From the time what came to be? - Isaiah 48:16

Question

I'm just not sure what the it is referring to here, or is it implied? Is it connected to wherever there is?

Draw near to me, hear this: from the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time it came to be I have been there.” And now the Lord GOD has sent me, and his Spirit.

Is it:

the beginning
time itself
implied "creation"
an earlier referent I have missed?
Some other I have not thought of

How would your solution then have us understand the verse?

Interesting question (+1). Just to make sure this is accounted for in answers: the pronoun is feminine. — Susan, Dec 21 '15 at 00:50
@Susan what gender is common for creation, world, and for time? Or any other options we can think of. I really need to find a resource with Hebrew parsing for tense, gender, etc, All I have is interlinear that shows the root word in English. — Joshua, Dec 21 '15 at 16:12
My sense is that when a feminine pronoun is used, an explicit (feminine) antecedent is expected, since masculine tends to be the default (though not sure if that's always true). At first glance, the nearest by that makes sense seems to be 'erets (=earth) from v. 13. — Susan, Dec 21 '15 at 16:28
From the Israel Museum's website: "Modern scholarship considers the Book of Isaiah to be an anthology, the two principal compositions of which are the Book of Isaiah proper (chapters 1-39, with some exceptions), containing the words of the prophet Isaiah himself, dating from the time of the First Temple, around 700 BCE, and Second Isaiah (Deutero-Isaiah, chapters 40-66), comprising the words of an anonymous prophet, who lived some one hundred and fifty years later, around the time of the Babylonian exile and the restoration of the Temple in the Persian Period... — Daisy, Apr 24 '16 at 23:00
continued... "By the time our Isaiah Scroll was copied (the last third of the second century BCE), the book was already regarded as a single composition." — Daisy, Apr 24 '16 at 23:00

Dɑvïd · Accepted Answer · 2016-08-22T18:33:37.713

As is so often the case with questions we pose on BH.SE, we lack evidence to resolve the ambiguities we find in the Bible. In Isaiah 48:16, the antecedent for the 3rd feminine singular pronoun ~āh in מֵעֵ֥ת הֱיוֹתָ֖הּ = mēʿēt həyôtāh = "from the time of its coming to be" is one of those enigmatic obscurities: there simply is no evidence to clarify the ambiguity.

Given this situation, the possibilities can still be delimited: "its" can't simply be anything, and some possibilities have more likelihood than others. And it is always interesting to see how ancient interpreters (a.k.a. translators) understood it:

the Septuagint isn't a lot of help: ἡνίκα ἐγένετο = hēnika egeneto = "at the time when it happened" ... so no real insight here;
the Targum is more expansive (as it often is): מִתַמָן אַברָהָם אְבוּכוֹן קָרֵיבתֵיה לְפֻלחָנִי = "at that time I brought Abraham your father to my service" (Pauli translation), although there is no contextual trigger for "its time" being the call of Abraham (it might, however, be anticipating Isa 51:2, which is one of the four places where Abraham appears in the book of Isaiah, the others being Isa 29:22; 41:8; and 63:16).

One of the more recent commentaries on the Hebrew text simply identifies the main options -- John Goldingay & David Payne, Isaiah 40-55 Vol 2: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary (T & T Clark, 2006), pp. 142-3:

if the context is to help, then 48:12ff. point to the time of creation, and "its" would be "the earth" (ʾereṣ being a feminine noun);
another speculative suggestion points to the call of Cyrus (cf. Isaiah 45:1ff);
it is also suggested that the reading in 1QIsa^a at this point (b-ʿ-t "at the time", rather than m-ʿ-t "from the time") supports the "[time of] creation rather than the summoning of Cyrus":

Summary - As it happens, Goldingay & Payne decline to choose between these alternatives, simply setting them out for their readers. Although other commentators do register a preference (e.g., both Claus Westermann and Shalom Paul in their commentaries opt for the "creation" understanding), there is, finally, insufficient evidence to mount a conclusive argument to arbitrate between the options. (I note, however, that both context and overall "creation" theology in Isaiah 40-48 suggest that inclining towards the "creation" option is, at least, sensible.)

score 0 · Answer 2 · answered Dec 20 '15 at 20:46

0

What 'it' is depends on who is speaking:

The conservative Matthew Henry Commentary says that this is God speaking through the prophet.
Dr. Ross (Bible.org) sees difficulties in attributing these words to God, and suggests the pre-incarnate Christ is speaking.
The Pulpit Commentary agrees these words are not from God but does not see this speaker as being the pre-incarnate Christ, and therefore suggests the prophet as the most likely speaker.
The New American Bible (NAB) says in footnotes 1 and 2 that this is Cyrus speaking, after the defeat of Babylon. In this context I would point out that it is the consensus of scholars that Isaiah chapters 40-55 were written in Babylon shortly before the Return from Exile.

I agree with Dr. Ross, the Pulpit Commentary and the NAB that there are difficulties in attributing these words to God, since it tells us "And now the Lord GOD has sent me, and his Spirit." I also think it is hard to really imagine that the prophet has said this on his own behalf. Verses 14-15 are references to Cyrus and verse 20 tells us that he sets the Jews free, so I also agree with NAB this is the person in verse 16 that God sent.

If this was Cyrus the Great, speaking to the Jews he is about to liberate, then 'it' is something personal to Cyrus. The text is ambiguous, but is likely to refer to the conquest of Babylon: "it came to be" - the conquest came to be. He has been open about his intentions ("not spoken in secret"), has been sent by the LORD and tells the captives that their Redeemer has spoken verse 17). Here and elsewhere, Second Isaiah portrays Cyrus as the instrument of the Lord.

answered Dec 20 '15 at 20:46

Dick Harfield

12,589
5
24
60

Before the conquest of Babylon came to be Christ was there? At the conquest? At Babylon? I actually agree with Ross as well, though I didn't want to make this question about the Trinity aspect of the last sentence, or at least to have it overshadow the main question. I agree who is speaking is important, so I suppose it's unavoidable. So your first half is great, but I'm still confused when it comes to the main question. – Joshua Dec 20 '15 at 20:56
@JoshuaBigbee We see in Is 45:1 that God calls Cyrus "his anointed ... , whose right hand I have holden." This does place Cyrus in the mix for this passage. So I am agreeing with NAB, not with Ross - although the range of opinions shows that anything is possible. PC sees it as unlikely that Christ would say God and his spirit sent him. If the person speaking in 16 is Cyrus, he can say God sent him; then in 17, he can quote God in a way that would seem strange if the speaker were the pre-incarnate Christ (especially calling God "thy Redeemer"). – Dick Harfield Dec 20 '15 at 22:41
1

Feel like we're getting hung up on who. I'm fine with you wanting to say it's Cyrus, I'm just confused how to understand that sentence if Cyrus is speaking. Back to the Main question. What is the antecedent of it? – Joshua Dec 20 '15 at 22:46
@JoshuaBigbee Once I understand what is not clear in my answer, I'll try to update it to make it read better. At the moment I have said, "'it' is something personal to Cyrus. The text is ambiguous, but is likely to refer to the conquest of Babylon: "it came to be" - the conquest came to be." So, the beginning that would soon lead to the liberation of the Jews was the conquest of Babylon. Everything flows from that. – Dick Harfield Dec 20 '15 at 22:52
4

I don't understand how Cyrus is a possibility for the speaker here. In v.14, "these things" seems to point back to what immediately precedes in v. 13 that he "laid the foundation of the earth" and "spread out the heavens". How could the prophet attribute the creation of the cosmos to Cyrus, a mere man? – flob6469 Dec 20 '15 at 23:01
@flob6469 I agree it is a very difficult passage. The speaker in v12 named Israel, so this is God the Father, but the speaker in v16 was sent by God and by his Spirit, so this speaker is not God. The pre-incarnate Jesus has been suggested, but some theologians reject this, as shown in my ans. In any case, for the prophet to have written this he would have known who was speaking, and he shows no evidence of having known of Jesus (regardless of whether Isaiah foreshadows Jesus). It could be the prophet himself, but this has difficulties. Cyrus seems to be the best fit. – Dick Harfield Dec 21 '15 at 04:49
I see @Susan has said 'it' is feminine, so presumably we are looking for something that would be feminine in Greek. I can't find a reference to the gender of 'conquest' but I see the noun 'capture' is feminine. – Dick Harfield Dec 21 '15 at 05:08
1

@Dick_Harfield I understand your reasoning about the speaker most likely being Cyrus, but your argument(as well as that of "the consensus of scholars" and "some theologians") hinges on whether Isaiah needed to have a conscious understanding of Jesus in order to write about him. From a secular standpoint, your answer looks sound, but I can't accept the premise that God could not have influenced Isaiah(with or without him being conscious of it) to foreshadow Jesus. – flob6469 Dec 21 '15 at 05:12
@flob6469 That's the very reason I differentiated foreshadowment, which is something entirely different. The passage does not make much sense in my mind, if Second Isaiah does not know whose words he is reporting. If you think this passage means God is foreshadowing Jesus, then it is not Jesus speaking - it is God, but this brings us back to the hermeneutic problems we have already seen. – Dick Harfield Dec 21 '15 at 05:17
@Dick_Harfield To be clear, I am assuming a trinitarian viewpoint, Therefore I am assuming that the Godhead is the speaker. Therefore I don't see a problem with both God(the Father) and Jesus both being the speaker. I recognize that theology is outside the scope of the site, but I had to clarify since you seem to assume that God and Jesus cannot both be the speaker. – flob6469 Dec 21 '15 at 05:31
Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Dick Harfield Dec 21 '15 at 05:31

score 0 · Answer 3 · answered Aug 31 '19 at 18:55

From the time what came to be? - Isaiah 48:16

Isaiah 48: 14-17 (NRSV)

14 "Assemble, all of you, and hear! Who among them has declared these things? The Lord loves him; he shall perform his purpose on Babylon, and his arm shall be against the Chaldeans. 15 I, even I, have spoken and called him, I have brought him, and he will prosper in his way.

God in an inviting tone thru his prophet (Inspired by God's spirit )continues:

16 "Draw near to me, hear this! From the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time it came to be I have been there. And now the Lord God has sent me and his spirit. 17 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: I am the Lord your God, who teaches you for your own good, who leads you in the way you should go."

"Who among them has declared these things", - the worthless idols cannot foretell any of these things, only God can foretell evens to happen accurately ."The Lord loves him"- Who was it ?-Cyrus the anointed one of God was chosen to conqueror Babylon and to liberate his people . (Isaiah 44:28, 45:1)

"Draw near to me, hear this! From the beginning I have not spoken in secret."- God has always by means of his prophets , spoken openly to his people and not in secrets.

"From the time it came to be I have been there."- Nothing is new to God or unforeseen by him, for example , by means of Isaiah, God foretold (it),about 150 years in advance that Cyrus would conquer Babylon. As their Redeemer, God reassures the Israelites, that he is going to liberate them from Babylon.

God is not afraid to prophesy in advance. He is not foretelling it secretly, so that nobody will later be able to say that he did not foretold it . He knows what he will do and foretells it in advance, so that his people at that time and also we down in this time may be assured that he is the true God ,unlike idols that cannot foretell the future.

The Persian ruler "Cyrus the Great" was the one appointed by God, to overthrow Babylon and to liberate the Israelites from their bondage there. The prophesy was made over 150 years earlier, even before Cyrus was born and rise to power, God declared that Cyrus would act as His shepherd: “He is my shepherd,and he shall carry out all my purpose”; and who says of Jerusalem, “It shall be rebuilt,” and of the temple, “Your foundation shall be laid.”(Isaiah 44:28 NRSV)

Greg Friend · Answer 4 · 2021-11-27T10:00:04.307

The answer to this is found back in 48:5 where "it" is found: (both the nasb in the footnotes, and the old King James, are acknowledging the actual Hebrew) "It" being indicative of what the former Prophets were saying before "it" in fact came true, God saying "it" before they could give credit to their Idols. The last part of verse sixteen is a rare interjection from Isaiah. Look at Isa 59:21, where Jehovah is bearing witness on behalf of Isaiah, that His Spirit is upon him. Falling back to the beginning of a chapter, or the previous chapters, is always essential in order that context is not betrayed. What follows Isaiah's interjection v.17a "Thus saith the LORD" is further proof that is supportive of these conclusions. And finally look at verses six thru eight of the Chapter (48) as these statements are providing the whole context of what is being said by the end of the chapter. Even the greater context that needs to be considered is that of the former prophets declaring when Israel would first be enslaved (Egypt) then the Assyrian oppressions, and thereafter the Babylonian captivity, in which all was prophesied by the former prophets, and all of "it" came true... Within the book of Isaiah, the prophet is reminding his people regarding all of these things.

Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center. — Community, Nov 27 '21 at 13:59

Decrypted · Answer 5 · 2015-12-26T09:43:08.670

-2

The answer is so found in the very verse in question. He states "From the beginning". The translation of this word "הֱיוֹתָ֖הּ" "that it was" roots from the Holy Name "היה" meaning Manifest. Specifically so "it manifest". Therefore from the manifestation of the beginning the Lord has not spoken in secret.

"Not from the Head in secret spoken from the time it manifest there I and {Now [Lord (will Be)]} has sent and his breath(spirit)."

http://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/48-16.htm

The first word in the Bible means "in the small head" translated as "In the beginning". This head is so the reference that the Is makes.

http://biblehub.com/text/genesis/1-1.htm

edited Dec 26 '15 at 09:43

answered Dec 26 '15 at 00:14

Decrypted

965
4
19

Is that feminine as well so they match up as @Susan pointed out? Or do you have an explanation for its feminine (or not) form? – Joshua Dec 26 '15 at 01:07
For a feminine description of Lord Existence some use "Mother Nature". However -Is- describes himself as the "Son of Man" or the "Bridegroom" giving male gender. The Holy name יהוה uses the male prefix "he will" for "he will Be". Yet the gender of the now and the future (the throne of the "I will objects") we can consider as both genders. For the image of the will of objects came to Is first as a man yet from the man came the woman. The original image of the man contain both male and female. The female was removed from the man see. – Decrypted Dec 26 '15 at 03:39
Sorry, I was maybe unclear. I was speaking specifically about the grammar of the text and how it related to your solution for it: the beginning. Is from the beginning feminine like it is? – Joshua Dec 26 '15 at 04:32
The word meaning "it manifest" is so a verb. That's like asking the gender of the word "run". Perhaps run has a gender perhaps החוצה has a gender. I do not know. – Decrypted Dec 26 '15 at 09:49
2

@JoshuaBigbee The the word "beginning" here (literally "head") is rōʾš, and it is masculine. – Susan Dec 26 '15 at 15:06

From the time what came to be? - Isaiah 48:16

5 Answers5