Isaiah 40 shema trinity - what does the text say?

[Wootah]

Isaiah 40:3 A voice of one calling:
“In the wilderness prepare
the way for the Lord[a];
make straight in the desert
a highway for our God.

Matthew 11:14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. 15 Whoever has ears, let them hear

Question: who is the Lord? If John is Isaiah who is Jesus?

Ignore your ideology if you can.

[2timothy316]

Isaiah 40:3 A voice of one calling:
“In the wilderness prepare
the way for the Lord[a];
make straight in the desert
a highway for our God.

Matthew 11:14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. 15 Whoever has ears, let them hear

Question: who is the Lord? If John is Isaiah who is Jesus?

Ignore your ideology if you can.

This is a fine example of eisgesis. You have a preconceived idea and then searched the Bible to fit that idea.

Read the whole Chapter. What is Isaiah writing about? He writing about that one day those captured in Babylon will return to Jerusalem. They will have a clear path to their home and path back to pure worship. Isaiah is speaking of a literal road that people will have travel to get back to Jerusalem. The path back belongs to God and it leads to Jerusalem. The path is not for God to walk on and the path doesn't lead to God. Isaiah didn't build this road. He died before the release of Israel from Babylon. Thus couldn't have 'cleared a path'. So you already have one thing wrong. John is not Isaiah.

So a quick recap:
1. Isaiah is writing about a literal road.
2. The road is from Babylon to Jerusalem.
3. The path doesn't lead to God.
4. People clear the path but the path isn't for God to walk on but for people to walk on.

With this in mind now we look at Matthew 11:14. This scripture takes on a different meaning after removing the trinity colored glasses. John isn't Isaiah but he is the people that cleared the road. Jesus is Elijah. Did you know that Elijah means 'My God is Jehovah'? Neat eh?!

This is how you read the Bible using exegesis and when we do, we find the scriptures you presented have nothing to do with the trinity. It's not even close. The major flaw was thinking that Isaiah was John as Isaiah didn't live to see his prophecy of the road back to Jerusalem being built fulfilled. Isaiah had no part in 'clearing the road'.

[PinSeeker]

I am as trinitarian in my belief of our triune God as I can possibly be... ...but I agree that these particular passages don't really have anything to do with the trinity.

Isaiah is like John -- actually John is like Isaiah -- in that he is a voice crying out in the wilderness and therefore a messenger. John himself explains this in the first chapter of his Gospel.

To explain, as Jesus is the Greater Elijah, John is the greater Isaiah. Just as Isaiah "cleared the path" from Babylon to Jerusalem... he "prepared the way" by pointing out what it was and that God would provide it and protect and sustain Israel on it... so did John "prepare the way" by pointing it -- Him, Jesus, Who Himself IS the Way -- out in the same fashion. In Isaiah 40, the path, the way, is a type of Jesus Himself; Jesus is represented by the literal path from Babylon to Jerusalem itself.

We see this when we understand Isaiah's prophecy more fully, particularly if we look at Isaiah 35, where Jesus is represented by the highway, the roadway, the Highway of Holiness. He is the Way (and the truth and the life), as He Himself asserts in John 14:6.

Grace and peace to you both.

[marco]

This is a fine example of eisgesis. You have a preconceived idea and then searched the Bible to fit that idea.



This is how you read the Bible using exegesis and when we do, we find the scriptures you presented have nothing to do with the trinity.

What you have done is taken your own non-Trinity view and formed an interpretation that suits what you believe. This is called eisegesis.


It does seem rather clear that when John said: " I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Isaiah," he is directing attention to Jesus. But everything depends on what preconceived view one has.

[2timothy316]

I am as trinitarian in my belief of our triune God as I can possibly be... ...but I agree that these particular passages don't really have anything to do with the trinity.

Isaiah is like John -- actually John is like Isaiah -- in that he is a voice crying out in the wilderness and therefore a messenger. John himself explains this in the first chapter of his Gospel.

To explain, as Jesus is the Greater Elijah, John is the greater Isaiah. Just as Isaiah "cleared the path" from Babylon to Jerusalem... he "prepared the way" by pointing out what it was and that God would provide it and protect and sustain Israel on it... so did John "prepare the way" by pointing it -- Him, Jesus, Who Himself IS the Way -- out in the same fashion. In Isaiah 40, the path, the way, is a type of Jesus Himself; Jesus is represented by the literal path from Babylon to Jerusalem itself.

Isaiah and John are similar in that they both served as prophets trying to get people to go the right way. Isaiah did foretell about a person that would 'clear the way'. Yet John is not 'likened to' Isaiah in the prophecy. Isaiah didn't clear any literal roads. He died long before Israel was released from Babylon.

We see this when we understand Isaiah's prophecy more fully, particularly if we look at Isaiah 35, where Jesus is represented by the highway, the roadway, the Highway of Holiness. He is the Way (and the truth and the life), as He Himself asserts in John 14:6.

Grace and peace to you both.

Jesus is indeed is 'The Way'. We are encouraged to 'walk closely in his footsteps'. (John 14:6, 1 Peter 2:21) Though I'm not entirely sure Jesus is the what John needed to 'clear' and 'straighten' in Isaiah's prophecy. More likely John began the clearing and straightening work by clearing false doctrines and straightening crooked lifestyles that Jesus would later perfectly provide an example of the life or 'path' a person should be following. Later, Jesus becoming known as the personification of 'the path'. Even before it was what we know of as a 'Christian life' following Jesus example was just called 'the Way'. (Acts 9:2) Certainly the term 'the Way' was a play on the words Jesus said in John 14:6.

[Wootah]

This is a fine example of eisgesis.

Almost with mod hat on. Let's not call someone's thinking eisegesis it is just far too subjective.

Also the way I read your post was, "This is a fine example of eisegesis: ... "

Let us reason together.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 1 by Wootah]

Go to "Original Intent of the Sh'ma."

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 3 by PinSeeker]

Maybe the issue here is that Jesus comprehensively fulfils so many prophecies. He is the way, truth and life. He is the true vine, and so many more. Maybe you are limiting Jesus here?

[2timothy316]

This is a fine example of eisgesis. You have a preconceived idea and then searched the Bible to fit that idea.



This is how you read the Bible using exegesis and when we do, we find the scriptures you presented have nothing to do with the trinity.

What you have done is taken your own non-Trinity view and formed an interpretation that suits what you believe. This is called eisegesis.

Nope. I looked at the scripture with no view in mind as all Bible reading should begin.

You're misrepresenting my post by falsely calling it eisegesis, that is called a strawman argument so that my post is easier for you to attack and you have no other real evidence to support your claim.

To think that because you or the majority use eisegesis then everyone must use it is a logical fallacy called Affirming the Consequent. Ex: Bob is a human that uses wax on his car. Jill is a human, she must use wax on her car too.

[2timothy316]

This is a fine example of eisgesis.

Almost with mod hat on. Let's not call someone's thinking eisegesis it is just far too subjective.

It is far too subjective. Eisegesis has been proven to be subjective in every case. That is the nature of its use. That is what it is supposed to do, that is the purpose of eisegesis. To lead preconceived ideas onto a text. One makes a statement and then goes and finds a text (normally a few lines out of context) to make their statement seem true. This thread, what is the title? "Isaiah 40 shema trinity - what does the text say?" That is a the finest example of eisegesis. Before anyone reads Isaiah 40 you have already put the word 'trinity' is the mind of the reader by putting the word trinity in the title before the reader has read Isaiah 40. So now people are going to read Isaiah 40 looking for a tie to the trinity because you told them what you're wanting them to see. That's why I don't trust people that use eisegesis and I will never use it. The correct way is not to tell the person what they are looking for before they read the Bible.

Also the way I read your post was, "This is a fine example of eisegesis: ... "

But it wasn't eisgesis. I read the scripture with no preconceived ideas. Reading Isaiah 40 as it is written is a prophecy about the future return of Israel to Jerusalem is it not?

You're misrepresenting my post by falsely calling it eisegesis, that is called a strawman argument so that my post is easier for you to attack. Because I use exegesis, your false accusation of bringing me down to your way of interpretation is your only defense but the discerning reader will see your defense falls short as you didn't provide any real rebuttal on the subject. Nor can you prove I used eisegesis. I have proved you used eisegesis and you even admit that it's your way of reading the Bible.