Welcome to Nakdimon's Page

The Trinity

Part One

The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. (Proverbs 18:17)

  

Now it�s time to deal with the concept of the Trinity. This concept is one of the foundations of the Messianic Jewish faith, that is based on the clear revelation in the New Testament (NT). This section will be about the Divine nature of Yeshua, our Messiah, since rabbi Singer has primarily focussed on that subject. Rabbi Singer has charged that the concept of the Trinity is nowhere to be found in the Tenach and not even in the New Testament. What�s funny about this is that rabbi Tovia Singer, with this statement, once more contradicts other statements in another lecture. He says one thing in one lecture because it suits the purpose of that lecture and then turns around to say the exact opposite in another lecture, because it serves the message in that lecture. In the lecture �How do missionaries paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures�, at the end of that lecture he plays the �pagan-card� and tries to link the NT-faith to the pagan religions of that day, because he knows that this will scare off sincere Jewish seekers of truth more than anything else. (That�s why this tactic is used so much) And what does he say at 01:15:16? That the author of John �opens up with a whole new idea... the Trinity�. But now he wants proof against that concept and uses this same author to prove that �primitive Christianity� didn�t know anything about that concept. Why? Because obviously it serves the entire purpose of this lecture. The truth is that, many times rabbi Singer has admitted that John 1:1 is a fatal teaching of the New Testament. But here he doesn�t even touch John 1:1. Why? Well, what is this lecture about? Denial of the Trinity. So one doesn�t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why rabbi Singer doesn�t even go there.

Of course we do not find that word �trinity� anywhere in the Bible. Not in the Tenach and not in the NT. This word was created by Tertulian. But does that mean that the concept is completely foreign to the Bible? Of course not! Just as the word �oral law� is nowhere to be found in the Bible as well. If rabbi Singer is consistent, he would reject the notion that there was an oral law given to Moses at Sinai outright. But there is one important difference between the concept of the oral law and that of the Trinity: while the concept of the oral law is based on extremely vague allusions from Scripture, the Bible is much clearer about the concept of the Trinity. Although we understand the quotes from the Tenach rabbi Singer comes up with to be true, there is something else that rabbi Singer doesn�t touch in this lecture, perhaps something that he isn�t familiar with. Something I always bring up when discussing this concept with the detractors of the divinity of Yeshua. We will look at the passage from the Tenach that rabbi Singer brings up and will look at the passages that support the concept of the Trinity in part two of this rebuttal.

Trinity a later invention? (12:13)

Rabbi Singer then claims that the Trinity was invented at the council of Nicea in 325 AD and that emperor Constantine practically forced that concept down the Church�s throat. Also the claim is that there the New Testament was finalized and there it was decided which books are Scripture and which books are not.

Obviously, rabbi Singer is totally ignorant of Church history. This myth has long been refuted. In no way, shape or form did Constantine have such an impact on the doctrines of the Church, and certainly not regarding the canonization of the New Testament. The very fact that rabbi Singer asks who decided that the book of Hebrews should be part of the New Testament and the gospel of Thomas should not be part of it, simply shows how much rabbi Singer knows about this entire matter. The simple fact that the �gospel of Thomas� was a later Egyptian writing dating from late second to early third century completely excludes that writing from being Scripture. Whatever Thomas that was, it wasn�t the apostle Thomas we know from the Gospels.

Rabbi Singer should know, since he portrays himself as an expert in Church history, that the canon of the New Testament and the concept of the Trinity were established long before that council of Nicea in 325 AD. We have an abundance of letters from the �Church fathers� and direct students of the disciples of Yeshua, who quoted New Testament scriptures frequently in their letters. So much so, that it is said that just from the quotes from their letters alone, we can reconstruct the entire New Testament, except for 11 verses that have no impact on theological matters. Since there was no quote from �the gospel of Thomas� in any of the earliest letters (because that gospel was simply too late) logic dictates that that gospel cannot be part of the Canon. And as far as the Deity of the Messiah is concerned, let�s look at a  letter from, lets say, Ignatius, who was a student of the apostle John. Ignatius died around 108 AD, so his letters can�t be from around the time of Constantine. One of them is his letter to Ephesus, where he writes in chapter 7 (emphasis all mine):

There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible, This clause is wanting in the Greek, and has been supplied from the ancient Latin version. even Jesus Christ our Lord� But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For �the Word was made flesh.�

In chapter 9:

From his power Jesus Christ will deliver you, who has founded you upon the rock, as being chosen stones, well fitted for the divine edifice of the Father, and who are raised up on high by Christ, who was crucified for you, making use of the Holy Spirit as a rope, and being borne up by faith, while exalted by love from earth to heaven, walking in company with those that are undefiled.

In chapter 15:

Our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, first did and then taught, as Luke testifies, �whose praise is in the Gospel through all the Churches.� There is nothing which is hid from the Lord, but our very secrets are near to Him. Let us therefore do all things as those who have Him dwelling in us, that we may be His temples, and He may be in us as God. Let Christ speak in us, even as He did in Paul. Let the Holy Spirit teach us to speak the things of Christ in like manner as He did.

And I could go on, but I believe that my point has been well made. So, no, �Moishe Rosen wasn�t there�, but neither was emperor Constantine! Rabbi Singer�s claims are totally unfounded. He would do well to actually study these matters before making claims that are totally incongruent with historical facts.

Dealing with rabbi Singer's claim that Tertulian didn't believe that the Father and the Son were not of the same substance in the beginning of this lecture, at about thirty seconds into this lecture. Here is what Tertulian wrote in his letter Anti Praxeas, chapter two: 

"But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of divers persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons�the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds."

Then Tertulian goes on to explain how the Father, the Son and the Spirit are distinct, yet unseparable and of the same substance and that they are not "three gods", which he considers a heretical teaching. Again, one might seriously wonder how rabbi Singer came up with that idea. Had rabbi Singer actually done his homework and looked into the matter, he would have known that Tertulian did believe that they were of the same substance. Again one might wonder why rabbi Singer makes these things up out of thin air or does he just blatantly choose to tell falsehoods because it so happens to suit the purpose of his lectures? 

Rabbi Singer�s case from the Tenach (16:10)

Numbers 23:19

Earlier, at 8:20 into the lecture, rabbi Singer quoted from the Tenach to demonstrate that God is alone and there is no other. Again, we have no problem at all with the quotes and fully understand the meaning of the verses rabbi Singer quoted. However, as you will see in part two of this rebuttal, different characters in the Tenach, who also fully agree with the quotes, would not agree with how rabbi Tovia Singer interprets verses such as Numbers 23:19. According to rabbi Singer this verse tells us that God anticipated the possibility that people would teach that He would come down in the form of a man. And this verse tells us that God can�t appear in human form. But that is actually not what the verse says at all. The verse says that, unlike man, God is faithful because He doesn�t lie or changes His mind when He gives His word. He, unlike man, is trustworthy and does as He promises. That�s what it says:

God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: 

when He hath said, will He not do it? or when He hath spoken, will He not make it good?

The entire point of this verse is obvious. It is not how rabbi Singer wants it. The verse is about Gods trustworthiness compared to man and nothing more.

Genesis 1:26

Rabbi Singer says that this is a verse that lacks foundation and is not even considered as proof by Christians for a Tri-unity of God. Well, I beg to differ. This verse is still seen as an allusion to the plurality of God. This is what it says.

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

 

This is said to be God speaking to His host, His council and other verses are cited. But the parallel verses don�t even say the same thing as Genesis 1:26. First of all, God made man in HIS image and likeness, not in the image and likeness of Him and His angels, so the �our� in Genesis 1 can�t be about the hosts. Second, while Isaiah 6, the parallel passage rabbi Singer cited, shows clearly that God is speaking to His hosts and He is actually the active force, this is not the case in Genesis 1. There the �us� is the active force:

 

Genesis 1

Na�asah adam�

Let US MAKE man�

 

Isaiah 6

Et-mi eshlach...

Whom SHALL I SEND...

 

 

The difference is major! Genesis 1 cannot be about the hosts, since God made everything alone, as rabbi Singer himself quoted in Isaiah 44:24. If Genesis is referring to the hosts, then Isaiah 44:24 is not true and God had help with His creation. So although there is a reference made in Isaiah 6 to explain how God sometimes addresses His council, this couldn�t possibly be the case in the creation account.

 

 

New Testament quotes

Then rabbi Singer goes on to selectively quote the New Testament, claiming that Yeshua denied his status as Deity. There is one thing I don�t agree with when it comes to today�s majority claim that Yeshua was fully God and fully man when he came to die for our sins. Philippians 2:7 makes that impossible. Yeshua made himself of no reputation to become a man to die for our sins. God cannot die, therefore, had Yeshua been fully God there was no way he could have laid down his life for us and there is no way he could have been of �no reputation�. He laid aside his divine nature to become flesh. So, no, Yeshua wasn�t fully God and fully man, but he instead made himself a mere man.

Rabbi Singer goes on to quote the following passages:

Mark 10:17-22

The good teacher: rabbi Singer claimed that Yeshua didn�t want to be called good, because �no one is good but God alone�. Yet Yeshua calls himself the good Shepherd in John 10. Of course, in Mark 10, Yeshua only cautioned the man not to call everyone �good�. The man didn�t even know him and called him �good�. Yeshua points him to the only one that can be called �good�, that is God. Rabbi Singer claimed that the rebuke of Yeshua means that Yeshua denied himself that title. But then what does the absence of rebuke in John 20:28-29 tell us? Rabbi Singer merely misses the entire point of the episode.

Mark 13

The Son doesn�t know the day of Judgement: As a human being, the Son only knew what was revealed to him by the Father. What is really interesting is the distinguishing of the Son from all creation: of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. The Son exists apart from everything that is created. What mere creature could say this? Then rabbi Singer asks why the Holy Spirit wasn�t mentioned. Why should he have been? To say that the Spirit of God doesn�t know what is �in God� is simply preposterous. As Paul explains:

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. (1 Cor 2:10-11)

The answer to rabbi Singer�s question is self evident.

Jesus praying to God/calling to God for legions of angels:

As I heard Dr. James R. White say once (paraphrase): If God would chose to enter into His creation in the form of a man, would we expect Him to be an atheist? Or would we expect Him to be the greatest example of worship and reverence to God?

This is an excellent question that has only accurate one answer. Of course we would expect him to be the epitome of human obedience to, human subservience to and human dependence on God. Yeshua came to set such an example for us. How can he go around and telling us what to do, yet himself not doing it? So, yes, he asks for angels, showing his example of dependence on God. As he said in John 11:42: he doesn�t need to do so. He only does these things to demonstrate that he isn�t just making claims. His claims are backed up by the signs God does through him.

My father is greater than I:

There is no Christian that will deny the truth of this text. Does this mean that the Son is less Deity? Of course not. The Father IS greater than the Son, just like any father is greater than his son. But it a father more humanity than his son? NO! Therefore, this text says nothing about the divinity of Yeshua.

John 17:3:

The only true God: Again, no one denies the truth of this text. I would point you to Dr. Whites question again. Does acknowledging the Father as the only true God, detract anything from the divinity of the Son? In no way whatsoever. However, the question has to be raised: What mere creature can say of himself that you have to believe in him and honour him just as you believe in and honour the Father? What does that say about the one that makes this claim? That he is either a lunatic or he is worthy of our praise and worship as our God. Anything less makes his claims idolatrous.

John 10:30:

I and my Father are one: rabbi Singer tries to show that the reaction of the Jews hearing this claim of Yeshua doesn�t mean that they really thought that He was God. He uses Yeshua�s reaction to build his case. But before he does so, he tries to blame John for calling a spade a spade. Because John says that �the Jews� tried to stone the Messiah, rabbi Singer tries to play the �anti-Semitism card�. But is it really? First of all, weren�t these people Jews? I bet that if John would have called them �the children of Israel�, he would been criticised for that too. Furthermore, John was probably talking about �Judeans�, i.e. people of the district of Judea, instead of �Jews� in general. The word for Jew and Judean is the same. Lastly, the Tenach does far more Jew bashing than the New Testament. John, being a Jew himself, could not have been an anti-Semite. That would be like a pious Muslim, criticising his fellow Muslims because of their behaviour, being called an Islamophobe. What sense does that make?

But rabbi Singer goes on to say that Yeshua, by his referring to Psalm 82, Yeshua denies divine status. Let�s look at the text:

 

I and the Father are one.� Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, �I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?� �We are not stoning you for any of these,� replied the Jews, �but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.� Jesus answered them, �Is it not written in your Law, �I have said you are gods�? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came�and the Scripture cannot be broken� what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp. (30-34)

 

 If you read carefully, Yeshua indeed claimed to be God. The Judeans didn�t misunderstand him at all. They knew the implications of the claim he made. But at the charge of blasphemy, Yeshua puts the ball in their court, by pointing them to the Psalms. They were mad because he claimed to be Elohim, but Yeshua pointed them to their own Psalms, that calls them elohim as well. So he is basically saying �What are you mad at me for? The books that you read and revere call you elohim as well! If that applies to you, then how much more would that apply to me? So why is what I�m saying blasphemy?� He dids not take back what he said, but he re-inforced it instead, which is apparent by the second response of the Judeans.

He had a ready answer for everything and who could resist that answer he gave them?

 

 

Isaiah 9:5-6 (49:50)

Rabbi Singer�s ultimate argument against the divinity of Yeshua is found in Isaiah 9. For the majority of the time, rabbi Singer addresses the issue and difficulties of the Messianic interpretation of this section. According to rabbi Singer, this passage is about Hezekiah (Heb. Chizkiyahu), about his time of distress and the deliverance from the siege of Jerusalem by Sancheriv, the king of Assyria. We are going to examine this claim and look at the part that is considered Messianic and look at how Chizkiyahu fits this description.

Calling this an �exotic reconstruction�, rabbi Singer objects to the fact that the Christian translators use the future tense because it�s �a little annoying� to have it in the past tense. However, rabbi Singer makes one principle mistake. Just because something is written in past tense, doesn�t mean that it is actually talking about a past event. There are passages in the Bible that are in the past tense and are actual prophecies. One excellent example is Isaiah 53. Although the passage is written almost entirely in the past tense, surely no orthodox Jew will deny that Isaiah 53 is a prophecy rather than a description of a past event? In essence, this passage is so obviously messianic, that it has to be stripped of it�s messianic status in order to get the focus off of Yeshua and divert it to anyone else, in this case that would be Chizkuyahu. So if this is actually speaking of an event that happened in the past then it cannot in any way shape or form be messianic. So all the words that are in the past tense must and shall be understood to be about a past event. But if this entire passage is about an event that happened in the past, then why on earth are there sentences in the future tense? Yes, you are reading it correctly: rabbi Singer left all the future references completely untouched and focussed entirely on the past tenses:

8:21 And they shall pass this way that are sore bestead and hungry; and it shall come to pass that, when they shall be hungry, they shall fret themselves, and curse by their king and by their God, and, whether they turn their faces upward, 22 or look unto the earth, behold distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish, and outspread thick darkness. 23 For is there no gloom to her that was stedfast? Now the former has lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but the latter has dealt a more grievous blow by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, in the district of the nations. 9:1 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. 2 You have multiplied the nation, you have increased their joy; they joy before you according to the joy in harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. 3 For the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, you have broken as in the day of Midian. 4 For every boot stamped with fierceness, and every cloak rolled in blood, shall even be for burning, for fuel of fire. 5 For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace; 6 That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts shall  perform this.

Future events can be described in past tense, but past events cannot be described in future tense, unless it is a recap of a dialogue. Furthermore, rabbi Singer calls to witness Isaiah 10 and 37 to support his case, that these chapters are an elaboration of the events described in Isaiah 9, a past events that speaks of Chizkiyahu. Yet the text of Isaiah 10 is entirely written in the future tense:

20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and they that are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. 21 A remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto El Gibbor. 22 For though thy people, O Israel, be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them shall return; an extermination is determined, overflowing with righteousness. 23 For an extermination wholly determined shall the Lord, the GOD of hosts, make in the midst of all the earth. 24 Therefore thus says the Lord, the GOD of hosts: O My people that dwell in Zion, be not afraid of Asshur, though he smite you with the rod, and lift up his staff against thee, after the manner of Egypt. 25 For yet a very little while, and the indignation shall be accomplished, and My anger shall be to their destruction. 26 And the LORD of hosts shall stir up against him a scourge, as in the slaughter of Midian at the Rock of Oreb; and as His rod was over the sea, so shall He lift it up after the manner of Egypt. 27 And it shall come to pass in that day, that his burden shall depart from off your shoulder, and his yoke from off your neck, and the yoke shall be destroyed by reason of fatness.

This is a chapter later. What past event is this talking about? Although I believe that Isaiah 37 is an entire recap of the events unfolding in 2 Kings 19, Isaiah 9 and 10 are not! Isaiah chapters 7-12 are soaked with allusions to the messianic age. God simply uses past events to describe the future redemption of the Jewish people. In Isaiah 9, 10 and 11 God simply uses the events of Egypt, Midian and Assyria as a parallel to the events when the redemption comes through the Messiah. How the Jewish people were first carried away and oppressed, but when Messiah comes to establish the throne of David forever, Israel will be restored. God will send Messiah to redeem his people, which will result in the praises of Israel to their God in Isaiah 12.

With all this taken into consideration, let�s look at chapter 9 once again. How does Hezekiah meet the standards of this prophecy:

For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; 

and his name is called Pele Yo�ets, El Gibbor, Avi-Ad, Sar-Shalom;

Let�s look at these names:

Pele Yo�ets / Wonderful Counselor: 

The word פֶּלֶאappears 13 times in the Tenach and in all 12 other instances the word is related to divine acts. Since the name of the Child is Pele Yo�ets this points to a divine attribute: The Divine Council will be his. Is this really fulfilled in Chizkuyahu?

El Gibbor / Mighty God: 

What is interesting it that rabbi Singer doesn�t mention the name given in Isaiah 9 in Hebrew. All he says is �mighty God� and claims that this is what Chizkiyahu means, giving his audience the impression that the name in Isaiah 9 is actually �Chizkiyahu� rather than �El Gibbor�. But if he actually had mentioned the name in Hebrew, that would be devastating to his case: Chizkiyahu and El Gibbor, are two entirely different names. And it is the latter that appears in Isaiah 9. Rabbi Singer claimed that the name �El-Gibbor� points to Chizkiyahu since the name Chizkiyahu would mean Mighty God. This is just not true! The word �chizki� means my strength. It consists of the word �chazak�, which means �strong� and the possessive first person singular suffix �i�. And the suffix �yahu� is an allusion to God�s divine Name and NOT to the word �God�. Thus, the name Chizkiyahu literally means �Yahweh is my strength�. That is something totally different than �Mighty God�. The name �El Gibbor� points to none else than God, as is evident in the very next chapter. (10:21)

Avi-Ad / Everlasting Father: 

This name is applied to Hezekiah. But in what way? The name can also be read as Father of eternity as meaning Owner of eternity. And this name points to the child. How does this point to Hezekiah?

Sar-Shalom / Prince of Peace: 

This name says it all. Peace will be abundant in the times of this child�s reign. Chizkiyahu, on the other hand, was besieged by Sancheriv, the king of Assyria. Terror struck every inhabitant of Jerusalem in this period. Shalom there was not. Again, if this name is applied to Hezekiah, then in what way can it be applied to him?

So if rabbi Singer is going to claim that �Jesus was never called� El Gibbor (In his lecture �how do missionaries paint Jesus into the Jewish scriptures�, rabbi Singer makes the same claim when addressing the Immanuel prophecy), he will have to be consistent in his argumentation and admit that Chizkiyahu was never called that either and therefore Isaiah 9:5 does not speak about him. But rabbi Singer will not be consistent, because doing so will destroy his own case. Now, if you have to be inconsistent and use arguments that refute your own case, then what does that tell us about the strength of your argument? Obviously this is not about Chizkiyahu, but about the Messiah. Now if we are going to claim that these names of the Messiah are nothing but names and have nothing to do with the Messiah himself, then either he will have an awful lot of names or these names point us to what the Messiah will be, what his substance is:

Shilo (Gen 49:10)

Yinnon ((Ps 72:17)

Immanuel (Is 7:14)

Pele Yo�ets (Is 9:5)

El Gibbor (Is 9:5)

Avi Ad (Is 9:5)

Sar Shalom (Is 9:5)

YHWH-Tsiduqenu (Jer 23:5)

Tsemach (Zech 6:12)

Certainly these names in Isaiah 9 point to who the child will be and not merely what his name will be. But it doesn�t end there. The next verse goes on to say:

That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, 

and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness 

from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Yahweh of hosts doth perform this.

The reign of the child would be great and there would be no end to the peace from his time on until forever. Although Chizkiyahu was a great king, rabbi Singer and other anti-missionaries tend to blow the greatness of his reign out of proportion. In time and scope, his reign was no greater than any of the other kings. His reign lasted 29 years. Contrast that with other kings of Judah:

Asa reigned for 41 years

Yeho�ash reigned for 40 years

Amatsyah reigned 29 years

Azarjah  reigned 52 years

Menashe reigned 55 years

Yoshiyahu reigned 31 years

I ask again, how does the phrase �to establish it, and to uphold it [�] from henceforth even forever� fit the reign of Chizkiyahu? These are very strong words and logic dictates that this was in no way fulfilled by Hezekiah. Also consider his words in 2 Kings 20:16-19. There may have been periods of peace in his days, he had no problems with his children living in troubled times. And so they did. Where was the never ending peace then? David�s throne and kingdom would be established from then on until eternity on justice and righteousness, yet Chizkiyahu�s son Menashe was one of the most evil kings Judah ever had.