to emphasize God's eternal reign.
Psalm 45:6: Kis'akha Elohim olam va'ed - "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever."
Psalm 48:14: Ki zeh Elohim Eloheinu olam va'ed - "For this God is our God forever and ever."
Micah 4:5: Va'anachnu neilekh b'shem YHWH Eloheinu l'olam va'ed - "But we will walk in the name of the LORD our God forever and ever."
In these examples, ‘AD is coupled with 'olam to intensify the sense of unending time, reinforcing the idea of eternity.
You ask why ‘AD is added to OLAM if OLAM already means eternity. In Hebrew poetry and expression, repetition and pairing of synonyms are common techniques to emphasize a concept. OLAM means "forever" or "eternity," and ‘AD adds emphasis, reinforcing the unending nature of the time being described.
L'OLAM VA'ED can be translated as "forever and ever" or "eternity upon eternity," stressing the absolute and unceasing duration.
While ‘AD can be translated as "again" in certain contexts, this is not its primary meaning, especially in biblical usage. The primary sense of ‘AD is related to duration and continuation over time.
Example of "until": Genesis 49:10 uses ‘AD to denote a future point: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah... until Shiloh comes."
Example of "forever": 1 Chronicles 28:9: "If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will reject you forever (‘AD)."
These examples illustrate that ‘AD extends beyond the meaning of "again" and is frequently associated with ongoing or perpetual time.
In Isaiah 9:6, the Messiah is called "אֲבִיעַד" (Avi’AD), which combines:
"Av" (אָב): "Father"
"ad" (עַד): "Everlasting," "Eternal," "Perpetual"
This title signifies that the Messiah possesses an eternal nature, embodying fatherly care that extends perpetually. The use of ‘AD here aligns with its use elsewhere in Scripture to denote eternity.
Strong's Concordance (H5703): Defines ‘AD as "perpetuity," "forever," "continuing future."
Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon: Notes that ‘AD signifies "everlasting," "continual," especially in relation to divine attributes.
Understanding biblical Hebrew requires careful consideration of words within their contexts. The usage of ‘AD in passages describing God's eternal nature supports its interpretation as "eternal" or "everlasting" in Isaiah 9:6. This aligns with the broader theological theme of the Messiah's eternal reign and divine attributes.
“ To assert that ‘AD in Isaiah 9:6 *only* refers to the future misunderstands the term's use in biblical contexts related to God or the Messiah…”
Re: messiah- it is in relation to the future. Also, the earth had a beginning and will be here forever in the future as your examples of the word show.
My last statement on the subject: you are reading your personal theology into the verse. The context does not allow for it. And even linguistically, your interpretation is suspect. It is a Messianic prophecy to be respected as such. And it is fulfilled in the Son of God, Jesus Christ. I find no agreement in your desire to expand its meaning and then accuse others of “misunderstanding” the words.
Kaiser’s comment that the Messiah shares in God’s "nature and will" does not deny His divine nature. Instead, he emphasizes the Messiah’s role as a viceregent who represents God on Earth and has been endowed with divine attributes. Kaiser highlights the extraordinary abilities the Messiah has, such as being a "Wonderful Counselor" and "Mighty God," but this does not deny Christ's divinity as you imply.
The claim that Isaiah 9:6 possibly reflects Egyptian influence (suggested by the use of regal titles) does not contradict the Messiah's divinity. In ancient Jewish thought, certain figures, including the Messiah, were understood to embody divine characteristics, even if their descriptions borrowed from cultural surroundings. The titles used, such as "Mighty God" (El Gibbor), have significant theological weight that cannot be reduced to mere cultural parallels. This title is explicitly used for God in Isaiah 10:21, emphasizing its divine implications.
Isaiah 9:7 and Micah 5:4, which speak of the Messiah ruling by the strength of YHWH, do not necessitate subordinationism in a way that negates the Messiah’s divinity. In Trinitarian theology, Christ’s divine mission and submission to the Father within the Trinity does not undermine His co-equal status in essence with the Father. The Son rules with the Father’s authority, and this highlights the divine economy without implying that the Messiah is a lesser being.
Kaiser’s arguments should not be misconstrued to deny the divinity of Christ. The titles used in Isaiah 9:6—including "Mighty God"—strongly support a divine interpretation of the Messiah. While Christ’s human role is emphasized, this does not detract from His divine essence, a point reinforced by both Isaiah and Micah in their prophetic descriptions.
The term ‘AD in Isaiah 9:6 does not strictly mean future events. Biblically, it often conveys the idea of eternity, encompassing both past and future. When applied to God or the Messiah, it transcends temporal limitations, denoting everlasting authority, not merely future events. The Messianic titles in Isaiah 9:6 (such as "Mighty God" and "Eternal Father") clearly point to qualities beyond earthly, temporal kingship. They emphasize Christ's eternal reign, consistent with Trinitarian theology. The accusation of "reading theology" into the verse fails to account for the natural reading of eternal, divine titles within Isaiah’s broader messianic prophecies. Traditional Christian interpretation affirms the eternal, divine nature of the Messiah, consistent with Old Testament language.
One simple question, Nincsnevem. Do you have any evidence that shows Kaiser interprets "eternal father" or mighty God as you say? I don't recall seeing anything like that in his commentary.
@ Nics, Please demonstrate bullet point one in a fairly decisive way please? As opposed to the English interpretations, which can be translated differently.
@ Nics, See https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.9.5?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en&p3=Deuteronomy.32.6&lang3=bi&aliyot3=0 which is still very sketchy in is reasoning for why it words the way it does.
Regarding the Hebrew word “olam,” which some bible translations translate as eternity, a few lexicons respectively say this about its meaning (olam):
1) “hidden time, i.e., obscure and long, of which the beginning or end is uncertain indefinite…the days of old, ancient times,” p. 578. ( Edward Robinson, from Gesenius, 1850)
2) “[H]idden time, long: the beginning or end of which is either uncertain or not defined; eternity, perpetuity … of time long past, antiquity,” p.612 (DCXII). (Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, from Gesenius, 1895)
3)“[P]rop[erly].something hidden, hence: 1) time immemorial antiquity…from ancient times,” pp. 508, 9. (Alexander Harkavy, Students’ Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, 1914)
4) “[O]f past time,” A. ancient time: days of old Mi 5:1,” p. 761. (Brown, Driver and Briggs, from Gesenius, 1907, printing of 1978)
5) “[F]ar, earlier…the distant…time…long time:”, p. 668. (Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, Lexicon In Veteris Testamenti Libros (“Lexicon of Old Testament Books”); Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing 1951)
As you can see, the Hebrew word olam does not necessarily mean eternity or everlasting. It could be a hidden amount of time from the distant past, not eternity.
Micah 5:2 says that Messiah’s ORIGIN is from days of old or ancient times. Origin can mean the place where something was made or came from or the place where a person was born. This verse lines up with Jesus being the firstborn of all creation. So, Micah 5:2 does not prove Jesus had no beginning.
In what way can Jesus be called everlasting Father when he, Jesus, stated his Father is greater than himself?
In the ancient world, a king was the "father" of his nation.
In Israel, the founder or head of a tribe was the physical progenitor and father-head of the whole family. Other men of authority were considered fathers, too.
This was true of Joseph in Egypt when God had made him "a father to Pharaoh and lord [adon] of all his household and ruler [moshel] over all the land of Egypt" (Gen 45:8).
Job said he was a "father [i.e., provider, protector] to the needy" (Job 29:16).
When Elijah ascended into heaven in the divine whirlwind, his protégé Elishah called out, "My father, my father, the chariot of Israel and its horsemen" (2 Kings 2:12).
If kings, patriarchs, and prophets were a "father" to their people, how much more can it be said that Messiah is "Father" to his people who will be given eternal life, especially if the heavenly Father sent him as his personal representative and lord over all nations?
JOHN 6:40 - For this is the WILL OF MY FATHER, that everyone who recognizes the Son and exercises faith in him should have everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day.”
John 5:26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has GRANTED also to the Son to have life in himself.
Romans 5:12 That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned
Romans 5:21 21 To what end? So that just as sin ruled as king with death, so also undeserved kindness might rule as king through righteousness, leading to everlasting life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Adam, who was the Father of all living people, brought sin and death into the world by means of his rebellion, but Jesus, by means of ransom sacrifice, will provide many with eternal life.
1 Corinthians 15:45 English Standard Version Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
Jesus Christ can have children on earth by "redemption" of Adam’s offspring...Messianic prophecies foretold that Jesus would have “offspring” as an “Eternal Father.”
* Read Isa. 53:10-12
So once again, Jesus being a King or father of a nation of people who will have eternal life is the reason he will bear the title Eternal Father. But Jesus is not “The Father.”
“The Father” is the God and Father of Jesus. They are not the same or equal. After his resurrection and ascension to heaven, Jesus still shows he has a God and Father who is superior to him.
Revelation 3:2 (ESV) Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of MY GOD
Revelation 3:5(KJV) He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before MY FATHER, and before his angels.
Revelation 3:12(KJV) Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of MY GOD, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of MY GOD, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from MY GOD: and I will write upon him my new name.
Revelation 3:21(KJV) To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with MY FATHER in his throne.
Observe how various Bible versions reflect the appropriate meaning of the term in Isaiah 9:6:
The Latin Vulgate: "the Father of the future age"
Douay-Rheims: "the Father of the world to come"
Septuagint, ABP: "father of the [about to be eon] = (“father of the age about to be”)"
2001 Translation: "And the Father of the Age that is Coming"
The Sacred Bible (Ronald L. Conte Jr., 2009): "father of the future age"
Septuagint (Elpenor's Bilingual (Greek/English) O. T.): "father of the age to come"
Septuagint (Orthodox England): "Father of the Age to Come"
Scripture 4 All: "Father of-future"
Concordant Literal Version: "the chief of the future"
Rotherham: "Father of Futurity"
The Bible versions above make no reference to an eternal Christ. They instead emphasize a futuristic “father” working on behalf of loyal subjects to their well-being, i.e., a king of a nation.
Notice these important words in Isaiah 9:7: “The Lord [Yehovah] All-Powerful will make certain that all of this is done.” (CEV, Literally: “The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will perform this.” – ASV) In similar fashion, messianic Psalm 110:1 tells us: “The LORD [Adonai] [Jehovah, ASV] says to my lord [la-ḏō-nî] [Messiah]: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” Both Psalm 110:1 and Isaiah 9:7 indicate that the lesser “lord” (the Messiah) is dependent on the Lord All-Powerful (YHWH) to get things done, it implicitly means that Jesus is not equal to God.
While ‘OLAM can refer to ancient or hidden time, it also frequently means eternity or everlasting, depending on context. For example, in Psalm 90:2, ‘OLAM clearly refers to God's eternal existence: "from everlasting to everlasting" (מֵֽעוֹלָ֥ם וְעַד־עוֹלָ֑ם). The word’s meaning depends on context—so when applied to God or the Messiah, as in Micah 5:2, it most likely refers to eternity, not a mere long past.
Regarding Micah 5:2, the origin from "days of old" (מִמֵּֽי־עוֹלָ֖ם) does not imply Jesus had a beginning but rather emphasizes his eternality and pre-existence. This aligns with passages like John 1:1-2 and Colossians 1:17, which affirm Christ’s pre-existence and divine nature before creation. Thus, Micah 5:2 is not about a beginning in time but an assertion of the Messiah’s eternal existence, consistent with Christian theology.
Furthermore, your mention of Jesus as the "firstborn of all creation" (Colossians 1:15) does not mean he was created. The term firstborn (πρωτότοκος) often refers to preeminence in rank, not a temporal beginning, as seen in Psalm 89:27, where it refers to David’s royal authority, not literal birth order.
So, to assert that ‘OLAM in Micah 5:2 suggests a temporal beginning misunderstands both the Hebrew context and the theological framework of the Messiah's eternality in the Bible.
"Everlasting Father" in Isaiah 9:6 does not equate Jesus with God the Father but refers to Christ's role in bringing eternal life to His followers. Jesus is called "Father" because He is the source of eternal life, similar to how Adam is referred to as the father of the human race (1 Cor 15:45). Additionally, Jesus’ submission to the Father (e.g., John 14:28, "The Father is greater than I") reflects the economic relationship within the Trinity, not inequality in nature. Both the Father and Son share the same divine essence, but they have distinct roles. Christ’s humility does not negate His divinity or contradict His eternal role as the source of life (John 5:26). Thus, calling Jesus "Everlasting Father" emphasizes His role in salvation and life-giving, not a contradiction with God the Father’s paternal preeminence (not His ontological superiority)
It’s important to clarify the contextual and theological meaning of the term "Everlasting Father" in Isaiah 9:6. While certain translations may emphasize Christ's future reign, this does not exclude His eternal nature as part of the Godhead.
Father of the Age to Come is a Messianic title that reflects Christ's role in the eternal plan of salvation and eternal kingship.
The use of "Father" reflects Christ’s authority as the life-giver and protector of His people in the eternal kingdom, not a limitation on His divinity.
Psalm 110:1 and Isaiah 9:7 reflect Jesus' role in relation to God the Father within the Trinity. Christ’s submission does not negate His divinity, but instead highlights the functional distinction within the Godhead.
Thus, Jesus as "Father of the future age" does not undermine His eternal nature or equality with the Father, but rather emphasizes His authority over eternal life and the coming age in God’s divine plan.
In both contexts, "miqqedem" highlights divine or eternal origins. In Habakkuk, it describes God's eternal existence, while in Micah, the use of miqqedem concerning the Messiah emphasizes His eternal preexistence. Since both passages deal with figures (God and the Messiah) who are beyond time, it makes sense to interpret miqqedem consistently as signifying "eternity" in both cases.
We should take into account the crucial theological connection between "miqqedem" and "olam" as used in Micah 5:2 and Habakkuk 1:12. These terms, when paired together, consistently point to the eternal, pre-existent nature of the subject. In Habakkuk, God's eternal existence is clear, and this same language in Micah must apply similarly to the Messiah. The term "origin" in Micah 5:2 signifies a pre-creation begetting of the Son by the Father, not an "ex nihilo" creation, but a generation that precedes all aions (ages), thus affirming His eternal existence.
31 comments:
The following Bible verses clearly use the terms "aiōn" and "aiōnios" in the sense of "eternal," "everlasting," or "infinite time":
Matthew 18:8, 19:16, 19:29, 25:41, 25:46
Mark 3:29, 10:17, 10:30
Luke 1:33, 16:9, 18:30
John 4:14, 6:51, 6:58, 8:35, 10:28, 12:25, 14:16
Acts 13:46, 13:48
Romans 1:25, 2:7, 5:21, 6:22, 9:5, 11:36
2 Corinthians 4:17, 4:18, 5:1
Galatians 1:5
Philippians 4:20
1 Timothy 1:17
2 Timothy 4:18
Hebrews 1:8, 6:2
1 Peter 4:11
2 Peter 3:18
1 John 1:2, 2:25, 3:15, 5:11, 5:13
Jude 1:25
Revelation 1:6, 1:18, 4:9, 4:10, 5:13, 7:12, 10:6, 11:15, 14:11, 15:7, 19:3, 20:10, 22:5
The interpretation of AIŌN in Micah 5:2 as referring to “remote past” rather than “eternity” is argued by W. Edward Glenny in his commentary on Micah. He suggests that the phrase EX HĒMERŌN AIŌNOS in Micah 5:2, when paralleled with other biblical texts such as Amos 9:11, refers to Davidic history rather than an eternal timeframe. Glenny asserts that the phrase should be understood in the context of "days of old" (David's time) rather than denoting eternal preexistence of the Messiah.
This interpretation stems from the fact that, in some cases, AIŌN can refer to historical or generational timeframes, especially when paired with temporal markers like "days" or "years." For example, in Micah 7:14 and Amos 9:11, similar phrases refer to historical eras rather than to eternity. Therefore, according to Glenny, the terms EX HĒMERŌN AIŌNOS in Micah 5:2 are better understood as a reference to David’s reign and lineage rather than implying that the Messiah has eternal origins.
While Glenny focuses on Davidic history, he does not fully address the broader biblical and theological context where AIŌN and OLAM frequently denote eternal realities, especially when referring to divine actions or persons. For instance, in passages like Psalm 90:2 or Isaiah 9:6, OLAM clearly refers to eternity, indicating that the Messiah, often linked to divine attributes, has an eternal origin.
Other Jewish sources, including the Targum Jonathan and traditional rabbinic interpretations, see Micah 5:2 as pointing toward the Messiah’s preexistence, often interpreted as eternal. The Targum uses the phrase "from the days of eternity," which lends support to the understanding of AIŌN as denoting more than just historical past but a transcendental, eternal aspect of the Messiah’s origin.
In Matthew 2:6, Micah 5:2 is quoted concerning the birth of Christ. Given the New Testament’s portrayal of Christ as eternal (John 1:1), the interpretation of Micah 5:2 in this broader scriptural context favors an eternal understanding rather than just a historical Davidic context.
Thus, while Glenny provides a valid historical interpretation, the stronger scriptural, linguistic, and theological evidence supports the understanding of AIŌN in Micah 5:2 as referring to the eternal preexistence of the Messiah, in line with traditional Jewish and Christian interpretations.
"For instance, in passages like Psalm 90:2 or Isaiah 9:6, OLAM clearly refers to eternity, indicating that the Messiah, often linked to divine attributes, has an eternal origin."
RE: Isa 9:6. What do you believe the term Father refers to in this verse? The Father's relationship to the Son, or the Son's relationship to humanity?
-NC
JPS 2023 - https://www.sefaria.org/Micah.5.2?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
Here the Messiah is called the Eternal Father, so it is about the Son's relationship with humanity.
Our Father is not "only" God the Father, from whom the divine Logos was born before all AIŌNs, but also the Son. Humans are in a father-child relationship with the entire Godhead, including Christ, not just the person of the Father.
So when we pray the The Lord's Prayer, by saying "Our Father, who art in heaven...", we are addressing the entire Godhead.
In fact, due to the Perichoresis, it is essentially impossible to worship and pray separately exclusively to a divine person, that it does not include the entire Godhead.
I agree that it is in regards to the Son's relationship with humanity.
The issue for me then arises contextually with what you claim is the meaning of eternal in this verse. While we gain eternal life through the Son and the human race will benefit from it for it's eternal future, it makes no sense to apply the meaning of that to the eternal past. Jesus, also, will never die again. Humanity had a beginning, the relationship of the Son with humanity had a beginning. Reading 'no beginning' into the word 'eternal' in the verse is not warranted.
Isa 9:6 is not the same as Psalms- 'eternity to eternity.'
-NC
Your concern centers on whether "eternal" (as applied to the Messiah) implies no beginning in terms of His relationship with humanity. You correctly observe that humanity had a beginning, and the Son’s role in relation to humanity began at a specific time.
Your argument that the term "ETERNAL" ('AD) in Isaiah 9:6 only applies to the future, excluding the eternal past, is a limited interpretation. The term 'AD (עַד) carries the connotation of perpetuity without limitation to time, encompassing both eternity past and future. In Hebrew thought, especially when referring to God or the Messiah, eternity doesn't just begin at a specific moment in time—it is always. Thus, when the Messiah is called the "Everlasting Father" in Isaiah 9:6, it underscores His nature as eternal—not merely in His relationship with humanity but in His divine essence itself.
In this context, the Son is eternal in the fullest sense of the word, which includes no beginning and no end. To interpret 'AD as only applying to the Son's relationship with humanity from a certain point onward neglects the broader biblical use of the term when it comes to God and His attributes. The Son, being called the "Everlasting Father," reflects His divine identity, which is timeless, as He exists both before time began and after its fulfillment.
When we read Isaiah 9:6, the title "Everlasting Father" (אֲבִיעַד, AVI-'AD) is a profound revelation of the nature of the Messiah. The Fatherhood here does not strictly relate to God the Father’s role in the Trinity but describes the Messiah’s relationship with His people and creation. However, the eternal aspect of this title, "Everlasting," must be considered in the divine sense, which encompasses both the past and the future. This is especially clear in how similar language is used elsewhere in Scripture to describe the eternality of God.
You mentioned that Isaiah 9:6 is not the same as Psalms' phrase "from eternity to eternity" (e.g., Psalm 90:2). The Psalms frequently use poetic expressions to describe the eternality of God, but this does not mean that other passages, like Isaiah 9:6, do not refer to eternality in both directions. In fact, Isaiah 9:6 affirms that the Messiah is eternal in nature, which is fully consistent with how Christ is described elsewhere in Scripture (John 1:1-2, Colossians 1:16-17). To restrict eternality to the future alone misunderstands the biblical use of the term "eternal" in many contexts, including its application to Christ's divine nature.
While the Son’s specific mission as Redeemer and High Priest began in time through the incarnation, His divine existence did not begin with His earthly life. His role as the Everlasting Father in Isaiah 9:6 highlights His timeless and eternal existence, through which He continues His care, guidance, and authority over His people forever. To suggest that the Son only began His role in eternity after the incarnation fails to account for the pre-existent and eternal nature of the Messiah that the Scriptures consistently affirm.
Thus, Isaiah 9:6 must be understood in a broader theological context: the Messiah is eternal both in His existence and in His redemptive mission. His Fatherly care for humanity is grounded in His divine, eternal nature that spans from the eternal past to the eternal future. The title "Everlasting Father" testifies not only to His future role but also to His pre-existing divinity.
"The term 'AD (עַד) carries the connotation of perpetuity without limitation to time, encompassing both eternity past and future."
What other scripture uses 'AD in that way?
Even the Latin Vulgate on Isaiah: "the Father of the world to come."
Contextually: continue into vs 7. Rulership, peace and the kingdom: established at a point in time (relationship to humanity), to which there would be no end.
"To restrict eternality to the future alone misunderstands the biblical use of the term "eternal" in many contexts" - maybe in other contexts, but not this one.
Square peg, round hole.
-NC
Joseph Fitzmyer (S.J.) apparently did not believe that Micah 5:2 confirms Christ's deity. See The One Who Is to Come, page 53.
The term ‘AD (עַד) indeed carries the meaning of perpetuity, not limited to either past or future but encompassing the concept of ongoing, eternal existence, which is a key attribute of God. Let me provide examples where ‘AD (עַד) is used to convey a sense of perpetuity:
Exodus 15:18: "The Lord shall reign forever and ever (l’olam va’ed - עוֹלָם וָעֶד)," where ‘AD (עַד) signifies an eternal reign.
Psalm 104:5: "He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter forever and ever (‘AD olam - עַד עוֹלָם)," with ‘AD again indicating perpetuity without end.
These verses highlight the use of ‘AD in a context of eternal, unending time.
In the Vulgate, "Pater futuri saeculi" means "Father of the age to come," which focuses on the Messiah's future reign rather than explicitly denoting past eternality. However, this translation is not a limitation of His divine essence. It is a future-oriented phrase, emphasizing the everlasting nature of the Messiah’s role as a fatherly ruler for the coming age, a theme consistent with eternal kingship. This interpretation primarily emphasizes the Messiah's eternal rule into the future, not negating His eternal past. The broader scriptural usage of terms related to eternity—such as OLAM (עוֹלָם)—often involves divine attributes that extend beyond the limits of time. The focus on the Messiah’s eternal kingship in Isaiah 9:6-7 doesn’t exclude His eternal nature before the incarnation.
In Isaiah 9:7, the description of an established, unending kingdom corresponds to the Messiah’s role as eternal ruler. The expression doesn’t limit His existence solely to the future but affirms an ongoing, unceasing dominion.
To assert that ‘AD in Isaiah 9:6 *only* refers to the future misunderstands the term's use in biblical contexts related to God or the Messiah, where ‘AD can represent the eternal nature of divine rule, embracing both past and future without limitations. Therefore, restricting ‘AD to future eternity alone overlooks the fuller theological and biblical scope in which God’s—and by extension, the Messiah’s—existence is eternally present both before and after time itself.
AD just means "again". Eternity and again - I don't think so. To the horizon and again, maybe. Why would one need to add any additional term to OLAM If it meant eternity in time or distance? Isaiah 9:6 translations are generally dubious.
If it assets Jesus, eternity , would it not do the same for David?
There is no indication in the text that the word means different for different “christs”
They can try and refer to John 2”1 but that doesn’t really work
@Duncan
You claim that ‘AD "just means 'again'" and questions its association with eternity. However, ‘AD is a versatile Hebrew word with several meanings depending on the context:
1. Temporal Sense: "Forever," "eternity," "everlasting": Denoting an unending duration into the future. "Until": Signifying a point in time up to which something occurs.
2. Spatial Sense: "Up to," "as far as": Indicating a physical extent or limit.
3. Adverbial Sense: "Still," "yet": Conveying continuation, occasionally "again": Though this is a less common usage.
There are numerous instances where ‘AD is used to express the concept of eternity or everlasting duration, especially in relation to God:
Exodus 15:18: YHWH yimlokh l'olam va'ed - "The LORD shall reign forever and ever." Here, ‘AD (va'ed) amplifies 'olam ("forever") to emphasize God's eternal reign.
Psalm 45:6: Kis'akha Elohim olam va'ed - "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever."
Psalm 48:14: Ki zeh Elohim Eloheinu olam va'ed - "For this God is our God forever and ever."
Micah 4:5: Va'anachnu neilekh b'shem YHWH Eloheinu l'olam va'ed - "But we will walk in the name of the LORD our God forever and ever."
In these examples, ‘AD is coupled with 'olam to intensify the sense of unending time, reinforcing the idea of eternity.
You ask why ‘AD is added to OLAM if OLAM already means eternity. In Hebrew poetry and expression, repetition and pairing of synonyms are common techniques to emphasize a concept. OLAM means "forever" or "eternity," and ‘AD adds emphasis, reinforcing the unending nature of the time being described.
L'OLAM VA'ED can be translated as "forever and ever" or "eternity upon eternity," stressing the absolute and unceasing duration.
While ‘AD can be translated as "again" in certain contexts, this is not its primary meaning, especially in biblical usage. The primary sense of ‘AD is related to duration and continuation over time.
Example of "until": Genesis 49:10 uses ‘AD to denote a future point: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah... until Shiloh comes."
Example of "forever": 1 Chronicles 28:9: "If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will reject you forever (‘AD)."
These examples illustrate that ‘AD extends beyond the meaning of "again" and is frequently associated with ongoing or perpetual time.
In Isaiah 9:6, the Messiah is called "אֲבִיעַד" (Avi’AD), which combines:
"Av" (אָב): "Father"
"ad" (עַד): "Everlasting," "Eternal," "Perpetual"
This title signifies that the Messiah possesses an eternal nature, embodying fatherly care that extends perpetually. The use of ‘AD here aligns with its use elsewhere in Scripture to denote eternity.
Strong's Concordance (H5703): Defines ‘AD as "perpetuity," "forever," "continuing future."
Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon: Notes that ‘AD signifies "everlasting," "continual," especially in relation to divine attributes.
Understanding biblical Hebrew requires careful consideration of words within their contexts. The usage of ‘AD in passages describing God's eternal nature supports its interpretation as "eternal" or "everlasting" in Isaiah 9:6. This aligns with the broader theological theme of the Messiah's eternal reign and divine attributes.
While explicitly trying to refute "Christian" views of Isaiah 9:6, the medieval Jewish rabbi named Rashi invokes 1 Samuel 1:22, which uses ad olam:
https://biblehub.com/text/1_samuel/1-22.htm
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2016/07/isaiah-96-otto-kaisers-otl-commentary.html?m=1
“ To assert that ‘AD in Isaiah 9:6 *only* refers to the future misunderstands the term's use in biblical contexts related to God or the Messiah…”
Re: messiah- it is in relation to the future. Also, the earth had a beginning and will be here forever in the future as your examples of the word show.
My last statement on the subject: you are reading your personal theology into the verse. The context does not allow for it. And even linguistically, your interpretation is suspect. It is a Messianic prophecy to be respected as such. And it is fulfilled in the Son of God, Jesus Christ. I find no agreement in your desire to expand its meaning and then accuse others of “misunderstanding” the words.
-NC
@Edgar Foster
Kaiser’s comment that the Messiah shares in God’s "nature and will" does not deny His divine nature. Instead, he emphasizes the Messiah’s role as a viceregent who represents God on Earth and has been endowed with divine attributes. Kaiser highlights the extraordinary abilities the Messiah has, such as being a "Wonderful Counselor" and "Mighty God," but this does not deny Christ's divinity as you imply.
The claim that Isaiah 9:6 possibly reflects Egyptian influence (suggested by the use of regal titles) does not contradict the Messiah's divinity. In ancient Jewish thought, certain figures, including the Messiah, were understood to embody divine characteristics, even if their descriptions borrowed from cultural surroundings. The titles used, such as "Mighty God" (El Gibbor), have significant theological weight that cannot be reduced to mere cultural parallels. This title is explicitly used for God in Isaiah 10:21, emphasizing its divine implications.
Isaiah 9:7 and Micah 5:4, which speak of the Messiah ruling by the strength of YHWH, do not necessitate subordinationism in a way that negates the Messiah’s divinity. In Trinitarian theology, Christ’s divine mission and submission to the Father within the Trinity does not undermine His co-equal status in essence with the Father. The Son rules with the Father’s authority, and this highlights the divine economy without implying that the Messiah is a lesser being.
Kaiser’s arguments should not be misconstrued to deny the divinity of Christ. The titles used in Isaiah 9:6—including "Mighty God"—strongly support a divine interpretation of the Messiah. While Christ’s human role is emphasized, this does not detract from His divine essence, a point reinforced by both Isaiah and Micah in their prophetic descriptions.
The term ‘AD in Isaiah 9:6 does not strictly mean future events. Biblically, it often conveys the idea of eternity, encompassing both past and future. When applied to God or the Messiah, it transcends temporal limitations, denoting everlasting authority, not merely future events.
The Messianic titles in Isaiah 9:6 (such as "Mighty God" and "Eternal Father") clearly point to qualities beyond earthly, temporal kingship. They emphasize Christ's eternal reign, consistent with Trinitarian theology.
The accusation of "reading theology" into the verse fails to account for the natural reading of eternal, divine titles within Isaiah’s broader messianic prophecies. Traditional Christian interpretation affirms the eternal, divine nature of the Messiah, consistent with Old Testament language.
One simple question, Nincsnevem. Do you have any evidence that shows Kaiser interprets "eternal father" or mighty God as you say? I don't recall seeing anything like that in his commentary.
@ Nics, Please demonstrate bullet point one in a fairly decisive way please? As opposed to the English interpretations, which can be translated differently.
@ Nics, for your consideration for refutation, if you can? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXPnrhvxrZg
@ Nics, See https://www.sefaria.org/Isaiah.9.5?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en&p3=Deuteronomy.32.6&lang3=bi&aliyot3=0 which is still very sketchy in is reasoning for why it words the way it does.
Regarding the Hebrew word “olam,” which some bible translations translate as eternity, a few lexicons respectively say this about its meaning (olam):
1) “hidden time, i.e., obscure and long, of which the beginning or end is uncertain indefinite…the days of old, ancient times,” p. 578. ( Edward Robinson, from Gesenius, 1850)
2) “[H]idden time, long: the beginning or end of which is either uncertain or not defined; eternity, perpetuity … of time long past, antiquity,” p.612 (DCXII). (Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, from Gesenius, 1895)
3)“[P]rop[erly].something hidden, hence: 1) time immemorial antiquity…from ancient times,” pp. 508, 9. (Alexander Harkavy, Students’ Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, 1914)
4) “[O]f past time,” A. ancient time: days of old Mi 5:1,” p. 761. (Brown, Driver and Briggs, from Gesenius, 1907, printing of 1978)
5) “[F]ar, earlier…the distant…time…long time:”, p. 668. (Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, Lexicon In Veteris Testamenti Libros (“Lexicon of Old Testament Books”); Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing 1951)
As you can see, the Hebrew word olam does not necessarily mean eternity or everlasting. It could be a hidden amount of time from the distant past, not eternity.
Micah 5:2 says that Messiah’s ORIGIN is from days of old or ancient times. Origin can mean the place where something was made or came from or the place where a person was born. This verse lines up with Jesus being the firstborn of all creation. So, Micah 5:2 does not prove Jesus had no beginning.
In what way can Jesus be called everlasting Father when he, Jesus, stated his Father is greater than himself?
In the ancient world, a king was the "father" of his nation.
In Israel, the founder or head of a tribe was the physical progenitor and father-head of the whole family. Other men of authority were considered fathers, too.
This was true of Joseph in Egypt when God had made him "a father to Pharaoh and lord [adon] of all his household and ruler [moshel] over all the land of Egypt" (Gen 45:8).
Job said he was a "father [i.e., provider, protector] to the needy" (Job 29:16).
When Elijah ascended into heaven in the divine whirlwind, his protégé Elishah called out, "My father, my father, the chariot of Israel and its horsemen" (2 Kings 2:12).
If kings, patriarchs, and prophets were a "father" to their people, how much more can it be said that Messiah is "Father" to his people who will be given eternal life, especially if the heavenly Father sent him as his personal representative and lord over all nations?
JOHN 6:40 - For this is the WILL OF MY FATHER, that everyone who recognizes the Son and exercises faith in him should have everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day.”
John 5:26
For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has GRANTED also to the Son to have life in himself.
Romans 5:12
That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned
Romans 5:21
21 To what end? So that just as sin ruled as king with death, so also undeserved kindness might rule as king through righteousness, leading to everlasting life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Adam, who was the Father of all living people, brought sin and death into the world by means of his rebellion, but Jesus, by means of ransom sacrifice, will provide many with eternal life.
1 Corinthians 15:45
English Standard Version
Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
Jesus Christ can have children on earth by "redemption" of Adam’s offspring...Messianic prophecies foretold that Jesus would have “offspring” as an “Eternal Father.”
* Read Isa. 53:10-12
So once again, Jesus being a King or father of a nation of people who will have eternal life is the reason he will bear the title Eternal Father. But Jesus is not “The Father.”
“The Father” is the God and Father of Jesus. They are not the same or equal. After his resurrection and ascension to heaven, Jesus still shows he has a God and Father who is superior to him.
Revelation 3:2 (ESV)
Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of MY GOD
Revelation 3:5(KJV)
He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before MY FATHER, and before his angels.
Revelation 3:12(KJV)
Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of MY GOD, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of MY GOD, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from MY GOD: and I will write upon him my new name.
Revelation 3:21(KJV)
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with MY FATHER in his throne.
Observe how various Bible versions reflect the appropriate meaning of the term in Isaiah 9:6:
The Latin Vulgate: "the Father of the future age"
Douay-Rheims: "the Father of the world to come"
Septuagint, ABP: "father of the [about to be eon] = (“father of the age about to be”)"
2001 Translation: "And the Father of the Age that is Coming"
The Sacred Bible (Ronald L. Conte Jr., 2009): "father of the future age"
Septuagint (Elpenor's Bilingual (Greek/English) O. T.): "father of the age to come"
Septuagint (Orthodox England): "Father of the Age to Come"
Scripture 4 All: "Father of-future"
Concordant Literal Version: "the chief of the future"
Rotherham: "Father of Futurity"
The Bible versions above make no reference to an eternal Christ. They instead emphasize a futuristic “father” working on behalf of loyal subjects to their well-being, i.e., a king of a nation.
Notice these important words in Isaiah 9:7: “The Lord [Yehovah] All-Powerful will make certain that all of this is done.” (CEV, Literally: “The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will perform this.” – ASV) In similar fashion, messianic Psalm 110:1 tells us: “The LORD [Adonai] [Jehovah, ASV] says to my lord [la-ḏō-nî] [Messiah]: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” Both Psalm 110:1 and Isaiah 9:7 indicate that the lesser “lord” (the Messiah) is dependent on the Lord All-Powerful (YHWH) to get things done, it implicitly means that Jesus is not equal to God.
While ‘OLAM can refer to ancient or hidden time, it also frequently means eternity or everlasting, depending on context. For example, in Psalm 90:2, ‘OLAM clearly refers to God's eternal existence: "from everlasting to everlasting" (מֵֽעוֹלָ֥ם וְעַד־עוֹלָ֑ם). The word’s meaning depends on context—so when applied to God or the Messiah, as in Micah 5:2, it most likely refers to eternity, not a mere long past.
Regarding Micah 5:2, the origin from "days of old" (מִמֵּֽי־עוֹלָ֖ם) does not imply Jesus had a beginning but rather emphasizes his eternality and pre-existence. This aligns with passages like John 1:1-2 and Colossians 1:17, which affirm Christ’s pre-existence and divine nature before creation. Thus, Micah 5:2 is not about a beginning in time but an assertion of the Messiah’s eternal existence, consistent with Christian theology.
Furthermore, your mention of Jesus as the "firstborn of all creation" (Colossians 1:15) does not mean he was created. The term firstborn (πρωτότοκος) often refers to preeminence in rank, not a temporal beginning, as seen in Psalm 89:27, where it refers to David’s royal authority, not literal birth order.
So, to assert that ‘OLAM in Micah 5:2 suggests a temporal beginning misunderstands both the Hebrew context and the theological framework of the Messiah's eternality in the Bible.
"Everlasting Father" in Isaiah 9:6 does not equate Jesus with God the Father but refers to Christ's role in bringing eternal life to His followers. Jesus is called "Father" because He is the source of eternal life, similar to how Adam is referred to as the father of the human race (1 Cor 15:45).
Additionally, Jesus’ submission to the Father (e.g., John 14:28, "The Father is greater than I") reflects the economic relationship within the Trinity, not inequality in nature. Both the Father and Son share the same divine essence, but they have distinct roles. Christ’s humility does not negate His divinity or contradict His eternal role as the source of life (John 5:26).
Thus, calling Jesus "Everlasting Father" emphasizes His role in salvation and life-giving, not a contradiction with God the Father’s paternal preeminence (not His ontological superiority)
It’s important to clarify the contextual and theological meaning of the term "Everlasting Father" in Isaiah 9:6. While certain translations may emphasize Christ's future reign, this does not exclude His eternal nature as part of the Godhead.
Father of the Age to Come is a Messianic title that reflects Christ's role in the eternal plan of salvation and eternal kingship.
The use of "Father" reflects Christ’s authority as the life-giver and protector of His people in the eternal kingdom, not a limitation on His divinity.
Psalm 110:1 and Isaiah 9:7 reflect Jesus' role in relation to God the Father within the Trinity. Christ’s submission does not negate His divinity, but instead highlights the functional distinction within the Godhead.
Thus, Jesus as "Father of the future age" does not undermine His eternal nature or equality with the Father, but rather emphasizes His authority over eternal life and the coming age in God’s divine plan.
Micah 5:2: motza'otav miqqedem mimei olam
Habakkuk 1:12: halo atah miqqedem YHWH Elohai qedoshi
In both contexts, "miqqedem" highlights divine or eternal origins. In Habakkuk, it describes God's eternal existence, while in Micah, the use of miqqedem concerning the Messiah emphasizes His eternal preexistence. Since both passages deal with figures (God and the Messiah) who are beyond time, it makes sense to interpret miqqedem consistently as signifying "eternity" in both cases.
We should take into account the crucial theological connection between "miqqedem" and "olam" as used in Micah 5:2 and Habakkuk 1:12. These terms, when paired together, consistently point to the eternal, pre-existent nature of the subject. In Habakkuk, God's eternal existence is clear, and this same language in Micah must apply similarly to the Messiah. The term "origin" in Micah 5:2 signifies a pre-creation begetting of the Son by the Father, not an "ex nihilo" creation, but a generation that precedes all aions (ages), thus affirming His eternal existence.
Nics, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahAyyNOY1BM
Post a Comment