Quite a many quotes from your post below. First my husband and I also often disagree on passages. There is one we do agree on though. (I think). That one I am bringing up as an example. Not to derail your thread or to debate it. But only as an example. In the beginning of all of creation “Let there be Light”. To me that is messianic. Since you and I seem to clash over what is messianic passages…maybe our definition of Messianic is different? To me messianic means to foreshadow or reveal Christ.
To me then “let there be Light” is messianic. We could debate that light which came before but wasn’t the true light; but instead revealed that True Light.
To me it is the difference of talking about the creation of the sun and moon and the stars or the Light of the knowledge of Christ. You keep saying two branches, two houses. I don’t disagree with you there. Same as “Let there be Light” within the given text of “the beginning of creation” “Let there be Light” …I said my husband and I agree on something and that is: the beginning of creation is Christ and how significant the opening to the Word begins “messianic” with “Let there be Light” …not sun and moon and the stars but “let there be Christ”. This I think is validated in the NT in “let this mind and heart be in you also that was in Christ”.
You may say “why waste my time because this has nothing to do with the topic”. But I’m trying to set up answering your quotes. It makes think of my husband and I debating over “messianic” verses…when maybe neither of us is necessarily wrong. See, we agree on “in the beginning” “let there be Light”. But disagree on Isaiah as messianic. someone could read and find a verse there to prove this is only speaking of “the sun” and “the moon” there; like you did with “when he sins”; but we both agree (my husband and I ) there is another branch, another house, another branch given in “the beginning of the creation” it was dark and God commanded “Let there be Light.”
Oops though… never considered until now that you might say the beginning “Let there be Light.” Is also not messianic.
Then my husband and I go on to disagree over the verses that you shared where he would fully agree with you (I think), that those verses never speak of Christ. Debating its straightforwardness… “Not messianic”. I don’t get how the beginning can be both, but not Isaiah.
The portion I was focusing on (from Isaiah's prophecy regarding a messiah) was this--
When the time comes for you to die, I will raise up your descendant, one of your own sons, to succeed you, and I will establish his kingdom. He will build a house for my name, and I will make his dynasty permanent. I will become his father and he will become my son. When he sins, I will correct him with the rod of men and with wounds inflicted by human beings.
“when he sins” thank you for pointing that out because I do see your point. Considering it there are a few verses which to me also are messianic which again you may disagree: the one in Revelation about the rod and how “my Father will break them with the rod of iron, as he did with me” …not a bad thing to me because chastisement is not to be despised?
OT: He was made a quick study, a quick learner being taught of his father? Solomon? Or Christ the quick student? I suggest Christ because Solomon seemed hard-headed and slow to learn like us. But that is just an opinion.
NT: he learned obedience through the things he suffered. Do you say this is speaks in regard to Solomon or David or Christ?
About when “he sins”
I will chastise him. OT “Our chastisement was upon him” a man acquainted with sorrows and grief “it pleased God to bruise him. Yet he was not destroyed. Although we considered him stricken and despised of God, afflicted.
? Not messianic?
But there is another branch-- and Isaiah distinguishes that a messiah is much more than an earthly king. From the same root of Jesse, the same son David-- but his kingdom and his house was of a different sort.
Agree. I am NOT disagreeing with you there is two houses, two branches. I LOVE what you said …and God doesn’t dwell in one of them. I’m thinking about it…to me it is also like the word of God. There is two creations in the beginning, “Let there be Light” always two branches, two houses …and God doesn’t dwell in one of them. We could go back to Adam and his dominance over the beast and fowls and even what was promised that he would rule over and be given “seed” “fruit” “land” …and the Spirit of God doesn’t dwell in one.
When did God ever say of Solomon? -"This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased."
But that was part of the promise to David-- that for one of David's sons, -God would become his father and he would be God's son and through THIS particular son that permanent dynasty and kingdom would be established. Something never said of the dynasty through Solomon, -which came with a condition--- "IF you follow my rules, observe my regulations, and obey all my commandments..."
Two branches, two houses. I don’t disagree
Precisely. If you think that the one Isaiah was talking about was not Solomon-- rather this one who would be filled with wisdom and build this house was not speaking of Solomon who didn't obey the regulations and commandments, but another-- a messiah/king who was yet to come-- it solves one problem while creating another. I'm just keeping it real. "When he sins, I will correct him with a rod of iron..." Problematic for some who insist Jesus never even farted (to speak idiomatically).
So the prophecy in Isaiah pertains to one branch of Jesse- a dynastic, earthly succession of kings and another branch yet to come of another kingdom and dynasty where his children would sit forever on his throne, though his descendants none can speak of.
But there is another branch, another house there. That is all I am suggesting. For me you can’t claim Isaiah is not messianic unless you omit that branch, that house to prove there is only one branch and one house there in Isaiah.that being the sole point. You already said there is another branch from Jesse…as equally important as “Joseph”
and “Mary” is what you speak of from Isaiah but (Imo) also as with Mary AND Joseph …Isaiah is also messianic. Isaiah both speaking of “earthly” and “heavenly”. Again, my point is not to remove the earthy branch you speak of but I’m only scratching my head on how you suggest the removal of an “messianic” branch there also. “NO. It is not messianic.” To me that is like removing messianic from “Let there be Light” and asserting it only speaks of the creation of the sun and moon and stars. We are going to have a problem when “the stars” fall to the earth and there is darkness for they withdrew their light.
You can apply this above to Solomon. The wisest man that ever had lived, scripture tells us. But it isn't intellectually honest to say-- this is messianic only. Then the next line about 'when he sins' --oops- That part is not messianic. And so forth.
Solomon may have been as wise and wiser than any earthly man…but ones wisdom did not descend from men as we are debating that gene, but that wisdom came from above not descending from men. I think of where it is said that the Gods weakness is stronger than men’s strength.
Jesus quoted Isaiah in saying the spirit of the Lord was upon him. God spoke to John and said of Jesus-- 'This is my beloved son' all of this is recorded in scripture perfectly uniting in Mary, the line of David through Joseph and Solomon and the line of David through Nathan, not precluding the necessary line through Joseph, as if he had nothing to do with her pregnation. It's necessary that he was the biological father to satisfy the promise to David and the prophecy of Isaiah alike.
Unity in One. I can see this too. If I understand you correctly it is great insight you have shared. I’m not disagreeing. But in the uniting in “One” of Mary AND
Joseph …NT of two He makes One. Still…Messianic (Imo).
I would even go as far as to suggest all OT is Messianic…