"If he commits iniquity I will chasten him"

Post by **_Ely** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:04 pm

12 “When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men. 15 But My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever.”’”
2 Samuel 7 (cf. 2 Chron 17:11-15)

Can someone tell me why we apply all of this to Jesus except the line in bold? Funnily enough, I've just noticed (or maybe re-noticed) thay the NKJV didn't apply it's usual capital letters for the pronouns here when at least some of it is definitely referring to Jesus (cf. Hebrews 1:5b)

Post by **_Paidion** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:58 pm

12 “When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men. 15 But My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever.”’”

In my opinion, the bolded portion would fit Christ better than some of the rest! After, all it states "if he commits iniquity" allowing for the possibility. But the first portion states that David's seed will come from his body. Jesus didn't come from David's body, even though He is called "The Son of David" in a geneological sense. But Solomon came from David's body. I think the whole passage applies primarily to Solomon. The promise was that Yahweh would establish his throne and his kingdom permanently (Hebrew "owlem" not "forever" as it is often translated). Yet God did not establish it permanently, after Solomon went his own way.

God has often changed His mind in response to people. For example, God said:

At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it,
10 but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it.
Jeremiah 18:7-10 NRSV

Post by **_Ely** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:39 am

Paidion wrote:In my opinion, the bolded portion would fit Christ better than some of the rest! After, all it states "if he commits iniquity" allowing for the possibility. But the first portion states that David's seed will come from his body. Jesus didn't come from David's body, even though He is called "The Son of David" in a geneological sense. But Solomon came from David's body. I think the whole passage applies primarily to Solomon. The promise was that Yahweh would establish his throne and his kingdom permanently (Hebrew "owlem" not "forever" as it is often translated). Yet God did not establish it permanently, after Solomon went his own way.

God has often changed His mind in response to people. For example, God said:

At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it,
10 but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it.
Jeremiah 18:7-10 NRSV

But "I will be his Father, and he shall be My son" is definitely applied to Jesus in Hebrews 1:5b. This makes me thnk that the words before and after also apply to Him.

Post by **_schoel** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:58 am

Ely wrote:But "I will be his Father, and he shall be My son" is definitely applied to Jesus in Hebrews 1:5b. This makes me thnk that the words before and after also apply to Him.

Why couldn't Solomon be referred to as "My son" in this passage? Just because Jesus is also called the son of God doesn't mean that every reference to that relationship mentioned in Scripture refers directly to Jesus.

Genesis 6:1-4
1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

Job 1:6
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.

Matthew 5:19
9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

Romans 8:19
19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God.

Post by **_Ely** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:23 pm

schoel wrote:
Ely wrote:But "I will be his Father, and he shall be My son" is definitely applied to Jesus in Hebrews 1:5b. This makes me thnk that the words before and after also apply to Him.
Why couldn't Solomon be referred to as "My son" in this passage? Just because Jesus is also called the son of God doesn't mean that every reference to that relationship mentioned in Scripture refers directly to Jesus.

Hey schoel (by the way, is that your first, last or nickname - or all three?).

The writer of Hebrews quotes the passage as a direct reference (by the Father) to Jesus:

1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.5 For to which of the angels did He ever say: “ You are My Son, today I have begotten You”? And again: “ I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son”? Hebrews 1

Post by **_schoel** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:12 am

Hey schoel (by the way, is that your first, last or nickname - or all three?).

Last name. My first is Dave.
I'm so used to using my last name as a login (I'm a techie) that it naturally became my moniker here.

The writer of Hebrews quotes the passage as a direct reference (by the Father) to Jesus:

1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.5 For to which of the angels did He ever say: “ You are My Son, today I have begotten You”? And again: “ I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son”? Hebrews 1

I guess I see the passage in 2 Samuel 7 as direct prophesy to David about the eventual permanence of the Davidic kingdom, but also about Solomon. Aspects of Solomon's life and promises are regarded to be typological of Christ. However, not all aspects of Solomon's life would be applied to Christ (i.e how many wives would Christ have, etc).

I think the writer of Hebrews was asserting Jesus as the Messiah by using OT messianic references to describe him (Psalm 2, 2 Samuel 7). However, if the writer of Hebrews doesn't quote 2 Samuel 7:14, then we may overstep our bounds by attempting to apply it to Christ.

Conversely, 2 Samuel 7:14 could be applied to Christ although it feels odd to do so. Since Jesus didn't sin, then he wouldn't receive the consequence described in the verse.

Those are my thoughts. What are yours?

Dave

Post by **_Paidion** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:49 pm

I think that often Old Testament statements were intended to apply to certain situations of the day, and the New Testament writers applied these words to their day. Hence the application to Jesus, of the 2 Samuel 7 prophecy by the writer to the Hebrews.

Another example is the statement by the gospel writer that Jesus' parents taking Him to Egypt and back fulfilled the prophecy, "Out of Egypt have I called my son." Yet, the OT statement clearly referred to God bringing Israel out of Egypt in the days of Moses and Joshua.

Post by **_Ely** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:27 am

schoel wrote:Conversely, 2 Samuel 7:14 could be applied to Christ although it feels odd to do so. Since Jesus didn't sin, then he wouldn't receive the consequence described in the verse.

But maybe if He had sinned, then He would have been punished? Perhaps this connects with the issue of whether Jesus was able to sin or not? or maybe I'm in over my depth here and my head is starting to hurt? So many questions!

Post by **_Jim** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 6:20 am

Ely wrote:
schoel wrote:Conversely, 2 Samuel 7:14 could be applied to Christ although it feels odd to do so. Since Jesus didn't sin, then he wouldn't receive the consequence described in the verse.
But maybe if He had sinned, then He would have been punished? Perhaps this connects with the issue of whether Jesus was able to sin or not? or maybe I'm in over my depth here and my head is starting to hurt? So many questions!

If you even suggested this on any other board you would of been slammed. This I know since I was chasing this same rabbit trail on another board. Yikes. I like this board because for the most part you can bring abstract thoughts without to many rocks thrown at you.

Jim

Post by **_TK** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 7:01 am

Jim-

This morning on may way in to work i heard Steve G talk about v.14; he felt it could be interpreted that while Jesus did not sin himself, be bore the iniquities of others and therefore bore their chastisement.

the topic of whether Jesus was ABLE to sin was discussed at length under Misc. Theol. topics under the heading "was jesus born with the ability to sin?" you might want to check that out too.

TK