Hilasmos
Puritan Board Freshman
Wanted to see if you all had some insight into this passage. I am finding conflicting views, but I have heard this passage used a lot to demonstrate that Jesus is Jehovah
1. John 12:41 says Isaiah saw his [Jesus'] glory
2. This is stated after quoting from Isaiah 6:10, which in context is all about Yawheh's glory
3. Therefore, Isaiah saw Jehovah's and Jesus' glory since they are the same God.
My problem, however, is the wording of the actual verse:
It seems awkward to say: Isaiah said these things (about Jesus) because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke of Jesus. "He said these things because he spoke of him." ???
But, if the "his" in "his glory" is Yahweh, it seems to flow better: "Isaiah said these things because he [Isaiah] saw his [Yahweh's] glory and [he, Yahweh] spoke of him [Jesus]."
In other words, Isaiah said these things about Jesus because he saw Yahweh and Yahweh spoke of him (Is. 6:8) and Isaiah is relaying the prophetic message. Not that this means Jesus isn't God-Jehovah, but that distinction isn't being brought out.
On the other hand, the "his" and "hims" throughout the entire passage are about Jesus, the only referent in context. So, the argument goes that the glory seen has to be Jesus'. Thus, even the NIV replaces the "his" with the word Jesus, even though that is not in the Greek. Of course, I find it enticing to use this as a passage for the divinity of Christ, but don't want to use it wrongly. Thoughts?
1. John 12:41 says Isaiah saw his [Jesus'] glory
2. This is stated after quoting from Isaiah 6:10, which in context is all about Yawheh's glory
3. Therefore, Isaiah saw Jehovah's and Jesus' glory since they are the same God.
My problem, however, is the wording of the actual verse:
John 12:41 (ESV) — 41 Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.
It seems awkward to say: Isaiah said these things (about Jesus) because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke of Jesus. "He said these things because he spoke of him." ???
But, if the "his" in "his glory" is Yahweh, it seems to flow better: "Isaiah said these things because he [Isaiah] saw his [Yahweh's] glory and [he, Yahweh] spoke of him [Jesus]."
In other words, Isaiah said these things about Jesus because he saw Yahweh and Yahweh spoke of him (Is. 6:8) and Isaiah is relaying the prophetic message. Not that this means Jesus isn't God-Jehovah, but that distinction isn't being brought out.
On the other hand, the "his" and "hims" throughout the entire passage are about Jesus, the only referent in context. So, the argument goes that the glory seen has to be Jesus'. Thus, even the NIV replaces the "his" with the word Jesus, even though that is not in the Greek. Of course, I find it enticing to use this as a passage for the divinity of Christ, but don't want to use it wrongly. Thoughts?