Psalm 110:2 vs Isaiah 45:4-5

[dafty]

Psalm 110:2
The LORD shall send the Rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
Isaiah 45:4-5
For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me.
I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me,

Its a common belief that The Servant Rod will be LDS(as per Psalm 110:2).However, speaking of His servant in Isaiah 45:4-5 The Lord, at the time of summoning the servant by his name, chastises him for not acknowledging Him.
So the question I guess is-How do you reconcile these two verses?

[dafty]

Just dont tell me the servant is not doing his home teaching or something lol

[dafty]

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; (AoF 1:8)

You used the NIV, but other versions render it differently.

ok then, still-"thou hast not known me"(as per King James I believe). How can he not know Him if he is part of Zion? Do you suggest it is as simple as the servant havent seen Lords face, didnt know him personally etc? Surely, there's more to it, as the servant in Isaiah is patterned on Cyrus who at the time was not aware of God of Israel.

[dafty]

Speaking of translations, Ive come across an interesting article pertaining to the usage and meaning of the hebrew word yada, that has been translated in various ways, as ldsa pointed out.

Hebraic roots of yada
Yada is a Hebrew word that means “to know”. Actually, the word is versatile and has several meanings depending on the context.,examples:

Yada: Sharing Love
Adam knew [yada] his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain... Cain knew [yada] his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch... Adam knew [yada] his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth... (Genesis 4:1, 17, 25)

Here we see a very intimate kind of knowledge, and some would even call it a carnal knowledge. However, a strictly sexual relationship does not mean we are experiencing yada! In other words, yada is dedicating ourselves to a person so we can engage them with our love and affection.

 
Yada: Showing Mercy
The righteous know [yada] the needs of their animals, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel. (Proverbs 12:10)

Wisdom literature frequently creates a dichotomy between good and evil. In this case, a good person knows the needs of their animals and takes care of them; an evil person neglects the needs of their animals and shows no mercy. In other words, yada is understanding the needs of those around us and taking care of them.

 
Yada: Acting Justly
But a beautiful cedar palace does not make a great king! Your father, Josiah, also had plenty to eat and drink. But he was just and right in all his dealings. That is why God blessed him. He gave justice and help to the poor and needy, and everything went well for him. Isn’t that what it means to know [yada] me?” says the Lord. (Jeremiah 22:15-16)

In this chapter, Jeremiah is delivering a scathing rebuke to the king of Judah. This king had acted selfishly, neglected the poor and needy, and exploited others to build his kingdom. The LORD tells this corrupt king what it truly means to know [yada] the LORD. 1. Doing justice, 2. Showing mercy to the poor and needy, 3. Exemplifying good and righteous character. In other words, yada is faithfully living out our covenant relationship with the LORD in every area of our life.

CONCLUSION:
One may therefore argue, that the Davidic Servant has failed to:
1. engage lovingly and affectionately with The Lord and His work(It also reminds me of the servant from Rev2, rebuked for forsaking his first love...), and/or
2.understand the needs of those around him and take care of them, and/or
3. faithfully live out his covenants with the LORD.
Furthermore, as per Isaiah 57:17
For the 4. iniquity of his covetousness was I wroth, and smote him: I hid me, and was wroth, and 5. he went on frowardly in the way of his heart,

[dafty]

ok then, still-"thou hast not known me"(as per King James I believe). How can he not know Him if he is part of Zion? Do you suggest it is as simple as the servant havent seen Lords face, didnt know him personally etc? Surely, there's more to it, as the servant in Isaiah is patterned on Cyrus who at the time was not aware of God of Israel.

KJV: "though thou hast not known me" (vs. 4) "though thou hast not known me" (vs. 5) - both are rendered in the past tense.
NIV: "though you do not acknowledge me" (vs. 4) "though you have not acknowledged me" (vs. 5) - the first is rendered in the present tense, the second in the past tense.

Which is it, past or present? These translations (not just the above two but all the others, too) are all over the place, using both past and present tenses, and rendering the passage differently. What's the answer to this riddle? The answer is just to look at the shadow, at the original Cyrus.

Cyrus (the original) was not a part of God's fold, hence he "hast not known" God. Cyrus (the end time guy) will also, at first, not be a part of God's fold. Thus, he begins outside of the fold and then enters into it. He's called into the fold by God. In other words, he's a convert to Mormonism. That's all this means.

So, using this as a standard to determine who is eligible to be the Elias who restores all things, if the person was born under the covenant and raised in this church, he ain't Elias. All lifelong members, then, are excluded. We are looking for a convert.

lol amazing ldsanarchist. Its the first time you have ever responded to my post in a constructive manner without just brushing it off with some sarcastic comment . I very much appreciate that and thank you for your input. And, yes, I do agree with your conclusion.
Is there anyone of a different opinion?

[LdsMarco]

What if Cyrus is today's Trump

[Alaris]

What if Cyrus is today's Trump

I need to study Cyrus more, but I've certainly wondered that myself. If Trump triggers or helps trigger the "Babylon is fallen" as it appears he may, then why wouldn't there be a prophecy about such an important character. Let us hope Babylon is actually falling!

[LdsMarco]

What if Cyrus is today's Trump

I need to study Cyrus more, but I've certainly wondered that myself. If Trump triggers or helps trigger the "Babylon is fallen" as it appears he may, then why wouldn't there be a prophecy about such an important character. Let us hope Babylon is actually falling!

Jonathan Cahn claims he is. In fact, he wrote a book about it.

https://www.amazon.com/Paradigm-Ancient ... 1629994766

[dafty]

What if Cyrus is today's Trump

I need to study Cyrus more, but I've certainly wondered that myself. If Trump triggers or helps trigger the "Babylon is fallen" as it appears he may, then why wouldn't there be a prophecy about such an important character. Let us hope Babylon is actually falling!

It may well be...All in all, although Gileadi seems to think that there is only 'the 1 servant', I am still convinced ROD and ROOT are seperate people and so it also could be, that 'old' Cyrus may be played out in our times by an outside The Church figure such as Donald T. Having said that, I still tend to think that, that although there will be multiple servants, The Servant himself will be patterned upon ALL of the figures from Isaiah, including Cyrus and so, most likely be a convert...Im happy to be proven wrong by any of you
*edit*
ALSO:
He is to be prophet like unto Moses-obviously, Moses was an outsider to Judaism until 'converted' by The Lord himself.

[dafty]

What if Cyrus is today's Trump

Just to reiterate, although I see a possibility of D.Trump playing a part in the events of the last days, he CANNOT be The Servant. It would be unscriptual, due to simple facts, such as: He needs priesthood authority,(D&C113), he comes from Zion/is LDS(Psalm110) and 'laboured in vain'(Isaiah). None of these apply to D.Trump. First two could do in the future, but obviously he has been too successful in his endeavours to claim having been labouring in vain. In my books, the case is closed.

[LdsMarco]

What if Cyrus is today's Trump

Just to reiterate, although I see a possibility of D.Trump playing a part in the events of the last days, he CANNOT be The Servant. It would be unscriptual, due to simple facts, such as: He needs priesthood authority,(D&C113), he comes from Zion/is LDS(Psalm110) and 'laboured in vain'(Isaiah). None of these apply to D.Trump. First two could do in the future, but obviously he has been too successful in his endeavours to claim having been labouring in vain. In my books, the case is closed.

Where does it say that Cyrus had the priesthood? “the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus” (Ezra 1:1)

From this account we learn that the Lord can inspire people, regardless of their religious background, to accomplish His purposes.

After discussing the virtues of King Cyrus, President Ezra Taft Benson spoke of the way our Heavenly Father can work through individuals on the earth to accomplish His purposes: “God, the Father of us all, uses the men of the earth, especially good men, to accomplish his purposes. It has been true in the past, it is true today, it will be true in the future” (“Civic Standards for the Faithful Saints,” Ensign, July 1972, 59).

[dafty]

What if Cyrus is today's Trump

Just to reiterate, although I see a possibility of D.Trump playing a part in the events of the last days, he CANNOT be The Servant. It would be unscriptual, due to simple facts, such as: He needs priesthood authority,(D&C113), he comes from Zion/is LDS(Psalm110) and 'laboured in vain'(Isaiah). None of these apply to D.Trump. First two could do in the future, but obviously he has been too successful in his endeavours to claim having been labouring in vain. In my books, the case is closed.

Where does it say that Cyrus had the priesthood? “the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus” (Ezra 1:1)

From this account we learn that the Lord can inspire people, regardless of their religious background, to accomplish His purposes.

After discussing the virtues of King Cyrus, President Ezra Taft Benson spoke of the way our Heavenly Father can work through individuals on the earth to accomplish His purposes: “God, the Father of us all, uses the men of the earth, especially good men, to accomplish his purposes. It has been true in the past, it is true today, it will be true in the future” (“Civic Standards for the Faithful Saints,” Ensign, July 1972, 59).

I did not say that Cyrus had Priesthood, I said D&C113 teaches that The Servant will possess the priesthood. Cyrus as presented by Isaiah is just a piece of the big puzzle describing The One Mighty and Strong. You cannot take one scripture out of Isaiah that, in its description fits certaing line of thinking and apply it to D.Trump to prove your point. The Servant has been prophesied accross many scriptures and has to fulfill many criteria to be considered The One. Among many, he needs Priesthood(D&C),he will be LDS(Psalms), He will have laboured in vain(Isaiah), he needs to be of a certain lineage(D&C), come from certain directions/East&North(whether literally(my belief) or figuratively/symbolically(Alaris)) and so on, and so forth...

[dafty]

Donald Trump may well play some important part in the future, but probably, so will Putin/Russian pres. as the Assyrian.

[BruceRGilbert]

Psalm 110:2 vs Isaiah 45:4-5

Ether 2:14 And it came to pass at the end of four years that the Lord came again unto the brother of Jared, and stood in a cloud and talked with him. And for the space of three hours did the Lord talk with the brother of Jared, and chastened him because he remembered not to call upon the name of the Lord.

[Durzan]

ok then, still-"thou hast not known me"(as per King James I believe). How can he not know Him if he is part of Zion? Do you suggest it is as simple as the servant havent seen Lords face, didnt know him personally etc? Surely, there's more to it, as the servant in Isaiah is patterned on Cyrus who at the time was not aware of God of Israel.

KJV: "though thou hast not known me" (vs. 4) "though thou hast not known me" (vs. 5) - both are rendered in the past tense.
NIV: "though you do not acknowledge me" (vs. 4) "though you have not acknowledged me" (vs. 5) - the first is rendered in the present tense, the second in the past tense.

Which is it, past or present? These translations (not just the above two but all the others, too) are all over the place, using both past and present tenses, and rendering the passage differently. What's the answer to this riddle? The answer is just to look at the shadow, at the original Cyrus.

Cyrus (the original) was not a part of God's fold, hence he "hast not known" God. Cyrus (the end time guy) will also, at first, not be a part of God's fold. Thus, he begins outside of the fold and then enters into it. He's called into the fold by God. In other words, he's a convert to Mormonism. That's all this means.

So, using this as a standard to determine who is eligible to be the Elias who restores all things, if the person was born under the covenant and raised in this church, he ain't Elias. All lifelong members, then, are excluded. We are looking for a convert.

Honestly, I'd disagree with the fact that he has to be a convert... because, are we not all converts in one form or another? Perhaps Elias is simply someone who didn't take the gospel all that seriously... or whom has had serious problems (IE finds it almost impossible to the basics such as read scriptures, pay attention in church, say prayers, etc). The thought of a born-into-the-church man who has developed a close connection with God despite having an inability to follow the basics of the Gospel is in an interesting thought, and a significantly different one that still fits with the prophecy. He tried his whole life to pay attention, but failed miserably. He wasn't sent on a mission, he cant find a wife... etc. Everything that he was taught he was supposed to do in the Church fell on top of his head and left a huge lump. Yet GOD decides to communicate and uplift him despite these grievous failings and faults for some reason.

[dafty]

ok then, still-"thou hast not known me"(as per King James I believe). How can he not know Him if he is part of Zion? Do you suggest it is as simple as the servant havent seen Lords face, didnt know him personally etc? Surely, there's more to it, as the servant in Isaiah is patterned on Cyrus who at the time was not aware of God of Israel.

KJV: "though thou hast not known me" (vs. 4) "though thou hast not known me" (vs. 5) - both are rendered in the past tense.
NIV: "though you do not acknowledge me" (vs. 4) "though you have not acknowledged me" (vs. 5) - the first is rendered in the present tense, the second in the past tense.

Which is it, past or present? These translations (not just the above two but all the others, too) are all over the place, using both past and present tenses, and rendering the passage differently. What's the answer to this riddle? The answer is just to look at the shadow, at the original Cyrus.

Cyrus (the original) was not a part of God's fold, hence he "hast not known" God. Cyrus (the end time guy) will also, at first, not be a part of God's fold. Thus, he begins outside of the fold and then enters into it. He's called into the fold by God. In other words, he's a convert to Mormonism. That's all this means.

So, using this as a standard to determine who is eligible to be the Elias who restores all things, if the person was born under the covenant and raised in this church, he ain't Elias. All lifelong members, then, are excluded. We are looking for a convert.

Honestly, I'd disagree with the fact that he has to be a convert... because, are we not all converts in one form or another? Perhaps Elias is simply someone who didn't take the gospel all that seriously... or whom has had serious problems (IE finds it almost impossible to the basics such as read scriptures, pay attention in church, say prayers, etc). The thought of a born-into-the-church man who has developed a close connection with God despite having an inability to follow the basics of the Gospel is in an interesting thought, and a significantly different one that still fits with the prophecy. He tried his whole life to pay attention, but failed miserably. He wasn't sent on a mission, he cant find a wife... etc. Everything that he was taught he was supposed to do in the Church fell on top of his head and left a huge lump. Yet GOD decides to communicate and uplift him despite these grievous failings and faults for some reason.

I would argue that he has or will end up having at least two sons...but thats a different story. Thank you for your interesting comment x
PS. after a little thought I would also disagree with a thought of DS struggling to say his prayers etc. He is not a weak type(mighty man of valour). He might be rebelious(Isaiah57:17) and guilty of covetouesness(same passage), yet righteous in the eyes of God(Isaiah 51:5) and chaste(Isaiah 11:5). There is a clear description of a man and altough very tempting we do NOT need to guess what will he be like, but simply put together all of the scriptures that pertain to him...my 2 cents

[dafty]

I would argue that he has or will end up having at least two sons...but thats a different story.

Why do you think that?

1 example:
"...these are the two sons of The Oil...",Zechariah 4
The word 'sons' is explicitly used in the passage. It could also read '2 anointed sons' but I thought 'of The Oil' is more interesting translation.Depending on who do you consider Elias to be(@my 'PM friend' here lol )

[abijah]

Psalm 110 starts out as "the LORD (Jehovah) said unto my Lord.."

Who is Jehovah in this and subsequent verses? Is it Christ? If so, who is the second "Lord" that he is speaking to?

I submit that rather than the term "rod" in verse two being a codeword for the endtime servant, he is the main subject of the entire psalm. Read the verses, they don't resemble Jesus' ministry at all. His was the ministry of mercy, whereas the endtime servant's ministry is of justice, which aligns much better with the subject matter of the verses.

[Alaris]

Psalm 110 starts out as "the LORD (Jehovah) said unto my Lord.."

Who is Jehovah in this and subsequent verses? Is it Christ? If so, who is the second "Lord" that he is speaking to?

I submit that rather than the term "rod" in verse two being a codeword for the endtime servant, he is the main subject of the entire psalm. Read the verses, they don't resemble Jesus' ministry at all. His was the ministry of mercy, whereas the endtime servant's ministry is of justice, which aligns much better with the subject matter of the verses.

That sounds like Malachi 3:1 but the Lords are in reverse order:

Malachi 3:1Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

[abijah]

That sounds like Malachi 3:1 but the Lords are in reverse order:

Malachi 3:1Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

Yes, and there are several other similar verses, Psalm 2:7 being a prominent one. Every church member I've pointed this out to have been unable to square with it. In the KVJ, the "LORD" = Jehovah, yet the official Church stance on multiple Old Testament verses is that Jehovah = God the Father, Psalm 110 not being the least of these. If Jehovah is Christ, then how to explain these verses?

[Alaris]

That sounds like Malachi 3:1 but the Lords are in reverse order:

Malachi 3:1Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

Yes, and there are several other similar verses, Psalm 2:7 being a prominent one. Every church member I've pointed this out to have been unable to square with it. In the KVJ, the "LORD" = Jehovah, yet the official Church stance on multiple Old Testament verses is that Jehovah = God the Father, Psalm 110 not being the least of these. If Jehovah is Christ, then how to explain these verses?

Well the concealed one or hidden servant is called that for a reason.

Psalm 2 and 110 are great reads thank you. They both refer to the worlds kings and their subjugation much like Isaiah. I have often wondered... Well I'll pm you the rest.

[dafty]

Psalm 110 starts out as "the LORD (Jehovah) said unto my Lord.."

Who is Jehovah in this and subsequent verses? Is it Christ? If so, who is the second "Lord" that he is speaking to?

I submit that rather than the term "rod" in verse two being a codeword for the endtime servant, he is the main subject of the entire psalm. Read the verses, they don't resemble Jesus' ministry at all. His was the ministry of mercy, whereas the endtime servant's ministry is of justice, which aligns much better with the subject matter of the verses.

Im not necessarily disagreeing with you here, just bear one thing in mind:
Isaiah 42:3
 Even a bruised reed he will not break;a dim wick he will not snuff out.He will perform the work of justice in the cause of truth.

"The servant’s mission is one of compassion for all, including those who typify a “bruised reed” and “dim wick.” Word links identify these terms with Egypt and Babylon (Isaiah 36:6; 43:14-17), signifying the scope of the servant’s mission from one end of the world to the other. The emphasis on “justice” (vv 1-4)—justice based on the “truth,” not on parodies of justice (Isaiah 1:17; 29:21; 48:1; 58:6, 9; 59:12-16)—accords with its twin term “righteousness” (sedeq/saddiq/sedaqa) (Isaiah 1:21, 27; 16:5; 28:17; 32:1; 56:1), which Jehovah’s servant exemplifies (Isaiah 11:5; 41:2, 26; 45:19; 46:11-13; 58:8)"
(Gileadi)
He will not be a random destroyer-theres no justice without mercy and understanding.

[abijah]

Im not necessarily disagreeing with you here, just bear one thing in mind:
Isaiah 42:3
 Even a bruised reed he will not break;a dim wick he will not snuff out.He will perform the work of justice in the cause of truth.

"The servant’s mission is one of compassion for all, including those who typify a “bruised reed” and “dim wick.” Word links identify these terms with Egypt and Babylon (Isaiah 36:6; 43:14-17), signifying the scope of the servant’s mission from one end of the world to the other. The emphasis on “justice” (vv 1-4)—justice based on the “truth,” not on parodies of justice (Isaiah 1:17; 29:21; 48:1; 58:6, 9; 59:12-16)—accords with its twin term “righteousness” (sedeq/saddiq/sedaqa) (Isaiah 1:21, 27; 16:5; 28:17; 32:1; 56:1), which Jehovah’s servant exemplifies (Isaiah 11:5; 41:2, 26; 45:19; 46:11-13; 58:8)"
(Gileadi)
He will not be a random destroyer-theres no justice without mercy and understanding.

I agree. When I use that phrase "ministry of justice", I don't mean one of mere destruction and punishment. Compassion and love will certainly be fundamental aspects of his character. Just as Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Joseph Smith and of course Christ Himself, the Davidic heir will be multi-dimensional, in terms of his personality as well as his mission.

[Alaris]

Behold, I [the Father] will send my messenger [Joseph-Nephi], and he [Joseph-Nephi] shall prepare the way before me [the Father]: and the Lord [Jesus Christ], whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his [Christ's] temple, even the messenger [Jesus Christ] of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he [Jesus Christ] shall come, saith the LORD [the Father] of hosts. (Malachi 1:1)

LORD is Jehovah and Lord is the Davidic King of Ephraim and Judah. He is the messenger of the covenant. He returns Israel to a knowledge of their God and the covenants they made to Jehovah.