Philosopher and apologist Dr. David Wood addresses the common objection to the Trinity that many people give, including atheists, Unitarians, and especially Muslims. The objection is that the doctrine of the Trinity implies "1 + 1 + 1 = 1".
Here's a YouTube video playlist to the series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOyfMfjN8gM&list=PL_4rhC0z_G8s3HDg9XDcw4gUNA09bKyrg
The following is a question posed to me by a/an Unitarian.
//Ok so it’s not a proof text. Have you noticed almost every if not* every potential trinitarian proof has a textual problem, translational issue, or can be interpreted differently in a reasonable way. Isn’t that kind of odd?//
That's a really good question. A genuinely fair question for a Unitarian to ask, and one which DESERVES an answer by Trinitarians. It mustn't be dismissed or waved away as if unimportant. I'll write this blogpost as if I were addressing this Unitarian personally. So, I'll sometimes use "you" to refer to him.
This is kind of like the question, "Is the glass half empty, or half full?" In one sense it's subjective, and in another sense, it's objective. The amount of water inside the glass is objective, but how one sees it is subjective. I think the glass is nearly full in terms of Trinitarianism, even if it's not to the brim or overflowing. I'll eventually answer the question directly. However, first I want to say that that question, in isolation, by itself lends toward subjectivity. However, given the overall Biblical data, I believe the issues are more objective and definite, as I'll attempt to show below. Also, your question, by itself, doesn't address even more pressing questions, issues and oddness/oddities.
This blogpost will deal with the rational WHY of "so many problems." Rather than dealing with answering those specific problems individually. I've done that in other blogposts.
The original Unitarian's question was about the oddness of there being so many "textual problem[s], translational issue[s]" and why they "can be interpreted differently in...reasonable way[s]." Regarding "ODDNESS," I find other things much more odd [as I'll explain below]. Number one, that there should even be any debate about this if Unitarianism were true. Idolatry is THE MOST serious sin in the Old Testament [OT] and New Testament [NT]. The first two Commandments prohibit it. I myself used to be a Unitarian and became a Trinitarian circa 1993.
If Unitarianism were true I would expect there to be clear cut Biblical teaching that Jesus isn't God. That He's a mere creature. That the Bible would distance Jesus from Yahweh as much as possible. Lest it give the wrong and idolatrous impression. That He shouldn't be worshiped, yet the NT teaches He should be [Heb. 1:6 cf. the LXX in Ps. 97:7 & Deut. 32:43, passim]. That Jesus shouldn't be included in the Shema as Paul nevertheless does in 1 Cor. 8:6, as many NT scholars generally acknowledge as a sort of consensus [compare this speculative article HERE]. That it wouldn't be the case that the [arguably] most monotheistic verse in the most monotheistic chapter in the entire Hebrew Scriptures would be applied to Jesus. Yet is it [vide Isa. 45:23 with Phil. 2:10-11]. That Jesus, a good Jew, would avoid every appearance of possibly claiming to be God as John 8:58 at the very least suggests [I personally think more than suggests]. That the writer of Revelation, and Jesus Himself, would avoid identifying Him with the Isaiahic divine title of "first and last." That the writer wouldn't given the impression that Jesus is the speaker in Rev. 22:12-13 who calls Himself by the three divine titles, 1. "the Alpha and the Omega," 2. "the first and the last," 3. "the beginning and the end." That Jesus wouldn't be called "blessed God" as it strongly appears Paul did in Rom. 9:5. Even skeptic Bart Ehrman changed his mind and now thinks it does. More oddities...
Were Unitarianism true, I would expect the Angel of Yahweh wouldn't speak as if He Himself were Yahweh [see Judges 2; and Anthony Rogers' videos, debates and written materials on the subject]. I would expect the Old Testament wouldn't use plural nouns, plural pronouns, plural verbs, plural adverbs, and plural adjectives for God. Yet it does. Even the word Elohim is used thousands of times for “God”, and Adonai is used hundreds of times for “Lord”. Both of these words are plural nouns in Hebrew. Shouldn't God have inspired the authors to only use singular nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs, and adjectives to refer to the Deity? I wouldn't expect Jesus & NT writers to teach devotion to Him ought to be on par with devotion to His Father and that there is no devotion to the Father apart from Him Yet the NT does (vide John 5:23; 14:1; 3:36; 1 John 2:22-23; 5:12; 1 Cor. 8:6; Matt. 28:19). I would expect the Unpardonable Sin to be against the Father alone. I would expect the author of 1 John 5:20, in order to protect the majesty of the Father, would consciously avoid ambiguous wording such that it couldn't possibly be referring to the Son as "true God." I would expect Jesus not to be associated with being active in the process of creation as the NT nevertheless does several times. I wouldn't expect the Danielic Son of Man to ride the clouds since that was a prerogative of deities in Semitic cultures. Effectively portraying two divine figures in the chapter. I wouldn't expect OT phraseology and reverence to Yahweh would be applied to Jesus like [e.g. inter alia] "fear of the LORD/YHWH" and "Day of the Lord/YHWH" applied to Jesus as the NT does. I would find it odd that the worship of Yahweh is often associated with 3 invocations as the Shema's 3 references to God. As the Aaronic Blessing does. As the trihagion does in its "holy, holy, holy" or Paul's "ONE Spirit...ONE Lord...ONE God" in Eph. 4:4-6; or Paul's "SAME Spirit...SAME Lord...SAME God" in 1 Cor. 12:4-6. I wouldn't expect the many Triadic references to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as I do see.
More oddities...
Some Unitarians pray to Jesus, some don't. Some Unitarians worship Jesus, some don't. The Jehovah's Witnesses have flip flopped back and forth on whether Jesus should be worshipped. Were Unitarianism true, I wouldn't expect Jesus to be prayed to, called upon and invoked, yet He is [e.g. 2 Cor. 12:8; Acts 1:24ff.; 1 Cor. 1:2, Rom. 10:13, Acts 2:21 cf. Joel 3:23; passim]. Or bowed down to in worship as is forbidden to idols and creatures [Rom. 11:4; Acts 10:26; Rev. 19:10; 22:8-8 compare with Phil. 2:10-11; Rev. 5:13-14 passim]. Why is "bowing the knee" to Baal is forbidden [Rom. 11:4; 1 Ki. 19:18], yet "bowing the knee" to Jesus is REQUIRED [Phil. 2:10-11] for salvation? Especially since "bowing the knee" in a religious contexts seems to be an idiom used by the Biblical writers for absolute worship of The Deity as applied to Yahweh or Baal [or any other pagan deity]. I wouldn't expect "ha adon," which is used exclusively of Almighty God, to be applied to Jesus as it is in Mal. 3:1. I would expect the NT to reserve "ho theos" to the Father alone, yet it applies it to Jesus in John 10:28 and Matt. 1:23. I wouldn't expect "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody" would be directed at the Lord Jesus as Eph. 5:19 does in a way paralleling what is to be done to God in Col. 3:16. I would expect the NT to warn people about accidentally applying phrases in the OT Psalms to Jesus. Like, "Make sure you don't apply 'hallelujah' [which means "praise be to Yah"] to Jesus." Yet, Paul repeatedly applies OT YHWH passages to Jesus, like Ps. 68:18 is in Eph. 4:8. Out of the 45 times Paul quotes/cites an Old Testament passage that involves the use of kurios to translate the divine name YHWH, 33 times he applies it to Christ and only 12 times to the Father. That's 75% of the time, and three times as often than to the Father. More oddities...
I wouldn't expect Jesus to be an analog to the OT temple as He often is, since the temple is where Yahweh dwells. I would expect that if Unitarianism were true, that OT Yahweh passages wouldn't be applied to Jesus, and even if they were there would always be an explicitly stated qualification saying Jesus is only agentivally/representationally Yahweh [see my blogpost HERE on this phenomena].
I wouldn't expect any case for the personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit would be possible. Nor that the Holy Spirit would call Himself "Me" and "I" as He does in Acts 13:2. I wouldn't expect the Holy Spirit to have a mind, will and emotions. Yet, Paul talks about "the mind of the Spirit" in Rom. 8:27; about the will of the Holy Spirit who apportions spiritual gifts to individuals "as He wills" 1 Cor. 12:11; and of the Holy Spirit having emotions like being grieved in Eph. 4:30. See my main blogpost on the Holy Spirit for more evidences here:
The Full Deity of the Holy Spirit
https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-full-deity-of-holy-spirit.html
I wouldn't expect Jesus' walking on water to be clearly portrayed as theophanic. I wouldn't expect Mark, the earliest Gospel written, would mimic Old Testament theophanies when describing Jesus' miraculous walking on water. See the videos linked HERE:
All the above issues seem [to use your term] more "odd" to me were Unitarianism true, than the fact that *some* Trinitarian prooftexts have "textual problem[s], translational issue[s], or can be interpreted differently in a reasonable way." That *some* do so, doesn't mean most do so. In fact, most don't. I could have listed more oddities against Unitarianism and in favor of Trinitarianism, but those are a good sample. More can be found from all of my other blogposts in this Blog.
What makes all this ODDNESS so troubling is that it makes it difficult to know how to relate to Jesus and the Holy Spirit if Unitarianism were true. This isn't a theoretical/abstract problem. It strikes at the very heart of what it means to live the Christian life. As I said, the Jehovah's Witnesses themselves have flip flopped back and forth on whether Jesus is to be worshipped. I experienced this very problem when I was a Unitarian. It REALLY BOTHERED ME. I didn't know how to relate to Jesus. Was I to worship him, or not? If not, am I accidentally giving him too much honor? If I am to worship Him, in what way? To what degree? Am I worshipping Him in the wrong way? Or if the right way, is it too much? What exactly is the difference between "honor" and "worship" regarding God and Jesus and am I distributing them correctly? There's always the fear of committing idolatry and of diverting devotion that belongs to God ALONE away to Christ. Why is it that the OT strongly emphasizes only Almighty God is to be worshipped, yet Jesus is worshipped in the NT? In fact, humans, angels and every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them are all enjoined to worship Jesus [Rev. 5:13-14]. Why is there this seeming contradiction and discrepancy between the Old Testament and New Testament? I don't find Unitarian Dale Tuggy's explanation AT ALL satisfactory. Contrary to Tuggy, it seems to me that in consistent Unitarianism that takes the sin of idolatry seriously, one has to somehow have a heart with precisely divided and calibrated devotion between God and Jesus. God would seem to be contradicting Himself in Tuggy's resolution. In the OT God forbids creature worship, yet in the NT God contradicts His most important OT commandment by commanding the worship of a mere human. This is worse than if Jesus were a semi-god as in Semi-Arianism or Arianism. Trinitarianism disposes of all that and the entire problem as a whole "in one fell swoop." Because if Jesus is fully Divine as the Father is, then one doesn't have to worship Jesus with any reservation. You couldn't worship Jesus too much. But you can lavish Him with all and as much honor, praise and love as one can and wants/desires. As per the commandment to Love one's God (Yahweh) with all one's heart, soul, mind and strength. When I first went into an Evangelical church (circa 1993). I was irritated by how Christocentric the preaching, theology and worship was. Then I re-read the NT and saw that that same Christocentrism was there in the New Testament all along.
You mention textual problems. Most of the prooftexts don't have textual problems. The most well known that do include ones like Zech 12:10; 1 Tim. 3:16; 1 John 5:7; John 3:13; Jude 1:5; Acts 20:28; Rev. 1:11. Some of those are clear interpolations, but I'm willing to concede all of them as useless for the sake of argument because the case for Trinitarianism doesn't hinge on these, but on many other passages that don't have textual problems.
Moreover, I don't think that the prooftexts are as subjective as you claim when it comes to interpretation and/or translation. I believe that most of them have stronger arguments in favor of Trinitarianism than for Unitarianism. It seems to me that Unitarians often reject Trinitarian interpretations on theological grounds, rather than exegetical grounds. That is, it's often due to their theological biases and presuppositions which causes them difficulty in accepting the Trinitarian interpretations. That's not to say that Trinitarians don't have their own biases and agendas. Of course we do too. We all bring our presuppositions to the text no matter how hard we try [and ought to try] to be objective.
But I would argue that the Trinitarian position does better at making sense of the entire scope of the Biblical data. Whereas Unitarianism doesn't, but must use ad hoc arguments to explain away the more probable Trinitarian interpretations. For example, the data points and oddities I listed above and gave links to. I believe the Trinitarian position is better abductively, in that it has the greatest explanatory power and explanatory scope, using inference to the best explanation. I also think that it is Unitarians who must do more dodging, dancing and eisegetical gymnastics when dealing with Trinitarian prooftexts, rather than Trinitarians when dealing with Unitarian prooftexts.
For example, John 6:62 to me clearly teaches the personal pre-existence of Jesus coming down from heaven given the context of the chapter where Jesus repeatedly refers to how He is analogous to the manna that came down from heaven. In John 6:62 Jesus uses a Greek word for "before." It's not supplied by the Translators. It's actually there in the Greek. Yet humanitarian Unitarian interpretations are wildly "fantastic" [in the negative sense]. For example, one Unitarian Bible commentary HERE, teaches that Jesus is referring to His future resurrection. I get the sense that the author of the commentary and translation is scrambling to find a solution because he feels the oppressive weight of the interpretation of a personal pre-existence of Jesus in John 6:62. More passages in John for pre-existence HERE. That Jesus isn't taught to be involved in the Original Creation and/or creation of angelic beings in John 1:1; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:15-17; Heb. 1:10ff. seems clearly ad hoc to me. That Heb. 1:10ff. refers to the New Creation as some Unitarians claim, rather than the Original Creation seems ad hoc. That John 1:1ff. doesn't refer to the Genesis creation is ad hoc. See the blog HERE which shows the parallel between John 1:1ff. and Gen. 1. Examples could be multiplied.
Back to the analogy of the question of whether the glass is half empty or half full. I admit that different Trinitarian prooftexts have different evidential weight and that some aren't as strong as others. To use an analogy, some are half a pound, some 5 pounds, some 20 pounds, some 80 pounds, some 95 pounds etc. When put together, they all have cumulative weight in favor of Trinitarianism. Carrying 2 two pound stones is easy. Carrying 500 two pound stones is hard. The cumulative weight of the evidence of Trinitarianism converted me from Unitarianism to Trinitarianism.
But even those weaker data points and prooftexts, when seen in light of the stronger ones, makes it such that it can sometimes tip the scales in favor of the Trinitarian interpretation of the weaker ones. Though, saying it this way could sound like I'm doing the very thing that I accused Unitarians of. Namely, using one's theological bias in their interpretation of a passage. Let me also say it this way then. At least it makes it more plausible that the Trinitarian interpretations of the weaker prooftexts are more likely given the overall drift and bent of the Scriptural evidence. This is part of the abductive approach to theology I was talking about. Given different hypotheses, some hypotheses better explain all of the data, as well as better explain the seemingly disconfirmatory or ambiguous passages. Even making the ambiguous passages less ambiguous. In a crime scene a certain data point G might not directly point to any particular suspect, but if a lot of evidence points to suspect X, then sometimes data point G makes much more sense if suspect X were the guilty party rather than suspect R. That is, when data point G is seen in light of the cumulative evidence against suspect X. A similar phenomenon is true regarding Biblical prooftext for any doctrine. I also think that the disconfirmatory evidence against Unitarianism is more numerous, more pervasive, more central and weightier/heavier than those against Trinitarianism.
Related to your original question, one could ask, "Why isn't the Trinity clearer in the Bible if it's true?"
Here are a number of speculative reasons:
- I believe that belief in Jesus' full and true Deity is a normative belief necessary for salvation according to the NT's clear teaching. See my quick arguments HERE.
But I don't believe it's an absolutely necessary requirement to believe it or of the full and true Deity of the Holy Spirit in order for one to be saved. There are extenuating circumstances. Maybe part of the reason why God didn't make the Trinity more clear in the Bible is because it would immediately be rejected and dismissed as polytheistic by some people who don't take the time to seriously read and study the Bible. And given the prima facie concept of monotheism without all of the Bible's teachings and qualifications. In this way, God may sort of lower the epistemic bar for salvation in order not to minimize the numbers of people saved who don't have the aptitude, or time, or opportunity to study these issues. [Though, as a Calvinist, I deny that God purposes to maximize it to the highest extent He can. But predestination is an in-house debate among Christians and shouldn't take a center stage or usurp attention from the main issues. So, I'll leave that point there.]
- It also might be the case that the Bible less directly teaches the Trinity due to the mystery and incomprehensibility of the Trinity. Given that God is so great and transcendent, we shouldn't expect to be able to grasp the nature of God exhaustively. We can truly apprehend God, but we cannot exhaustively comprehend God. So, God reveals what finite creatures can apprehend bit by bit in progressive revelation incrementally from OT to NT. I suspect that at the Eschaton when Jesus returns we will receive even more revelation about the Triune nature of God. But I doubt we'll ever fully grasp God's nature and essence in its entirety.
- Another reason why God might not have more clearly taught the Trinity in the Bible is because of God's providential purpose in history for the church to gradually grow in its doctrinal understanding of God's truth based on the Scriptures, as is taught in 1 Cor. 11:19 and Eph. 4. Before the return of Christ, Paul seems to teach and/or unintentionally prophesy that the church will gradually grow up in doctrine, practice and holiness. "...[S]o that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish" (Eph. 5:27).
1 Cor. 11:19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.
Eph. 4:11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,
12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,
14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.
15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,
16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.
Eph. 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
- See also my blogpost Why Isn't the Bible Clearer?
The following is adapted from a Trinitarian response I gave to a Unitarian on Facebook regarding Micah 5:2.
The Hebrew of Micah 5:2 isn't so clear that we can certainly say whether it's everlasting or whether it had an origination in time. Isaiah 9:6 refers to the messiah as "father of eternity" ["Everlasting Father" in the KJV]. It has the meaning of "possessor of (the attribute of) eternity." That's more in keeping with an eternal origination, rather than an origination that began at a finite time ago in the distant past.
Robert Morey states in his book "The Trinity: Evidences and Issues" on page 312:
//Micah 5:2 is an example of Hebrew parallelism in which the second phrase expands upon and goes beyond the first phrase to deepen its meaning. In this sense, you go from the lesser to the greater as you proceed from the first phrase to the second phrase. It is a classic example of climactic parallelism.
The first word [HEBREW] "long ago" is found many times in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and has several different meanings depending on the context. When used geographically, it refers to east as opposed to west (i.e., Isa. 9:12; Ezek. 25:10). When used chronologically, it means "before" (i.e., Prov. 8:22). It is also used to describe the eternity of God in (Deut. 33:27; Ps. 74:12; Hab. 1:12).
Since Micah is using climactic parallelism, he begins by saying that the "goings forth" of the Messiah took place "a very long time ago." How far back "his goings forth" goes is determined by the words of the second phrase.
The Hebrew word [HEBREW] "eternity" used in the second phrase, is found in the Old Testament 420 times. Langenscheidt defines it as:
time immemorial, time past, eternity, distant future, duration, everlasting time, pl. ages, endless time.
All the standard Hebrew Lexicons and grammars agree with Langenscheidt. It is a word which was used to contrast one thing to another. The mountains are seemingly "everlasting" when contrasted with the brief life span of man (Hab. 3:6). But when used of God in such places as Psalms 90:2, it means that He is eternal in contrast to the universe which had a beginning and will have an end.
In Micah 5:2, the prophet emphasizes that the Messiah not only pre-existed "a long time ago," but He has in fact existed "from eternity!" In Lange's Commentary, Kleinnert pointed out that Micah's use of the word [HEBREW] "gives a strict proof of the antemundane life of the Messiah." Laetsch's Commentary states that [HEBREW] here means "the timeless eons of eternity."
A Liberal Objection Answered
Some liberal commentators have attempted to reduce "the days of eternity" to just "a long time ago." But this is grammatically faulty because they are going backwards. In this kind of parallelism, you go from the lesser to the greater and not the other way around. Thus, the parallelism in Micah 5:2 reveals that the Messiah was "from a long time ago," i.e., "from days of eternity." //
-Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues
[I've heard that] If the author wanted to refer to an everlasting origination, then he used the only Hebrew words and phrasing available to him to mean that. Also, there are some Hebrew authorities who do think it more likely refers to an everlasting origination, even though there is technically no specific Hebrew term for it.
See also the following commentaries here:
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/micah/5-2.htm
Benson Commentary states:
//Whose goings forth have been of old from everlasting — Hebrew, מימי עולם מקדם, rendered by the LXX., απ αχης, εξ ημεων αιωνος; and exactly in the same sense by the Vulgate, ab initio, a diebus æternitatis, from the beginning, from the days of eternity. So these Hebrew expressions must of necessity signify in divers places of Scripture, being used to signify the eternity of God: see Psalm 55:19; Psalm 90:2; Proverbs 8:23; Habakkuk 1:12. The words naturally import an original, distinct from the birth of Christ mentioned in the foregoing sentence, which original is here declared to be from all eternity.//
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary states:
//goings forth … from everlasting—The plain antithesis of this clause, to "come forth out of thee" (from Beth-lehem), shows that the eternal generation of the Son is meant. The terms convey the strongest assertion of infinite duration of which the Hebrew language is capable (compare Ps 90:2; Pr 8:22, 23; Joh 1:1). Messiah's generation as man coming forth unto God to do His will on earth is from Beth-lehem; but as Son of God, His goings forth are from everlasting. //
The famous OT commentary Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament states:
//The future Ruler of Israel, whose goings forth reach back into eternity, is to spring from the insignificant Bethlehem, like His ancestor, king David.//
see also:
Christ’s Origin? Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Study of Micah 5:2
http://www.doorwaychristianoutreach.info/439585463
Michael L. Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and has served as a visiting or adjunct professor at Southern Evangelical Seminary, Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary (Charlotte), Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Fuller Theological Seminary, Denver Theological Seminary, the King’s Seminary, and Regent University School of Divinity.
Michael Brown has almost 3 page addressing Micah 5:2 in volume 3 of his "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus." Here's an excerpt of pages 38-40:
//... Which translation is right? It comes down to the rendering of the Hebrew phrase describing the nature of the Messiah's origins, miqedem mi-yemey ‘olam. The first word simply means "from of old" and is used elsewhere in Micah to refer back to God's promises to the patriarchs, which he made "from days of qedem" (Micah 7:20, rendered in the King James with "from the days of old"). The next two words, however, would most naturally be translated "from eternity" (literally from "days of eternity"), unless context indicated a translation of "from ancient days" (in other words, way back in the very distant past). In most cases in the Scriptures, ‘olam clearly means eternity, as in Psalm 90:2, where God's existence is described as me‘olam we‘ad‘olam, "from eternity to eternity" (cf. NJPSV). There are, however, some cases where ‘olam cannot mean "eternal" but rather "for a long time" (either past or present). How then does Micah use the word?
In Micah 2:9; 4:5, 7, ‘olam clearly means "forever," as commonly rendered in both Jewish and Christian versions. This would point clearly to a similar rendering just a few verses later in 5:2[1]. In Micah 7:14, however, the expression "as in the days of ‘olam" is used in a non-eternal sense, the whole verse being translated in the King James with, "Feed thy people with thy rod, the flock of thine heritage, which dwell solitarily in the wood, in the midst of Carmel: let them feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old." This indicates we cannot be dogmatic about the translation of Micah 5:2[1], since the context allows for an "eternal" or merely "ancient" meaning...... [Then after about four paragraphs that I'll skip over because it's too long for me to type up, Michael Brown states].......So then, Micah 5:2[1] can also be understood as pointing to the Messiah's eternal nature, undergirding our reading of Isaiah 9:6[5] as pointing to the Messiah's divinity."
[[I typed up the quotations from Morey and Brown myself. I apologize if there are any typos in the quotations. Also, some Hebrew words were used and instead of reproducing them, I just typed [HEBREW] because I don't know the Hebrew language and so couldn't reproduce them.]]
The article I linked to above make some interesting points, including the fact that "goings forth" in the Hebrew is plural, not singular. Why plural? The article has its own explanation. Maybe it's right. But I wonder and speculate that maybe the first phrase that Morey talks about in the quote I gave might refer to Jesus' origin as to His human nature which has a finite past in His human ancestry, while the second phrase might refer to Jesus' origin as to His divine nature which is from everlasting/eternity. Similar to how Rom. 9:5 refers to both Jesus' human and divine natures.
