PDA

View Full Version : The case for Jesus



Nick
Mar 22nd 2013, 05:34 AM
He was born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14)
in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2)
From the lineage of Kinf David (Isaiah 9:7)
A messenger would prepare the way for him (Isaiah 40:3-5)
He would be rejected by his own people (Isaiah 53:3)
Pierced in his hands, feet and side (Psalm 22:16; Zechariah 12:10)
Betrayed by a friend (Psalm 41:9)
Crucified with criminals (Isaiah 53:12)
Buried with the rich (Isaiah 53:9)
He would rise from the dead (Psalm 16:10, 49:15)
He would ascend into heaven (Psalm 24:7-10)
he would be seated at God's right hand (Psalm 68:18, 110:1)


The earliest OT prophesy: "....I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike your heel." (Genesis 3:14-15)

More than 300 messianic prophesies were fulfilled by Jesus, some of them concentrated in Psalm 22. My general question to the audience of believers and nonbelievers is this: What is the probability of one man fulfilling over 300 OT prophesies, 1 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000?

TomH
Mar 22nd 2013, 05:38 AM
I've heard it as one in ten to the power of thirty four.

Walls
Mar 22nd 2013, 06:52 AM
He was born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14)
in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2)
From the lineage of Kinf David (Isaiah 9:7)
A messenger would prepare the way for him (Isaiah 40:3-5)
He would be rejected by his own people (Isaiah 53:3)
Pierced in his hands, feet and side (Psalm 22:16; Zechariah 12:10)
Betrayed by a friend (Psalm 41:9)
Crucified with criminals (Isaiah 53:12)
Buried with the rich (Isaiah 53:9)
He would rise from the dead (Psalm 16:10, 49:15)
He would ascend into heaven (Psalm 24:7-10)
he would be seated at God's right hand (Psalm 68:18, 110:1)


The earliest OT prophesy: "....I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike your heel." (Genesis 3:14-15)

More than 300 messianic prophesies were fulfilled by Jesus, some of them concentrated in Psalm 22. My general question to the audience of believers and nonbelievers is this: What is the probability of one man fulfilling over 300 OT prophesies, 1 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000?

There's a brother called Chuck Missler who is something of a mathematician. He once did the probabilities. I don't remember the exact figures but science calls something outside of probability at say 1 to the power of 17, and our Lord fulfilling over 330 prophecies literally was say 1 to the power of 54.

The grand calculation must be those prophecies still to be fulfilled at His second coming - almost double those that have been fulfilled.

Nick
Mar 22nd 2013, 05:50 PM
I found these 12 verses to be great OT reference proofs for Jesus. I'm sure there are other good ones, but I like these. I can easily establish some baseline credibility in the OT based on when the manuscripts were first discovered and then rediscovered. Isaiah was a book of contention until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947. With the historical authentication of Isaiah I can then use those verses to clearly to point to Jesus, especially since it is now an established historical fact that Isaiah was written well before the birth of Jesus.

RabbiKnife
Mar 22nd 2013, 05:57 PM
I don't know the odds, but certainly higher than Tom can count without taking off his shoes...

keck553
Mar 22nd 2013, 06:00 PM
What's better than the odds is the revelation from the Father that Jesus is LORD. :) :)

Nick
Mar 22nd 2013, 06:08 PM
What's better than the odds is the revelation from the Father that Jesus is LORD. :) :)

Some people think in terms of probability. The greater the probability the greater the likelihood. A CFO of a company will usually base his forecast on probabilities and confidence levels. The book of Revelation is a bunch of mumbo jumbo to a nonbeliever, even to most believers. You can clearly make the argument that one would have a MUCH greater probability of winning the lotto than one man (Jesus) fulfilling over 300 OT prophesies. That's a message that will resonate together with the historical fact of when the OT was written. Most people have heard about the Dead Sea Scrolls but don't fully understand or appreciate what they mean to establishing Jesus as the Messiah.

keck553
Mar 22nd 2013, 06:11 PM
Some people think in terms of probability. The greater the probability the greater the likelihood. A CFO of a company will usually base his forecast on probabilities and confidence levels. The book of Revelation is a bunch of mumbo jumbo to a nonbeliever, even to most believers. You can clearly make the argument that one would have a MUCH greater probability of winning the lotto than one man (Jesus) fulfilling over 300 OT prophesies. That's a message that will resonate together with the historical fact of when the OT was written. Most people have heard about the Dead Sea Scrolls but don't fully understand or appreciate what they mean to establishing Jesus as the Messiah.

Jesus said the blind will not see. I don't doubt His Word.

Nick
Mar 22nd 2013, 06:16 PM
Jesus said the blind will not see. I don't doubt His Word.

I agree. Tell that to john146. This is just another angle to use, primarily with educated people, who God has aside set aside at birth to see the truth.

keck553
Mar 22nd 2013, 06:19 PM
I agree. Tell that to john146. This is just another angle to use, primarily with educated people, who God has aside set aside at birth to see the truth.

I saw that one coming. But in reality the revelation comes to those who choose to surrender to Jesus.

markedward
Mar 22nd 2013, 06:23 PM
There's another way to looking at the Old Testament than just a checklist of predictions. A huge number of the alleged 300+ predictions, I don't believe were ever intended to be read the way most Christians do. The few that the NT do apply to Jesus, I think are being misunderstood as to how they're applying them to him. Obviously this doesn't prevent me from believing in Jesus as the Messiah, but here's the point:

A person has to first (a) believe there are actually 300+ predictions about the Messiah, and (b) that the NT didn't just make stuff up about some guy named Jesus.

The method of 'proof' being used is no different than, for example, Muslims quoting the New Testament to 'prove' that Muhammed was a long-awaited prophet of God. When you quote a list of 300+ prophecies Jesus 'fulfilled', you're really only going to get two reactions: agreement from people who already agree he is the Messiah, or disagreement from people who already disagree he is the Messiah. You can't prove someone into following Jesus. It's a matter of the whole self trusting in him, not just intellectual assent to probabilities about prophecies that might not even be prophecies.

Nick
Mar 22nd 2013, 06:28 PM
I saw that one coming. But in reality the revelation comes to those who choose to surrender to Jesus.

I don't want to get sidetracked. Surrendering to Jesus is a decision one makes when God puts the desire in that person's heart to do so. The desire comes from God and He has to open their eyes so they can see. To your point, that is why Jesus said blind will not see, and it is also why he spoke in parables. Those that can hear, will hear, and those that can see, will see (paraphrasing).

Nick
Mar 22nd 2013, 06:32 PM
There's another way to looking at the Old Testament than just a checklist of predictions. A huge number of the alleged 300+ predictions, I don't believe were ever intended to be read the way most Christians do. The few that the NT do apply to Jesus, I think are being misunderstood as to how they're applying them to him. Obviously this doesn't prevent me from believing in Jesus as the Messiah, but here's the point:

A person has to first (a) believe there are actually 300+ predictions about the Messiah, and (b) that the NT didn't just make stuff up about some guy named Jesus.

The method of 'proof' being used is no different than, for example, Muslims quoting the New Testament to 'prove' that Muhammed was a long-awaited prophet of God. When you quote a list of 300+ prophecies Jesus 'fulfilled', you're really only going to get two reactions: agreement from people who already agree he is the Messiah, or disagreement from people who already disagree he is the Messiah. You can't prove someone into following Jesus. It's a matter of the whole self trusting in him, not just intellectual assent to probabilities about prophecies that might not even be prophecies.

Ok, let's simplify and take the 12 OT proofs I used. Do they all specifically refer to Jesus? Some argue that "Pierced in his hands, feet and side" was not a reference to Jesus. What do you think?

John146
Mar 22nd 2013, 07:09 PM
I agree. Tell that to john146. This is just another angle to use, primarily with educated people, who God has aside set aside at birth to see the truth.Do you have to mention me in every thread you post in? If you have a problem with me and my views then let's talk about it privately rather than you insulting me in threads that I may not even be reading (I don't read them all, by any means). Deal? By the way, I have no problem with what keck553 said at all, so I'm not sure why you told him to tell it to me.

I actually think this topic you brought it up here is a great one and I love discussing it but you obviously have serious disdain for me so I guess I'll have to discuss it with everyone else. I'm open to discussing it with you as well, but not if you don't want me to.

Nick
Mar 22nd 2013, 07:20 PM
Do you have to mention me in every thread you post in? If you have a problem with me and my views then let's talk about it privately rather than you insulting me in threads that I may not even be reading (I don't read them all, by any means). Deal? By the way, I have no problem with what keck553 said at all, so I'm not sure why you told him to tell it to me.

I actually think this topic you brought it up here is a great one and I love discussing it but you obviously have serious disdain for me so I guess I'll have to discuss it with everyone else. I'm open to discussing it with you as well, but not if you don't want me to.

You're right. I was wrong. You comments on the other thread rubbed me the wrong way because I allowed them to. I have serious disdain for sanctimonious people who find it necessary to talk down to others to make a point. Jesus did too.

markedward
Mar 22nd 2013, 07:39 PM
Here are my thoughts on the ones from the OP:


He was born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14)
Prophecy about Isaiah's own son, fulfilled in chapter 8, as evident by the time-restrictive context (the son is a sign for King Ahaz) and verbal parallels (chapter 8 deliberately echoes chapter 7). Matthew applies it to Jesus because Jesus 'fills full' the prophecy typologically, not literally.


in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2)
The original context seems to have the Assyrian conflict in mind, but it's vague enough on its own that it could be speaking of Jesus.


From the lineage of Kinf David (Isaiah 9:7)
Prophecy about Hezekiah, who had just been born and would become king. The context is about the survival of Judah under the threat of Assyrian power. God used Hezekiah to save Judah. Isaiah 9.6-7 is never applied to Jesus in the New Testament, although Luke does seem to borrow some language from it when Gabriel speaks to Mary.


A messenger would prepare the way for him (Isaiah 40:3-5)
The original context has in mind a return from exile; the prophet makes ironic echoes of the exodus event, but flips the situation around. Instead of Israel fleeing from their captors with haste, their new exodus will be relaxed. Instead of wandering the desert for forty years, a road will pave itself for them, as all the mountains and valleys make themselves level for the returning people. Given the original audience to whom the prophet is speaking, he likely has in mind a return from exile in Assyria or Babylon. That John the baptizer applies this brief passage to himself doesn't mean he sees himself as literally fulfilling it to the last dot (since for him to 'literally' fulfill this one sentence, huge portions of the rest of the prophecy have to be ignored or 'spiritualized' away). Instead, John was quoting the prophecy to describe his vocation, his calling, but doing so was common in that day.


He would be rejected by his own people (Isaiah 53:3)
There are four 'servant songs' in Isaiah, and they seem to personify the people of Israel acting as God's holy nation, a kingdom of priests and prophets, suffering trials and tribulations. The New Testament regularly quotes the fourth song ('the suffering servant') in regards to Jesus, and there is a curious pattern to it. The Gospel books apply the song to Jesus' life, while the rest of the NT applies the song to his death. Similar to the 'virgin prophecy', this seems to be a matter of Jesus 'filling full' the prophecy typologically, since no literal fulfillment works for any party. It is a powerful example of how the Scriptures 'witness' to Jesus, but that does not mean we have to read it as a literal one-to-one prophecy about him.


Pierced in his hands, feet and side (Psalm 22:16; Zechariah 12:10)
We'll take these two separately.

Psalm 22 is alluded to constantly in the passion narratives, particularly in Matthew's version, but each reference alters the original text somewhat to make it fit the situation. This is evidence that the authors clearly saw the psalm as being 'fulfilled' in Jesus, but definitely not in a literal one-to-one sense... they're taking the psalm in broad strokes. But no one in the New Testament quotes verse 22.16 to describe Jesus' actual crucifixion. For the multiple clear references to the psalm, they never use the part about hands and feet being pierced. But that's not what the Hebrew actually says. The verb means 'to dig', and in context, we see: 'Dogs encompass me, a company of evildoers encircles me, they have dug my hands and my feet.' The psalmist is speaking poetically, of wild animals (oxen, lions, and dogs) biting and scratching and digging at a beaten and bruised man.

Zechariah 12 is a fairly opaque prophecy, so it could be seen as a prophecy about Jesus, though as usual, the full context doesn't see to immediately allow that.


Betrayed by a friend (Psalm 41:9)
In context, the psalmist explicitly says 'Yahweh protects him and keeps him alive'. The betrayed person doesn't die. In context of who wrote this and when, it is likely David lamenting the betrayal of someone close to him; perhaps his son Absalom, or his advisor Ahitophel. Even still, the NT doesn't claim this psalm was fulfilled in Jesus, so it's very speculative anyway.


Crucified with criminals (Isaiah 53:12)
Isaiah 53 does not mention crucifixion. See the previous comment on Isaiah 53.3.


Buried with the rich (Isaiah 53:9)
See the previous comment on Isaiah 53.3.


He would rise from the dead (Psalm 16:10, 49:15)
Psalm 49.15 is not used in the NT. Psalm 16.10 is used, but the context seems to use the verse in midrash.


He would ascend into heaven (Psalm 24:7-10)
'Ascension to heaven' is not even close to what Psalm 24 is talking about, especially since the stage of the song is set on the earth in the first verse. In context, this is clearly a temple dedication song. The opening of gates for the entry of the King into his 'holy place' at the top of a 'hill' is poetry describing God coming to rest in the temple of Jerusalem.


he would be seated at God's right hand (Psalm 68:18, 110:1)
Psalm 68.18 is used in the NT for Jesus' triumphal procession out of death, though the context of the psalm makes it clear that was not the original subject matter (which was just a poem exalting God over all the nations). Psalm 110 was also a poem, though it certainly can be used (and is in the NT) for Jesus' exaltation as Israel's priest-king. But again, seeing it as a 'fulfilled' in Jesus is a matter of faith. It's not something that can be used as 'proof' on a giant checklist.

LookingUp
Mar 22nd 2013, 07:54 PM
I don't want to get sidetracked. Surrendering to Jesus is a decision one makes when God puts the desire in that person's heart to do so. The desire comes from God and He has to open their eyes so they can see. To your point, that is why Jesus said blind will not see, and it is also why he spoke in parables. Those that can hear, will hear, and those that can see, will see (paraphrasing).If they're blind, why did Jesus have to speak in parables so they wouldn't see?

Nick
Mar 22nd 2013, 08:11 PM
Here are my thoughts on the ones from the OP:

Wow Mark. Thanks for taking the time to share that. Now my head is spinning. Like most of your posts, I need to digest this, read, do some more research, and come back to you with additional questions.

keck553
Mar 22nd 2013, 10:28 PM
I don't want to get sidetracked. Surrendering to Jesus is a decision one makes when God puts the desire in that person's heart to do so. The desire comes from God and He has to open their eyes so they can see. To your point, that is why Jesus said blind will not see, and it is also why he spoke in parables. Those that can hear, will hear, and those that can see, will see (paraphrasing).

But you are side tracking by attempting to infuse your Calvanism into my response, in much the same way Calvinism is infused into Scripture. It was neither the intent of my post to allude to Calvin, nor I believe is the intent of Scripture to reach forward to over a millenia after Canon was established to come up with a new doctrine. Surrendering to Jesus instead of temptation is a constant CHOICE God gives us the freedom to make. Including the initial CHOICE.

In Deuteronomy God asks all to "Choose life," not "I decided who is going to choose life."

at any rate, back to the OP, I feel no more obligated to make a "case for Jesus" based on empherical data than I feel obligated to make a case for gravity based on empherical data. The rejection of either will result in death.

Nick
Mar 22nd 2013, 11:32 PM
Here are my thoughts on the ones from the OP:

Mark - what is Jesus referring to in Luke 24:44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms?”

Also, what is God referring to in Gen 3:14-15 "....I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike your heel?" Is that not a clear reference to Mary?

Nick
Mar 22nd 2013, 11:36 PM
Surrendering to Jesus instead of temptation is a constant CHOICE God gives us the freedom to make. Including the initial CHOICE.

I agree with the constant surrender concept but the desire to do so comes from God.

keck553
Mar 23rd 2013, 01:01 AM
I agree with the constant surrender concept but the desire to do so comes from God.

Everyone is given that. All they have to do is choose what to do with it.

Nick
Mar 23rd 2013, 01:25 AM
Everyone is given that. All they have to do is choose what to do with it.

Well, first comes the desire, then the needed power to choose, both of which comes from God.

LookingUp
Mar 23rd 2013, 04:40 AM
Everyone is given that. All they have to do is choose what to do with it.Deserves a repeat. :-)

LookingUp
Mar 23rd 2013, 04:41 AM
Well, first comes the desire, then the needed power to choose, both of which comes from God.Nick, are you saying that God gives people a desire for Him and yet withholds the power to choose Him?

Nick
Mar 23rd 2013, 06:05 PM
Nick, are you saying that God gives people a desire for Him and yet withholds the power to choose Him?

No, the opposite. God gives people the desire for Him so they can choose. Not everyone has that desire. If you watch the news for 5 minutes that reality is fairly self-evident. Without the desire, whether or not to choose God is a moot point.

LookingUp
Mar 23rd 2013, 06:44 PM
God gives people the desire for Him so they can choose.I agree. John 1:9 and John 12:32 agree too. :-)


Not everyone has that desire.I agree. Many are turned over to the lusts of their heart since they suppress the truth (Romans 1:18, 24).


If you watch the news for 5 minutes that reality is fairly self-evident.Yes.

markedward
Mar 23rd 2013, 09:50 PM
Mark - what is Jesus referring to in Luke 24:44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms?”
That the whole of the Scriptures testifies to him. There is certainly prophecy about Jesus, individually, in the Scriptures. But reducing them into an exact checklist (and adding several that are never attributed to him) undermines the purpose of the Scriptures as a whole. The Old Testament as a whole witnesses to Jesus (John 5.39), everything from God creating the world, to calling on Abraham, to rescuing Israel, to destroying the Canaanites, to exiling Israel, to rebuking Jonah, to promising restoration. It all pushes and points toward a conclusion, and Jesus is that conclusion.


Also, what is God referring to in Gen 3:14-15 "....I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike your heel?" Is that not a clear reference to Mary?
No, it's not a clear reference to Mary. In context, 'the woman' is Eve, and her 'offspring' are all her descendants. The serpent embodies sin in general, and sin's antagonism of humanity, and humanity's constant battle over sin, is all throughout Scripture. The closest the NT gets to referencing this passage is in Revelation 13, where the beast is struck in one of its heads. As with much else, this can certainly be applied to Jesus in a one-of-a-kind way, but there's little reason to think it was always, originally, about him and only him.

Nick
Mar 23rd 2013, 09:57 PM
That the whole of the Scriptures testifies to him. There is certainly prophecy about Jesus, individually, in the Scriptures. But reducing them into an exact checklist (and adding several that are never attributed to him) undermines the purpose of the Scriptures as a whole. The Old Testament as a whole witnesses to Jesus (John 5.39), everything from God creating the world, to calling on Abraham, to rescuing Israel, to destroying the Canaanites, to exiling Israel, to rebuking Jonah, to promising restoration. It all pushes and points toward a conclusion, and Jesus is that conclusion.

I was always under the impression that Isaiah 53 almost entirely referred to Jesus until now. What are some direct OT verses that could and should be used in their place? I like the idea of using OT scripture that clearly and without ambiguity points to Jesus, but you've given an alternative view of the strongest ones I thought I had.



No, it's not a clear reference to Mary. In context, 'the woman' is Eve, and her 'offspring' are all her descendants. The serpent embodies sin in general, and sin's antagonism of humanity, and humanity's constant battle over sin, is all throughout Scripture. The closest the NT gets to referencing this passage is in Revelation 13, where the beast is struck in one of its heads. As with much else, this can certainly be applied to Jesus in a one-of-a-kind way, but there's little reason to think it was always, originally, about him and only him.

I've never heard to this particular interpretation of that verse. Every pastor I've heard, including the translator notes, uses that verse as the earliest prophesy of Jesus and the plan of salvation.

markedward
Mar 23rd 2013, 10:21 PM
I was always under the impression that Isaiah 53 almost entirely referred to Jesus until now.
Christians and Jews have actually been debating this since at least the second century AD. I think both sides are right: the 'servant' was, in its original context, about a personified Israel as God's suffering servant. The NT writers took that song and reapply it to Jesus, so that he is God's suffering servant.


What are some direct OT verses that could and should be used in their place?
I don't think we have to use other OT verses 'in their place'. Stuff like Isaiah 53 are effective in revealing the person of Jesus. It's the reasoning behind how those Scriptures are being used that needs to be modified. Let's put it this way:

The Gospel of Matthew says that little kid Jesus was with Mary and Joseph in Egypt to escape the murderous King Herod. Then Herod dies, and an angel tells Joseph 'Hey, safe to bring Jesus out of Egypt now'. Matthew then grabs a line from the book of Hosea, 'Out of Egypt I called my son', saying Jesus fulfilled this. Traditionally, Christians have interpreted Matthew to be saying that Jesus exactly and literally fulfilled this prediction from Hosea. The problem was, most Christians didn't pay attention to Hosea to begin with. So then some critics come along and point this out: Hosea was talking about God's son Israel coming out of Egypt in the exodus event (Hosea 11.1), committing idolatry (11.2), God raising Israel as a son (11.3-4), but ultimately Israel's stubborn sinfulness leading to exile to Assyria (11.5-7). The place where Hosea has God calling his son out of Egypt (Hosea 11.1b), the prophet was not talking about a messiah seven-hundred years in the future. So really have three options: one, follow the critical opinion and conclude that Matthew had no idea what Hosea was talking about when he said Jesus 'fulfilled' his prophecy; two, follow the traditional Christian opinion and conclude that Hosea had no idea what Hosea was talking about.

Or three, synthesize the first two, so that Matthew, who was fully aware that Hosea was not prophesying about the messiah, was inspired to adapt that individual line from Hosea's prophecy because there was just something about it that spoke to what would eventually take place during Jesus' youth. Paul would call the prophecy in Hosea a 'shadow' of the true substance. My wording for it is 'typology'. So it is perfectly fine to apply Hosea 11.1b, or Isaiah 53, to Jesus so long as we recognize (and don't ignore or pretend against) what those prophecies were actually talking about. This works, because we know that this was an interpretive method in Jesus' day; Jews and Christians alike used the Scriptures in this way, freely re-applying this or that text to a new situation, without forgetting or rejecting the original meaning of that text.


I like the idea of using OT scripture that clearly and without ambiguity points to Jesus, but you've given an alternative view of the strongest ones I thought I had.
I think the Scriptures do point to Jesus, but again, not in the form of a checklist scattered throughout different books. Here's what I said to Fenris in another thread a while back:


Traditionally, Christians will take Jesus' words (http://bible.us/59/jhn.5.39.esv), 'the Scriptures ... bear witness about me', and push this to an excessively literal end. Every tiny little thing is claimed to be a 'prophecy' about Jesus. The star which would destroy Moab is Jesus. The son of man persecuted by the beast is Jesus. Sacrificial bulls represent Jesus' servitude (somehow?), sacrificial lambs represent his meekness, Judah being called a lion represent his royalty. When God tells David that his 'son' will build a house for him, this is read to be about Jesus (did he commit iniquity and require discipline (http://bible.us/59/2sa.7.14.esv)?). And so on.

My approach to the relationship between the OT and the NT is not quite as typical for Christians, and my approach to prophecy is not quite as typical for Christians or Jews. I do believe the Scriptures 'bear witness' to Jesus, but it is not so heavy-handed and explicit. The star is David. The son of man is Israel. The bulls are bulls, the lambs are lambs, the lion is a metaphor for Judah, the son of David to build a house is Solomon. The son born to the woman is Isaiah's son, as a sign for Ahaz and all Judah. The suffering servant is Israel. And so on. These aren't the main things to take away from the Scriptures, and I get a bit annoyed when Christians turn to them primarily to find proof-texts that Jesus fulfilled 300-something 'prophecies'. I don't read it that way (anymore). The OT is telling a huge story about God and his relationship with humanity, through his people. How sin is a problem, an enemy to God's will and his kingship over the world he created. How Israel is called to be God's people, to bear his standard of righteous living and to make God known into the whole world (the 'light' of the nations, so to speak: Isaiah 42.6; 49.6; 60.1-3). And all the while, Israel struggles to do this, and God sends prophet after prophet to tell them bad things'a coming if they persist, and sure enough those bad things come.

But because God is compassionate and merciful, he promises that the time will come when all things will be made right. The messiah will come and extend the rule of God's kingdom over the whole world, the whole world will know God. Those who live in the Way of the kingdom of God will be included, while those who make themselves enemies to it will be punished and thrown out. But the promises the Prophets make are not exactly the same as the promises the Law makes. The Prophets' promises are greater, transcending in a way the original promises. God didn't renege on his old promises and make new ones, he transformed his promises into something better.

When Jesus comes along, and his Apostles after him, I see it the same way. God is doing what he promised, but he's doing it better than what he originally said, and (as he commonly does in the OT) carries out his will in ways we don't always expect.

Nick
Mar 24th 2013, 01:06 AM
That was incredibly rich and very profound. To be honest, it completely transformed the way I look at verses. Verses without context can obviously be overstated, understated, twisted, and misapplied. How did you come to this understanding when the translators themselves use specific verses as proof texts of Jesus? I'm sure they don't teach this in Seminary so where and how did you develop this approach?

markedward
Mar 24th 2013, 01:48 AM
How did you come to this understanding when the translators themselves use specific verses as proof texts of Jesus?
I firstly make a distinction between the translators' best efforts to translate the text itself, and then to give their opinion on what the text means. It helps that the versions of the Bible I use have very few interpretive notes, or none at all.


I'm sure they don't teach this in Seminary so where and how did you develop this approach?
I've never attended a seminary. The closest I've gotten to a professional education was (practically, though not officially) minoring in religious studies at a public university. Otherwise, it was a slow process of changing my thinking when I actually started paying attention to the context of the passages from the OT when the NT writers use it. Sometimes reading other ancient texts contemporary to the NT to compare how the writers think (e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, epistles of Ignatius, etc.). Reading books that take various positions on various subjects. Discussion with others (the best conversations always come in person). There's no one way.

Fenris
Mar 24th 2013, 02:12 AM
I was going to chime in but it looks like Markedward got this one. He's articulated the Jewish position very nicely.

Nick
Mar 25th 2013, 01:36 AM
I was going to chime in but it looks like Markedward got this one. He's articulated the Jewish position very nicely.

What is the Jewish position on 53:5?

"But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed."

Who's wounds, and does "we" refer to the Jews or both Jews and Gentiles?

Fenris
Mar 25th 2013, 12:25 PM
What is the Jewish position on 53:5?
Well, the Hebrew reads differently from this. It says he was wounded, not "pierced", and "from our sins" not "for our sins". That means something totally different. "Wounded for our sins" implies some kind of vicarious atonement. "Wounded from our sins" simply means that the speaker sinned by hurting the servant. For example, if you punch me you are sinning, and I am wounded from your sin.



does "we" refer to the Jews or both Jews and Gentiles?
Who is the speaker here?

Let's go back to the end of 52, which is really where 53 starts.


So shall he startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him, for, what had not been told them they saw, and at what they had not heard they gazed.

Ok, the servants identity is shocking to nations and kings. Now we begin 53, on the same theme.

Who would have believed our report, and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed?

And he came up like a sapling before it, and like a root from dry ground, he had neither form nor comeliness; and we saw him that he had no appearance. Now shall we desire him?

Who is the speaker here? Why, it's the startled nations and kings from the end of 52!

So to answer your question, "we" is the nations of the world, admitting that the despised Jews were correct.

rejoice44
Mar 25th 2013, 02:14 PM
Christians and Jews have actually been debating this since at least the second century AD. I think both sides are right: the 'servant' was, in its original context, about a personified Israel as God's suffering servant. The NT writers took that song and reapply it to Jesus, so that he is God's suffering servant.

I am rather amazed that you could say that. The opening line of Isaiah 53 asks, to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? Do a word study on the hand and arm of God and you will see that it brings salvation, as well as creation. We all know about Israel, and surely Israel didn't create the world.

Verse two speaks of the tree of life in the garden of God. Isaiah says, "When we shall see him,--". Who is the we? Who is the him?

Verse three says, "And we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not." Who is the we, and who is the him?

Verse four says, "He --: yet we--." Who is the He, and who is the we?

Verse five says, "But he --; --we are --." Who is the he, and who is the we?

Verse six says, "All we ---; --- we have; --- on him." Who is the he, and who is the we?

Verse seven says, "He was ---, and he was---, yet he ---: he ---, so he---his mouth. You might try applying this to Israel, but you have to ignore the previous six verses. You also have to ignore the fact that Israel has been looking for a king to lead them in battle, plus the fact that they have gone to battle many times, including the six day war.

Verse eight. When was Israel cutoff from the land of the living? Again who is my people, and who is he?

Verse nine. How do you apply this to Israel?

Verse ten. Why would it please the Lord to put Israel to grief?

Verses eleven and twelve. How can Israel bear the sins of others? Israel needs to bear her own sins. Israel cannot even make intercession for herself, for she has no Temple, and she has no priest. She has rejected her High Priest and Temple for nearly two thousand years.

rejoice44
Mar 25th 2013, 02:24 PM
Well, the Hebrew reads differently from this. It says he was wounded, not "pierced", and "from our sins" not "for our sins". That means something totally different. "Wounded for our sins" implies some kind of vicarious atonement. "Wounded from our sins" simply means that the speaker sinned by hurting the servant. For example, if you punch me you are sinning, and I am wounded from your sin.


Who is the speaker here?

Let's go back to the end of 52, which is really where 53 starts.


So shall he startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him, for, what had not been told them they saw, and at what they had not heard they gazed.

Ok, the servants identity is shocking to nations and kings. Now we begin 53, on the same theme.

Who would have believed our report, and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed?

And he came up like a sapling before it, and like a root from dry ground, he had neither form nor comeliness; and we saw him that he had no appearance. Now shall we desire him?

Who is the speaker here? Why, it's the startled nations and kings from the end of 52!

So to answer your question, "we" is the nations of the world, admitting that the despised Jews were correct.

When Israel refers to the nations he says they, not we. Second person plural versus first person singular

Fenris
Mar 25th 2013, 02:43 PM
When Israel refers to the nations he says they, not we. Second person plural versus first person singular
I'm sorry, I am not understanding you.

RabbiKnife
Mar 25th 2013, 02:49 PM
Oh, and Fenris, should I not catch you later, Chug Sameach.

May your and your family remember the blessings and power of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God who led his People from captivity to the Promised Land, the God who kept his promises and instructed the Angel of Death to pass over the homes of your ancestors. May He speak to you and yours of his faithfulness through all generations.

Shalom!

rejoice44
Mar 25th 2013, 02:52 PM
Isaiah never associates himself as a part of those other nations.

Fenris
Mar 25th 2013, 02:54 PM
Verse two speaks of the tree of life in the garden of God. uh, what?


Isaiah says, "When we shall see him,--". Who is the we? Who is the him?
Verse three says, "And we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not." Who is the we, and who is the him?

Verse four says, "He --: yet we--." Who is the He, and who is the we?


Verse five says, "But he --; --we are --." Who is the he, and who is the we?

Verse six says, "All we ---; --- we have; --- on him." Who is the he, and who is the we?Actually, it's past tense. Anyway, "we" is the nations, "him" is the servant.


Verse seven says, "He was ---, and he was---, yet he ---: he ---, so he---his mouth. You might try applying this to Israel, but you have to ignore the previous six verses. Why?


You also have to ignore the fact that Israel has been looking for a king to lead them in battle, plus the fact that they have gone to battle many times, including the six day war.What does this have to do with chapter 53?


Verse eight. When was Israel cutoff from the land of the living?
Ezekiel refers to the land of Israel as "the land of the living". Could this possibly refer to exile?


Again who is my people, and who is he?Same as above, why do you keep asking the same question?


Verse nine. How do you apply this to Israel?Jews being hacked to bits and buried anyplace, or nowhere at all? It happened, man.


Verse ten. Why would it please the Lord to put Israel to grief?To bring about repentance? The verse itself says that " if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days"


Verses eleven and twelve. How can Israel bear the sins of others? Israel needs to bear her own sins.
Israel intercedes on behalf of the nations, whether they deserve it or not. Verse 12: "Interceded for the transgressors." What does Jeremiah say? "Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it"

It's not such a stretch. Even some Christian commentaries acknowledge that this chapter is about Israel. You may not agree with them, but it shows that the conclusion that it refers to Jesus is not the only way to read it.

Fenris
Mar 25th 2013, 02:56 PM
Oh, and Fenris, should I not catch you later, Chug Sameach.

May your and your family remember the blessings and power of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God who led his People from captivity to the Promised Land, the God who kept his promises and instructed the Angel of Death to pass over the homes of your ancestors. May He speak to you and yours of his faithfulness through all generations.

Shalom!
Thank you my friend. :hug: May God bring us all salvation in this season of redemption!

Fenris
Mar 25th 2013, 02:56 PM
Isaiah never associates himself as a part of those other nations.

I'm sorry, I am still not understanding you.

rejoice44
Mar 25th 2013, 02:56 PM
Fenris I have to go for a while will reply when I get back.

Fenris
Mar 25th 2013, 02:58 PM
Fenris I have to go for a while will reply when I get back.

OK I know you are a busy man. Take your time.

divaD
Mar 25th 2013, 03:18 PM
Well, the Hebrew reads differently from this. It says he was wounded, not "pierced", and "from our sins" not "for our sins". That means something totally different. "Wounded for our sins" implies some kind of vicarious atonement. "Wounded from our sins" simply means that the speaker sinned by hurting the servant. For example, if you punch me you are sinning, and I am wounded from your sin.


Who is the speaker here?

Let's go back to the end of 52, which is really where 53 starts.


So shall he startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him, for, what had not been told them they saw, and at what they had not heard they gazed.

Ok, the servants identity is shocking to nations and kings. Now we begin 53, on the same theme.

Who would have believed our report, and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed?

And he came up like a sapling before it, and like a root from dry ground, he had neither form nor comeliness; and we saw him that he had no appearance. Now shall we desire him?

Who is the speaker here? Why, it's the startled nations and kings from the end of 52!

So to answer your question, "we" is the nations of the world, admitting that the despised Jews were correct.




IMO, there are more than one speaker, or maybe more than one perspective, excluding God. I base that on verse Isaiah 53:8 for one. Here the speaker seems to be Isaiah.

Isaiah 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.


My people in this verse has to be meaning Isaiah's people. It would be similar to the following for example.

Daniel 9:20 And whiles I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God for the holy mountain of my God;

In the same way, Daniel being the speaker says my people as well.





But when we start from verse 1, the perspective seems to be coming from those that believe and have miracles happen to them, meaning those around the time of Jesus.

John 12:37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:
38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

IMO, the 'our' in Isaiah 53:1 could be meaning those the miracles happened to, the fact John 12:37 says..though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him.





And from verse 2, the perspective appears to change to that of 'my people' in verse 8, like such.

Isaiah 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we, ISAIAH"S PEOPLE shall see him, there is no beauty that we, ISAIAH"S PEOPLE, should desire him.

Let's compare that to the following.

John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

In context, His own is certainly meaning Isaiah's people Israel. This says they received Him not, which equates to..and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

keck553
Mar 25th 2013, 03:19 PM
Well, the Hebrew reads differently from this. It says he was wounded, not "pierced", and "from our sins" not "for our sins". That means something totally different. "Wounded for our sins" implies some kind of vicarious atonement. "Wounded from our sins" simply means that the speaker sinned by hurting the servant. For example, if you punch me you are sinning, and I am wounded [B].

I would say that fits in context with the second sentence in John 19:11.

divaD
Mar 25th 2013, 03:32 PM
Actually, it's past tense. Anyway, "we" is the nations, "him" is the servant.


Isaiah was a prophet. Prophets usually tell of the future, not of the past. And so what if it appears everything is in past tense. You're not understanding the perspectives correctly IMO. And besides, Isaiah 53:1 is clearly future from Isaiah's time, the fact John 12:37-41 says so. Of course, if one doesn't believe the NT, then it probably doesn't matter what John 12:37-41 says or doesn't say.

Fenris
Mar 25th 2013, 03:35 PM
IMO, there are more than one speaker, or maybe more than one perspective, excluding God. I base that on verse Isaiah 53:8 for one. Here the speaker seems to be Isaiah.

Isaiah 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.


No, you just like "my people" to mean the Jews because then it must be referencing Jesus. But let's face it, anyone can say "my people" about any nation.

Fenris
Mar 25th 2013, 03:38 PM
Isaiah was a prophet. Prophets usually tell of the future, not of the past. And so what if it appears everything is in past tense.
Well let's look at the context. You're treating 53 as if it's some stand-alone piece of literature, which it is not. Chapter 52 is about the redemption of Zion. Chapter 54 is about the redemption of Zion. Chapter 53, sandwiched in between, might be about that future time, when the nations look back on history and realized that the Jews were correct all along.

divaD
Mar 25th 2013, 03:38 PM
No, you just like "my people" to mean the Jews because then it must be referencing Jesus. But let's face it, anyone can say "my people" about any nation.

Context of course determines things. I'm certain we both agree with that. So it would be dependent on whom one sees the speakers being in Isaiah 53.

divaD
Mar 25th 2013, 03:52 PM
Chapter 53, sandwiched in between, might be about that future time, when the nations look back on history and realized that the Jews were correct all along.



But when one does what I call text replacing, meaning one replaces the texts with their understanding of things, the texts come out not making much sense in some verses, if coming from your perspective. In another post it seems you conclude the servant is the despised Jews, and the speakers are the nations of the world, if I'm not mistaken. A quick example then.


Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.


IOW....

Isaiah 53:6 All we, the nations of the world, like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on the despised Jews the iniquity of the nations of the world.


So every time in the OT when God dealt harshly with His people, the despised Jews, it wasn't for anything they had done, but it was because of the iniquities of the nations of the world?

Fenris
Mar 25th 2013, 03:55 PM
Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.


IOW....

Isaiah 53:6 All we, the nations of the world, like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on the despised Jews the iniquity of the nations of the world.


So every time in the OT when God dealt harshly with His people, the despised Jews, it wasn't for anything they had done, but it was because of the iniquities of the nations of the world?

Unless it's translated another way-

and the Lord accepted his prayers for the iniquity of all of us.

Which is supported by the verse in Jeremiah.

As I say, it's not as "obvious" as you make it out to be.

Nick
Mar 25th 2013, 04:24 PM
Well, the Hebrew reads differently from this. It says he was wounded, not "pierced", and "from our sins" not "for our sins". That means something totally different. "Wounded for our sins" implies some kind of vicarious atonement. "Wounded from our sins" simply means that the speaker sinned by hurting the servant. For example, if you punch me you are sinning, and I am wounded from your sin.

Ok, different translation, same verse. (NCV)

"But he was wounded for the wrong we did;
he was crushed for the evil we did.
The punishment, which made us well, was given to him,
and we are healed because of his wounds."

How is the speaker who sinned by hurting the servant healed by the servant's wounds?

John146
Mar 25th 2013, 04:26 PM
Unless it's translated another way-

and the Lord accepted his prayers for the iniquity of all of us.

Which is supported by the verse in Jeremiah.

As I say, it's not as "obvious" as you make it out to be.Makes it impossible to have a discussion about it when our translations differ that much. We can't ask "what do you think it means when it says (insert text from our translation here)...?" because you'll just say it doesn't say that. Oh, well. We'll have to find something else to discuss where our translations don't contradict each other, I guess.

Nick
Mar 25th 2013, 04:44 PM
Unless it's translated another way-

and the Lord accepted his prayers for the iniquity of all of us.

Which is supported by the verse in Jeremiah.

As I say, it's not as "obvious" as you make it out to be.

Here is how 53:5-7 is translated in the Hebrew bible:

"But he was wounded because of our crimes, crushed because of our sins; the disciplining that makes us whole fell on him, and by his bruises we are healed. 6 We all, like sheep, went astray; we turned, each one, to his own way; yet ADONAI laid on him the guilt of all of us. Or: and in fellowship with him 7 Though mistreated, he was submissive - he did not open his mouth. Like a lamb led to be slaughtered, like a sheep silent before its shearers, he did not open his mouth."

Who didn't open his mouth? Who was the lamb to be slaughtered?

Fenris
Mar 25th 2013, 04:51 PM
How is the speaker who sinned by hurting the servant healed by the servant's wounds?

Countries believed that they "healed" themselves when they expelled or murdered their Jews. The Nazis used exactly that term someplace.

Fenris
Mar 25th 2013, 04:51 PM
Makes it impossible to have a discussion about it when our translations differ that much. We can't ask "what do you think it means when it says (insert text from our translation here)...?" because you'll just say it doesn't say that. Oh, well. We'll have to find something else to discuss where our translations don't contradict each other, I guess.

And we'll have to agree to disagree sometimes. It's all good. :)

Fenris
Mar 25th 2013, 04:53 PM
Here is how 53:5-7 is translated in the Hebrew bible:

Like a lamb led to be slaughtered

Who didn't open his mouth? Who was the lamb to be slaughtered?

That's exactly how the Jews are described during the Holocaust. "Like lambs to the slaughter".

John146
Mar 25th 2013, 04:56 PM
And we'll have to agree to disagree sometimes. It's all good. :)Yep, that's okay. Better than going in circles. I particularly have no interest in arguing about Bible translations. Just have to let that go and agree to disagree on that.

divaD
Mar 25th 2013, 04:59 PM
Unless it's translated another way-

and the Lord accepted his prayers for the iniquity of all of us.

Which is supported by the verse in Jeremiah.




Could you remind me which verse in Jeremiah you're referring to? Can you submit these side by side, so to speak, to show how this verse in Isaiah 53 is supported by the verse in Jeremiah? If I can see it from that perspective, maybe I can understand where you're coming from at least .

John146
Mar 25th 2013, 05:00 PM
That's exactly how the Jews are described during the Holocaust. "Like lambs to the slaughter".Yeah, but the translation he quoted only spoke of one lamb being led to slaughter, not lambs (plural). So, the difference in translation is mainly what is causing the disagreement on that passage. I personally think Philip got it right:

Acts 8:30 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 The place in the Scripture which he read was this: “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; And as a lamb before its shearer is silent, So He opened not His mouth. 33 In His humiliation His justice was taken away, And who will declare His generation? 34 So the eunuch answered Philip and said, “I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.

Fenris
Mar 25th 2013, 05:03 PM
Yeah, but the translation he quoted only spoke of one lamb being led to slaughter, not lambs (plural). So, the difference in translation is mainly what is causing the disagreement on that passage.

God says numerous times in Isaiah "Israel my servant" singular, when Israel is an entire nation.

Fenris
Mar 25th 2013, 05:04 PM
Could you remind me which verse in Jeremiah you're referring to?
Jeremiah 29:7. Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.

Nick
Mar 25th 2013, 05:04 PM
Yeah, but the translation he quoted only spoke of one lamb being led to slaughter, not lambs (plural). So, the difference in translation is mainly what is causing the disagreement on that passage.

Fenris - john146 jumped on this before I could (I was debating him on another thread as he was responding to you here). In your own Bible, it speaks of a lamb (singular) and uses "he" instead of "they". I don't see how even the Jews can interpret that in the plural form.

divaD
Mar 25th 2013, 05:13 PM
Better than going in circles.



Nah...going in circles has to be the better thing to do, based on the fact, many on this board, myself included, have been going in circles with others for years now, and will still be going in circles for years to come, would be my guess. Hopefully tho, we don't now also go in circles about going in circles as well. http://bibleforums.org/images/smilies/wink.gif

Fenris
Mar 25th 2013, 05:23 PM
Fenris - john146 jumped on this before I could (I was debating him on another thread as he was responding to you here). In your own Bible, it speaks of a lamb (singular) and uses "he" instead of "they". I don't see how even the Jews can interpret that in the plural form.

Isaiah 43:10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen".

Same entity: the people Israel. "My witnesses", plural; "my servant" singular.

John146
Mar 25th 2013, 06:06 PM
God says numerous times in Isaiah "Israel my servant" singular, when Israel is an entire nation.Yeah, but what I'm saying is that the translation he quoted points to an individual suffering for the sins of the people rather than the nation of Israel. That translation of Isaiah 53:5 says "he was wounded because of our crimes, crushed because of our sins". Who is "he" and who is "our" there? Also, it says "he did not open his mouth". How could that apply to the nation of Israel?

John146
Mar 25th 2013, 06:10 PM
Nah...going in circles has to be the better thing to do, based on the fact, many on this board, myself included, have been going in circles with others for years now, and will still be going in circles for years to come, would be my guess. Hopefully tho, we don't now also go in circles about going in circles as well. http://bibleforums.org/images/smilies/wink.gifBut we should take a break once in awhile before continuing to go in circles instead of going in circles constantly without a break. I guess that's my point. :D

markedward
Mar 25th 2013, 06:11 PM
It's personification.

rejoice44
Mar 25th 2013, 06:26 PM
[QUOTE=Fenris;2969438]--What does this have to do with chapter 53?

It says he opened not his mouth, that he was as the Passover lamb. Israel is not acting as a lamb. They are continually preparing for war.


Ezekiel refers to the land of Israel as "the land of the living". Could this possibly refer to exile?

Could be, but it is not.


Same as above, why do you keep asking the same question?

Because Isaiah includes himself as we, and we is in the first person. When he refers to the servant, Isaiah speaks in the second person. Surely Isaiah is not excluding himself as part of Isarael.


Jews being hacked to bits and buried anyplace, or nowhere at all? It happened, man.

Yes it happened. Why did God allow it?


To bring about repentance? The verse itself says that " if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days"

How can Israel bring about repentance? The law is very clear on this point.


Israel intercedes on behalf of the nations, whether they deserve it or not. Verse 12: "Interceded for the transgressors." What does Jeremiah say? "Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it"

Israel cannot even intercede for herself, how can she intercede for someone else. What does the law say?


It's not such a stretch. Even some Christian commentaries acknowledge that this chapter is about Israel. You may not agree with them, but it shows that the conclusion that it refers to Jesus is not the only way to read it.

Why, because Israel is called a servant? God even called Nebuchadnezzar his servant.

markedward
Mar 25th 2013, 06:39 PM
Why, because Israel is called a servant?
God's servant is spoken of in Isaiah 41.8-9, 42.1-4, 42.19, 43.10, 44.1-2, 44.21, 44.26, 45.4, 48.20, 49.1-6, 49.5-6, 50.4-9, and 52.13-53.12.

The underlined ones are the so-called 'servant songs'. All of the others (with the inclusion of 49.1-6) are places where the 'servant' is explicitly identified as Israel.


The 'suffering servant' is not Israel just because God calls Israel his servant in different parts of the Bible. The 'suffering servant' is Israel because the servant songs are interspersed with numerous clearcut identifications that Israel is the 'servant'.

rejoice44
Mar 25th 2013, 06:49 PM
God's servant is spoken of in Isaiah 41.8-9, 42.1-4, 42.19, 43.10, 44.1-2, 44.21, 44.26, 45.4, 48.20, 49.1-6, 49.5-6, 50.4-9, and 52.13-53.12.

The underlined ones are the so-called 'servant songs'. All of the others (with the inclusion of 49.1-6) are places where the 'servant' is explicitly identified as Israel.


The 'suffering servant' is not Israel just because God calls Israel his servant in different parts of the Bible. The 'suffering servant' is Israel because the servant songs are interspersed with numerous clearcut identifications that Israel is the 'servant'.

What you are saying does not diminish either Job or Nebuchadnezzar as servants of God. That the Bible is a Jewish book no one denies. You are saying that Israel is sacrificing herself for the sins of the world? It is completely contrary to the law.

markedward
Mar 25th 2013, 06:54 PM
What you are saying does not diminish either Job or Nebuchadnezzar as servants of God.
Obviously not. But neither Job nor Nebuchadnezzar are identified as God's 'servant' multiple times in Isaiah 40-55, interlaced with the servant songs. Israel is. Hence why I said:

The 'suffering servant' is not Israel just because God calls Israel his servant in different parts of the Bible. The 'suffering servant' is Israel because the servant songs are interspersed with numerous clearcut identifications that Israel is the 'servant'.


You are saying that Israel is sacrificing herself for the sins of the world?
No.

rejoice44
Mar 25th 2013, 07:06 PM
[QUOTE=markedward;2969742]Obviously not. But neither Job nor Nebuchadnezzar are identified as God's 'servant' multiple times in Isaiah 40-55, interlaced with the servant songs. Israel is. Hence why I said:

The 'suffering servant' is not Israel just because God calls Israel his servant in different parts of the Bible. The 'suffering servant' is Israel because the servant songs are interspersed with numerous clearcut identifications that Israel is the 'servant'.

The suffering servant is Jesus, because he is King of the Jews, and he is their high priest. As the son of man Jesus took on their sins, because he alone is sinless. As the Son of God, the Father was well pleased that his Son offered himself as the Lamb of God, so that mankind can be redeemed.



No.

But isn't that what Isaiah 53 is saying? The intercessor in Isaiah 53 had to be the high priest, otherwise the law is meaningless. Israel accepts no high priest today, and they have not for nearly two thousand years.

Fenris
Mar 25th 2013, 07:40 PM
Yeah, but what I'm saying is that the translation he quoted points to an individual suffering for the sins of the people rather than the nation of Israel. That translation of Isaiah 53:5 says "he was wounded because of our crimes, crushed because of our sins". Who is "he" and who is "our" there? Also, it says "he did not open his mouth". How could that apply to the nation of Israel?

It describes a suffering servant. Since several other times Isaiah describes Israel as God's servant, why is it such a stretch to believe that is who the servant is?

For example

43:10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen..."

41:8 "But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend..."

44:1 "But now listen, Jacob, my servant, Israel, whom I have chosen...."

45:4 For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen...

etc

markedward
Mar 25th 2013, 07:42 PM
The suffering servant is
I'd like to see you actually respond to the full context of the passages from Isaiah 40-55 that I provided above, instead of ignoring them. I'll paste it here for convenience. (One minor change, I accidentally had a set of verses twice.)

God's servant is spoken of in Isaiah 41.8-9, 42.1-4, 42.19, 43.10, 44.1-2, 44.21, 44.26, 45.4, 48.20, 49.1-6, 50.4-9, and 52.13-53.12.

The underlined ones are the so-called 'servant songs'. All of the others (with the inclusion of 49.1-6) are places where the 'servant' is explicitly identified as Israel.


But isn't that what Isaiah 53 is saying?
Isaiah 53 must be read in context with the preceding context. The context where Israel (not Job, not Nebuchadnezzar, etc.) is repeatedly identified as God's 'servant'. Where the whole nation of Israel is personified as if a single individual.

Look back to the second of the servant songs, 49.1-6. There, Israel is explicitly identified as the 'servant' (verse 3), but then the servant that he was formed 'to bring Jacob back to [God], that Israel might be gathered to him' (verse 5). The servant, already identified as Israel, is God's tool for bringing Israel back from exile. Then the servant is called 'a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach the ends of the earth' (verse 6). The servant, already identified as Israel, is God's tool for saving the nations.

This is a personification of the whole nation of Israel as God's servant, his priest, his prophet. It is non-literal poetry.


Israel accepts no high priest today, and they have not for nearly two thousand years.
Who said Isaiah 53 was about the present day?

Fenris
Mar 25th 2013, 07:43 PM
It says he opened not his mouth, that he was as the Passover lamb. Israel is not acting as a lamb. They are continually preparing for war.
Always, throughout history? No.



Could be, but it is not.Why not? Because it conflicts with what you believe?





Because Isaiah includes himself as we, and we is in the first person. What if Isaiah isn't the speaker? What if the speaker is the startled nations?




Yes it happened. Why did God allow it?Has nothing to do with the topic at hand.




How can Israel bring about repentance?
God brings about repentance, sometimes through suffering and exile.



Israel cannot even intercede for herself, how can she intercede for someone else. Why not? I can't say a prayer for you?




Why, because Israel is called a servant?
Why not?

John146
Mar 25th 2013, 08:15 PM
It describes a suffering servant. Since several other times Isaiah describes Israel as God's servant, why is it such a stretch to believe that is who the servant is?

For example

43:10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen..."

41:8 "But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend..."

44:1 "But now listen, Jacob, my servant, Israel, whom I have chosen...."

45:4 For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen...

etcI understand that the term was sometimes used to describe the nation of Israel, but it can also be used to describe an individual. So, we have to discern which is the case in Isaiah 53. But you didn't answer my question regarding how the part saying "he did not open his mouth" could apply to the nation of Israel. What is your explanation of that (not sure if your translation reads the same or not)?

John146
Mar 25th 2013, 08:19 PM
Isaiah 53 must be read in context with the preceding context. The context where Israel (not Job, not Nebuchadnezzar, etc.) is repeatedly identified as God's 'servant'. Where the whole nation of Israel is personified as if a single individual.Mark, I don't want to overwhelm you with a bunch of questions, so I'll just start simply. How do you interpret the following verse:

Isaiah 53:5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.

rejoice44
Mar 25th 2013, 08:27 PM
I'd like to see you actually respond to the full context of the passages from Isaiah 40-55 that I provided above, instead of ignoring them. I'll paste it here for convenience. (One minor change, I accidentally had a set of verses twice.)

God's servant is spoken of in Isaiah 41.8-9, 42.1-4, 42.19, 43.10, 44.1-2, 44.21, 44.26, 45.4, 48.20, 49.1-6, 50.4-9, and 52.13-53.12.

Each one of the passage is a study in itself. Israel is a servant and is represented by a nation, which is plural, but Israel is also represented by her king, who is singular, as in David, and also as in David's Lord. Notice in Isaiah 42:4, where it is speaking in the singular, and states that he shall not fail, nor be discouraged. Sixty percent of Israel does not believe in God.


Isaiah 53 [I]must be read in context with the preceding context. The context where Israel (not Job, not Nebuchadnezzar, etc.) is repeatedly identified as God's 'servant'. Where the whole nation of Israel is personified as if a single individual.

Okay, let us realistically look at the context. Isaiah 52:15 says the kings will shut their mouths at him, and in the next verse they are saying who hath believed our report? How can they have their mouths shut, and at the same time making a report? None of it fits. Where else in the Bible is the Gentiles the prophets?


Look back to the second of the servant songs, 49.1-6. There, Israel is explicitly identified as the 'servant' (verse 3), but then the servant that he was formed 'to bring Jacob back to [God], that Israel might be gathered to him' (verse 5). The servant, already identified as Israel, is God's tool for bringing Israel back from exile. Then the servant is called 'a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach the ends of the earth' (verse 6). The servant, already identified as Israel, is God's tool for saving the nations.

Israel is the tool to bring Israel back from exile. They will be their own saviour?


This is a personification of the whole nation of Israel as God's servant, his priest, his prophet. It is non-literal poetry.

I see it as the literal servant who was born of Mary through the literal Holy Spirit. Israel is the servant of God. To them was given the Word of God, which was manifested in the flesh, who was God and took on the form of a servant that he might be obedient unto death, because it was his fathers will. Israel is a servant, and Jesus born of a Jew was likewise a servant. But Jesus was a special servant who became their high priest, and Passover Lamb.

rejoice44
Mar 25th 2013, 08:34 PM
[QUOTE=Fenris;2969774]Why not? I can't say a prayer for you?

You can say a prayer for me, but you can't be my mediator-intercessor. You can't be your own intercessor, for the law is clear on this. What, have you just chosen to ignore the law. The only access to God according to your law is through the high priest. Have you set aside the law? Can you keep the law without a priest? Without a priest your feasts become meaningless. The whole law evolves around the priest and the temple.

Nick
Mar 25th 2013, 09:50 PM
You can say a prayer for me, but you can't be my mediator-intercessor. You can't be your own intercessor, for the law is clear on this. What, have you just chosen to ignore the law. The only access to God according to your law is through the high priest. Have you set aside the law? Can you keep the law without a priest? Without a priest your feasts become meaningless. The whole law evolves around the priest and the temple.

It's my understanding that all this will resume once the Temple is rebuild, including animal sacrifice. It will be interesting to see how that plays out in today's society.

divaD
Mar 25th 2013, 10:07 PM
I'd like to see you actually respond to the full context of the passages from Isaiah 40-55 that I provided above, instead of ignoring them. I'll paste it here for convenience. (One minor change, I accidentally had a set of verses twice.)

God's servant is spoken of in Isaiah 41.8-9, 42.1-4, 42.19, 43.10, 44.1-2, 44.21, 44.26, 45.4, 48.20, 49.1-6, 50.4-9, and 52.13-53.12.

The underlined ones are the so-called 'servant songs'. All of the others (with the inclusion of 49.1-6) are places where the 'servant' is explicitly identified as Israel.


Isaiah 53 must be read in context with the preceding context. The context where Israel (not Job, not Nebuchadnezzar, etc.) is repeatedly identified as God's 'servant'. Where the whole nation of Israel is personified as if a single individual.

Look back to the second of the servant songs, 49.1-6. There, Israel is explicitly identified as the 'servant' (verse 3), but then the servant that he was formed 'to bring Jacob back to [God], that Israel might be gathered to him' (verse 5). The servant, already identified as Israel, is God's tool for bringing Israel back from exile. Then the servant is called 'a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach the ends of the earth' (verse 6). The servant, already identified as Israel, is God's tool for saving the nations.

This is a personification of the whole nation of Israel as God's servant, his priest, his prophet. It is non-literal poetry.


Who said Isaiah 53 was about the present day?



I realize you stated this needs to be read in context with other chapters, which makes sense. Yet I can't begin to say I always understand how you reason things, but the way I reason things, by making the servant to be Israel in Isaiah 53, it makes nonsense out of a lot of the text, at least the way it reads to me by doing it that way. What I'm wondering then, what do you do about the parts that seem nonsensical when making Israel the servant in that chapter? Or do you not see any of the text being nonsensical when Israel is the servant?

divaD
Mar 25th 2013, 10:31 PM
I'd like to see you actually respond to the full context of the passages from Isaiah 40-55 that I provided above, instead of ignoring them. I'll paste it here for convenience. (One minor change, I accidentally had a set of verses twice.)

God's servant is spoken of in Isaiah 41.8-9, 42.1-4, 42.19, 43.10, 44.1-2, 44.21, 44.26, 45.4, 48.20, 49.1-6, 50.4-9, and 52.13-53.12.

The underlined ones are the so-called 'servant songs'. All of the others (with the inclusion of 49.1-6) are places where the 'servant' is explicitly identified as Israel.


Isaiah 53 must be read in context with the preceding context. The context where Israel (not Job, not Nebuchadnezzar, etc.) is repeatedly identified as God's 'servant'. Where the whole nation of Israel is personified as if a single individual.

Look back to the second of the servant songs, 49.1-6. There, Israel is explicitly identified as the 'servant' (verse 3), but then the servant that he was formed 'to bring Jacob back to [God], that Israel might be gathered to him' (verse 5). The servant, already identified as Israel, is God's tool for bringing Israel back from exile. Then the servant is called 'a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach the ends of the earth' (verse 6). The servant, already identified as Israel, is God's tool for saving the nations.

This is a personification of the whole nation of Israel as God's servant, his priest, his prophet. It is non-literal poetry.


Who said Isaiah 53 was about the present day?



I wanted to add this to my last post to you, so that you can better see where I'm coming from. I realize that doesn't mean you will agree with me, but at least you'll have a good idea how I'm trying to reason things.


Isaiah 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.



Take for instance 'my people' in Isaiah 53:8. If we do a phrase search in the book of Isaiah for 'my people', it will be noted that that phrase is used well over 15 times. I've briefly looked thru those verses and didn't notice any that weren't meaning God's people Israel. This presents a problem with verse 8 if the servant is Israel, and that 'my people' are also Israel. It would have to be understood like such.

Isaiah 53:8 ISREAL was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for ISREAL was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of ISREAL was ISREAL stricken.

Thus text that becomes nonsensical. At least the way it's reading to me. The way Fenris gets around this, he makes the speaker someone whom it is not, in this case, the nations of the world, which indicates more than one speaker. Yet Isaiah 53:8 says 'my people', not our people, thus denoting a singular speaker here, not multiple speakers.

markedward
Mar 25th 2013, 10:52 PM
Take for instance 'my people' in Isaiah 53:8. If we do a phrase search in the book of Isaiah for 'my people', it will be noted that that phrase is used well over 15 times. I've briefly looked thru those verses and didn't notice any that weren't meaning God's people Israel. This presents a problem with verse 8 if the servant is Israel, and that 'my people' are also Israel.
We already have an example of this, which I pointed out above:

'Look back to the second of the servant songs, 49.1-6. There, Israel is explicitly identified as the 'servant' (verse 3), but then the servant that he was formed 'to bring Jacob back to [God], that Israel might be gathered to him' (verse 5). The servant, already identified as Israel, is God's tool for bringing Israel back from exile.'

In other words: Isaiah says Israel (the servant) brings back Israel (those astray).

markedward
Mar 25th 2013, 11:13 PM
Notice in Isaiah 42:4, where it is speaking in the singular, and states that he shall not fail, nor be discouraged.
You keep using 'speaking in the singular' as if it proves it must be a specific person. I'm sure you understand what personification is. Notice how just two verses later, the context has not changed, but God (the speaker) switches over to the plural? This happens throughout the whole chapter.


Okay, let us realistically look at the context. Isaiah 52:15 says the kings will shut their mouths at him, and in the next verse they are saying who hath believed our report? How can they have their mouths shut, and at the same time making a report? None of it fits.
Isaiah 53.1 doesn't say that it is the kings with shut-mouths speaking, and even if it was, it's poetry. I doubt you think of a person as lying if they say 'I am speechless'. It is a figure of speech.


Israel is the tool to bring Israel back from exile.
Can you respond to the text itself? Do you disagree that 49.5 has the servant saying his mission is to return Israel from exile? Do you disagree that 49.3 had already identified the servant as Israel?


They will be their own saviour?
You keep using the word 'savior' because you're trying to put words in my mouth so you can have an 'aha, trapped you' moment. Stop putting words in my mouth and respond to the text itself.

rejoice44
Mar 25th 2013, 11:33 PM
It's my understanding that all this will resume once the Temple is rebuild, including animal sacrifice. It will be interesting to see how that plays out in today's society.

The temple has been in the process of rebuilding for nearly two thousand years, one saved soul at a time. It would appear that it is almost completely rebuilt. God offered up his only begotten Son for the sins of the world. Do you really believe that God is going to say alright Israel, you didn't get it right two thousand years ago, so lets try it again? God doesn't have any more only begotten sons to offer up.

markedward
Mar 25th 2013, 11:51 PM
Mark, I don't want to overwhelm you with a bunch of questions, so I'll just start simply.
Thanks.


How do you interpret the following verse:

Isaiah 53:5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.
Fenris has been arguing that the word 'for' should be translated instead as 'from'. I've seen other translations that say 'because of' or 'by'. While the English word 'for' can be understood as 'vicariously for', it can also be understood as those others. I wouldn't say 'because of' and 'vicariously for' are completely antonymous, but I think it is a stretch to say that vicariousness is the original intent of the passage.

That is how I understand it in the context of Isaiah 40-52 (the whole preceding context). In those chapters, Isaiah identifies a particular servant of God's: Israel. Sometimes personified as an individual, sometimes described in normal terms as a nation. The servant has a purpose (e.g. Isaiah 42.1-4), sometimes the servant fails that purpose (42.19). In other words, Israel carries a responsibility and struggles to fulfill that responsibility even with itself, let alone the nations around it. The servant Israel is punished (42.24), redeemed (43.3), apostate (43.22), restored (44.21), justified (45.25), the light of the nations (49.6), and exalted (49.7). The general idea I have gotten from the 'minor' prophets is that God will redeem the world from its sins through his chastisement and restoration of Israel. This is what I see happening in Isaiah 40-55.

then

Jesus comes along. To give shape and definition to his vocation, he applies parts of Isaiah's servant passages to himself. As you might guess, I don't think this is because he was saying he specifically was the servant which Isaiah spoke of. Rather, Jesus borrowed brief passages that, on their own, very accurately described himself. Compare how MLK Jr's used Amos 5.24. I don't know of anyone who thinks Amos was prophesying about the American civil rights movement. But King never claimed as much, so we don't think of him as taking Amos out of context; instead, he's just using Amos' prophecy to describe what the civil rights movement was seeking to achieve. Fenris wouldn't agree with this, but I think that when Jesus came along, he perfectly encapsulated all that Israel was intended to do but stumbled with. So Jesus is able to apply those prophecies to himself, in broad strokes.

rejoice44
Mar 26th 2013, 12:20 AM
You keep using 'speaking in the singular' as if it proves it must be a specific person. I'm sure you understand what personification is. Notice how just two verses later, the context has not changed, but God (the speaker) switches over to the plural? This happens throughout the whole chapter.

Could you site what you are calling plural?



Isaiah 53.1 doesn't say that it is the kings with shut-mouths speaking, and even if it was, it's poetry. I doubt you think of a person as lying if they say 'I am speechless'. It is a figure of speech.

Are you then saying it is Isaiah speaking in chapter 53, because if it is, then the servant has to be the Messiah. Poetry, Poetry, what a license Poetry has.



Can you respond to the text itself? Do you disagree that 49.5 has the servant saying his mission is to return Israel from exile? Do you disagree that 49.3 had already identified the servant as Israel?

Can you not see how Israel and the Messiah can be interchanged. The Messiah is king of the Jews, and he represents Israel. Look at Isaiah 41:8 "But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend." Do you see how both Jacob and Israel are represented as the same. This is not a singular verse, for there are at least four others. Consider also Lamentations one where Jeremiah interchanges himself with Israel. So if Jacob is interchangeable with Israel, and Jeremiah is interchangeable with Israel, then why not the King of the Jews?


You keep using the word 'savior' because you're trying to put words in my mouth so you can have an 'aha, trapped you' moment. Stop putting words in my mouth and respond to the text itself.

No, I put is there because if Israel can save themselves, then they are their own saviour.

markedward
Mar 26th 2013, 01:15 AM
Could you site what you are calling plural?
I should clarify. I misread verse 42.6, where I said 'two verses later'. However, the chapter begins with the 'servant' singular, but as the chapter progresses, it transitions into referring to this servant as 'blind' and 'deaf', saying 'this is a people', identifying them as 'Jacob' and 'Israel', and then concluding again with the singular 'him' and 'he'.


Are you then saying it is Isaiah speaking in chapter 53
No. The speaker (as in, the literary device (http://library.thinkquest.org/23846/library/terms/index.html), which is not always the same as the person writing) changes now and then, sometimes only discernible by the pronouns being used. If we organize by speakers, the fourth song goes as such:

52.13-15: God speaking (e.g. 'my servant').
53.1-10: The nations speaking (e.g. 'us', 'we').
53.11-12: God speaking (e.g. 'I', 'my servant').


Poetry, Poetry, what a license Poetry has.
You can make sarcastic quips all you like, but failing to recognize the use of literary devices like figures of speech, metaphor, hyperbole, simile, analogy, etc. basic components of any language, not just English is severely detrimental to proper exegesis. The Prophets use these things very regularly. Literalizing every single one of them, except when it conveniences the reader not to, only causes problems.


Can you not see how Israel and the Messiah can be interchanged.
Yes, I can, and I've argued for such an understanding in certain parts of the New Testament. Can you not see how Israel can be personified as a figure of speech, and not because a literal individual is in view?


Do you see how both Jacob and Israel are represented as the same.
This isn't because Jacob represents Israel. It's because Jacob is being used as an alternate name for Israel. Israel is also called Ephraim. Egypt is also called Rahab. Babylon is also called Chaldea.


Consider also Lamentations one where Jeremiah interchanges himself with Israel.
I don't see this anywhere in Lamentations 1. I see where the speaker (literary device) switches from narrator (verses 1.1-11a) to Jerusalem personified as a woman (verses 1.11b-22).

John146
Mar 26th 2013, 02:50 AM
Fenris has been arguing that the word 'for' should be translated instead as 'from'.I don't mean any offense to Fenris because I appreciate his willingness to share the Jewish perspective, but I don't believe we can trust the judgment of someone who doesn't even believe Jesus is the Messiah.


I've seen other translations that say 'because of' or 'by'. While the English word 'for' can be understood as 'vicariously for', it can also be understood as those others. I wouldn't say 'because of' and 'vicariously for' are completely antonymous, but I think it is a stretch to say that vicariousness is the original intent of the passage.Well, I think the English translators of the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB and several others got it right by saying he was pierced/wounded/scourged for (vicariously for) our transgressions, which can only apply to Jesus.


That is how I understand it in the context of Isaiah 40-52 (the whole preceding context). In those chapters, Isaiah identifies a particular servant of God's: Israel. Sometimes personified as an individual, sometimes described in normal terms as a nation. The servant has a purpose (e.g. Isaiah 42.1-4), sometimes the servant fails that purpose (42.19). In other words, Israel carries a responsibility and struggles to fulfill that responsibility even with itself, let alone the nations around it. The servant Israel is punished (42.24), redeemed (43.3), apostate (43.22), restored (44.21), justified (45.25), the light of the nations (49.6), and exalted (49.7). The general idea I have gotten from the 'minor' prophets is that God will redeem the world from its sins through his chastisement and restoration of Israel. This is what I see happening in Isaiah 40-55.

then

Jesus comes along. To give shape and definition to his vocation, he applies parts of Isaiah's servant passages to himself. As you might guess, I don't think this is because he was saying he specifically was the servant which Isaiah spoke of. Rather, Jesus borrowed brief passages that, on their own, very accurately described himself. Compare how MLK Jr's used Amos 5.24. I don't know of anyone who thinks Amos was prophesying about the American civil rights movement. But King never claimed as much, so we don't think of him as taking Amos out of context; instead, he's just using Amos' prophecy to describe what the civil rights movement was seeking to achieve. Fenris wouldn't agree with this, but I think that when Jesus came along, he perfectly encapsulated all that Israel was intended to do but stumbled with. So Jesus is able to apply those prophecies to himself, in broad strokes.Well, I know you don't want to argue with me about this, but I'll just say that I believe the NT verses which quote Isaiah 53 don't give any indication at all that the passage could be about anything or anyone except Jesus and the fact that He was going to suffer and die for our sins and bring redemption to mankind as a result. I don't see how God could have ever redeemed "the world from its sins through his chastisement and restoration of Israel". And, yes, I have read the rest of Isaiah so I'm not saying this just because I'm unaware of those other passages. I just can't see Israel fitting as the servant in Isaiah 53 at all.

markedward
Mar 26th 2013, 03:18 AM
I don't mean any offense to Fenris because I appreciate his willingness to share the Jewish perspective, but I don't believe we can trust the judgment of someone who doesn't even believe Jesus is the Messiah.
I understand where you're coming from, but I see no reason to distrust his (or countless others') correction of a mistranslation if they know the Hebrew says otherwise. This would be like someone who only barely understands English correcting me on what a certain English word means. The suggestion that his (or anyone else's) contribution in translating Hebrew is worthless just because he doesn't believe in Jesus as the messiah, is rather antithetical to Paul freely quoting the writings of pagan poets and philosphers because of the truth their writings does carry. 'Oh, you don't believe Jesus is the messiah, therefore you don't know your own language'.

markedward
Mar 26th 2013, 03:50 AM
No, I put is there because if Israel can save themselves, then they are their own saviour.
I should point something out here. Christians do a bad job at defining 'savior'. Because the same Hebrew word is used in more than one sense in the Bible.

Moses 'saved' a couple of Israelites (Exodus 2.17).
God 'saved' all of Israel (Exodus 14.30).
A woman can be 'saved' from rape (Deuteronomy 22.27).
Othniel is a 'savior' who 'saved' Israel (Judges 3.9).
(Repeat for all the judges.)
Saul is anointed to 'save' Israel (1 Samuel 9.16).
David 'saved' Keilah (1 Samuel 23.5).
David 'saved' Israel (2 Samuel 3.18).
Jehoahaz is a 'savior' for Israel (2 Kings 13.4-5).

The point is that even if Isaiah described a poetically-personified Israel as 'saving'... it still wouldn't be a problem, because Biblically Jesus is not the only 'savior'... the difference is in what people are being 'saved' from. (But... Isaiah doesn't even use the word for 'save' or 'savior' or 'salvation' to describe the actions of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53. So the whole point seems irrelevant anyway.)

rejoice44
Mar 26th 2013, 11:00 AM
I should point something out here. Christians do a bad job at defining 'savior'. Because the same Hebrew word is used in more than one sense in the Bible.

Moses 'saved' a couple of Israelites (Exodus 2.17).
God 'saved' all of Israel (Exodus 14.30).
A woman can be 'saved' from rape (Deuteronomy 22.27).
Othniel is a 'savior' who 'saved' Israel (Judges 3.9).
(Repeat for all the judges.)
Saul is anointed to 'save' Israel (1 Samuel 9.16).
David 'saved' Keilah (1 Samuel 23.5).
David 'saved' Israel (2 Samuel 3.18).
Jehoahaz is a 'savior' for Israel (2 Kings 13.4-5).

The point is that even if Isaiah described a poetically-personified Israel as 'saving'... it still wouldn't be a problem, because Biblically Jesus is not the only 'savior'... the difference is in what people are being 'saved' from. (But... Isaiah doesn't even use the word for 'save' or 'savior' or 'salvation' to describe the actions of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53. So the whole point seems irrelevant anyway.)

Why so complicate such a simple word? Either God is in charge, or God is not in charge. Nobody can save themselves in any situation. God is involved in every situation. God knows when a sparrow falls, because God allowed it.

John146
Mar 26th 2013, 01:34 PM
I understand where you're coming from, but I see no reason to distrust his (or countless others') correction of a mistranslation if they know the Hebrew says otherwise.In case you haven't noticed, everyone here knows English but we misunderstand each other all the time. Just because he knows Hebrew doesn't mean he necessarily knows what a verse is saying or knows which of several definitions of a word fits best in any given verse.


This would be like someone who only barely understands English correcting me on what a certain English word means. The suggestion that his (or anyone else's) contribution in translating Hebrew is worthless just because he doesn't believe in Jesus as the messiah, is rather antithetical to Paul freely quoting the writings of pagan poets and philosphers because of the truth their writings does carry. 'Oh, you don't believe Jesus is the messiah, therefore you don't know your own language'.I understand what you're saying, but, as you know, people sometimes read their biases into scripture and I think he does that as well. I don't want to spend much time arguing about this, though. If you trust his judgment, so be it. I don't. Nothing personal. I just don't. I believe the more common English translations that most of us use have rendered the passage accurately. Those translators knew Hebrew as well, yet they didn't see it the same way as Fenris. So, knowing Hebrew doesn't guarantee anything.

Nick
Mar 27th 2013, 05:04 AM
Well, I'd like to get the Jewish perspective on Isaiah 61:1-2. Who is Isaiah addressing here?

For the believers, why doesn't Jesus quote the last part of verse 2 in Luke 4:18-19?

The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me,
because the Lord has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners,[a]
2 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor
and the day of vengeance of our God,
to comfort all who mourn,

Nick
Mar 27th 2013, 05:12 AM
I don't mean any offense to Fenris because I appreciate his willingness to share the Jewish perspective, but I don't believe we can trust the judgment of someone who doesn't even believe Jesus is the Messiah.

We can't trust his judgement because he's Jewish? Really???


In case you haven't noticed, everyone here knows English but we misunderstand each other all the time. Just because he knows Hebrew doesn't mean he necessarily knows what a verse is saying or knows which of several definitions of a word fits best in any given verse. I understand what you're saying, but, as you know, people sometimes read their biases into scripture and I think he does that as well. I don't want to spend much time arguing about this, though. If you trust his judgment, so be it. I don't. Nothing personal. I just don't. I believe the more common English translations that most of us use have rendered the passage accurately. Those translators knew Hebrew as well, yet they didn't see it the same way as Fenris. So, knowing Hebrew doesn't guarantee anything.

And the Hebrew translators don't have a particular bias? Argue based on the merit of what is being said.

divaD
Mar 27th 2013, 03:25 PM
We can't trust his judgement because he's Jewish? Really???




Personally, I don't think that's what Eric meant in the least. I think what he meant, because Fenris rejects what the NT says about Jesus, how can someone then trust that his reading of Isaiah 53 might be correct, especially the fact that Isaiah 53 seems to fit Jesus to a T.

Nick
Mar 27th 2013, 03:45 PM
Personally, I don't think that's what Eric meant in the least. I think what he meant, because Fenris rejects what the NT says about Jesus, how can someone then trust that his reading of Isaiah 53 might be correct, especially the fact that Isaiah 53 seems to fit Jesus to a T.

As a Christian, I'm not disagreeing; however, I can also see those verses in their present day context referring to something other than Jesus (at the time) while thematically pointing to Christ. It would be the equivalent of today's circumstances pointing to a future event unknown to the person experiencing the circumstance. Hindsight is always 20/20.

John146
Mar 27th 2013, 09:13 PM
We can't trust his judgement because he's Jewish? Really??? Is that what I said? No. Nick, please take a little extra time to see what people are actually saying instead of rushing to judgment. Okay? What I'm saying is I have to question the judgment of anyone who doesn't acknowledge that Jesus is the Messiah. If they can't discern that Isaiah 53 is speaking about Jesus then should we really trust their understanding of other scripture?


And the Hebrew translators don't have a particular bias? Argue based on the merit of what is being said.Nick, I said knowing Hebrew doesn't guarantee anything. That would go for all translators. They all could potentially have been influenced by bias. That's why we need discernment from God to see what's true and what's not.


As a Christian, I'm not disagreeing; however, I can also see those verses in their present day context referring to something other than Jesus (at the time) while thematically pointing to Christ. It would be the equivalent of today's circumstances pointing to a future event unknown to the person experiencing the circumstance. Hindsight is always 20/20.But we have the NT now and he has read it and still doesn't believe Isaiah 53 is speaking of Jesus at all. The NT quotes Isaiah 53 several times and makes it clear that it's about Jesus. Should we trust the judgment of someone who doesn't see Isaiah 53 as speaking of Jesus even though the NT makes it clear that it's about Him?

John146
Mar 27th 2013, 09:16 PM
Personally, I don't think that's what Eric meant in the least.Not even close.


I think what he meant, because Fenris rejects what the NT says about Jesus, how can someone then trust that his reading of Isaiah 53 might be correct, especially the fact that Isaiah 53 seems to fit Jesus to a T.Exactly. Now, why were you so easily able to tell what I meant, but not Nick?

Nick
Mar 27th 2013, 10:01 PM
Not even close.

Exactly. Now, why were you so easily able to tell what I meant, but not Nick?

I asked it as a question. Did you notice the ???. What does (?) imply, a statement or a question? I personally appreciate Fenris's perspective, biased or not. We're all biased based on our belief system. Does that make one less "trustworthy" than the other? Fenris is giving his interpretation of Isaiah 53 as a Jew. We have ours, they have theirs.

Fenris
Mar 28th 2013, 12:57 PM
I understand that the term was sometimes used to describe the nation of Israel, but it can also be used to describe an individual. How does Isaiah use the term?


So, we have to discern which is the case in Isaiah 53. But you didn't answer my question regarding how the part saying "he did not open his mouth" could apply to the nation of Israel.Asked and answered.

Fenris
Mar 28th 2013, 12:58 PM
[QUOTE=Fenris;2969774]Why not? I can't say a prayer for you?

You can say a prayer for me, but you can't be my mediator-intercessor. You can't be your own intercessor
Why not? Because you don't believe that it is possible?

Fenris
Mar 28th 2013, 01:01 PM
I don't mean any offense to Fenris because I appreciate his willingness to share the Jewish perspective, but I don't believe we can trust the judgment of someone who doesn't even believe Jesus is the Messiah.
Because I don't believe that Jesus is the messiah, my knowledge of Hebrew becomes suspect too? What else can I not be trusted on? 1+1=2. Oh wait, he doesn't believe in Jesus, he probably doesn't know math either.

Fenris
Mar 28th 2013, 01:22 PM
Well, I'd like to get the Jewish perspective on Isaiah 61:1-2. Who is Isaiah addressing here?

Read the next verse.

To place for the mourners of Zion, to give them glory instead of ashes, oil of joy instead of mourning, a mantle of praise instead of a feeble spirit...

He's speaking to the Jewish exiles.

John146
Mar 28th 2013, 04:10 PM
I asked it as a question. Did you notice the ???. What does (?) imply, a statement or a question?But why did you ask it when I didn't say anything to indicate that we can't trust his judgment because he's Jewish?


I personally appreciate Fenris's perspective, biased or not.I do, too, and I said so.


We're all biased based on our belief system. Does that make one less "trustworthy" than the other? Fenris is giving his interpretation of Isaiah 53 as a Jew. We have ours, they have theirs.I don't have a problem with him sharing his view. All I'm saying is that since he is so off base on Isaiah 53 (in my opinion) then it's hard to trust that he might be correct regarding other scripture.

John146
Mar 28th 2013, 04:12 PM
How does Isaiah use the term?Both corporately and individually.


Asked and answered.Where was it answered? I may have missed it, so I'd appreciate it if you told me in which post you answered that question.

John146
Mar 28th 2013, 04:16 PM
Because I don't believe that Jesus is the messiah, my knowledge of Hebrew becomes suspect too?That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that, from my perspective, if you can't see that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus then I have a hard time trusting your interpretation of any other passage. I don't say that to be offensive, I'm just talking from my own perspective. I'm not saying anything about your knowledge of Hebrew, I'm questioning your understanding of the scriptures. You might know what the Hebrew words are, but that doesn't guarantee that you know what they mean in any given verse in the cases when they have more than one definition.


What else can I not be trusted on? 1+1=2. Oh wait, he doesn't believe in Jesus, he probably doesn't know math either.You completely misunderstood what I was saying. I think your knowledge of Hebrew words can be trusted, but again, in the cases where there are multiple definitions for a word, not so much.

I trust your math skills very much, as evidenced by you having correctly solved that very difficult math problem. ;)

Fenris
Mar 28th 2013, 04:34 PM
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that, from my perspective, if you can't see that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus then I have a hard time trusting your interpretation of any other passage.
There's a simple solution. Learn Hebrew and read it yourself.


I think your knowledge of Hebrew words can be trusted, but again, in the cases where there are multiple definitions for a word, not so much.The prefix of the word means "from" not "for". There aren't "multiple definitions" that's what it always means.

Fenris
Mar 28th 2013, 04:37 PM
Both corporately and individually. Both myself and markedward showed numerous instances where the "servant" is the people Israel. Perhaps you could show instances where it isn't.


Where was it answered? I may have missed it, so I'd appreciate it if you told me in which post you answered that question.
"Like sheep to the slaughter" has been applied to the Jews.

Nick
Mar 28th 2013, 04:58 PM
I don't have a problem with him sharing his view. All I'm saying is that since he is so off base on Isaiah 53 (in my opinion) then it's hard to trust that he might be correct regarding other scripture.

What's off base about it? Did you read all of my 'proof texts' in the OP together with Mark's explanation of how some of them thematically point to Jesus while at the same time speak to present day or near-term prophesy?

John146
Mar 28th 2013, 07:05 PM
There's a simple solution. Learn Hebrew and read it yourself. Yes, it's just that simple, isn't it. If someone doesn't know Hebrew they are out of luck and can't understand scripture? Is that what you think?

John146
Mar 28th 2013, 07:08 PM
What's off base about it?You're asking me what's off base about him saying that Isaiah 53 isn't at all about Jesus?


Did you read all of my 'proof texts' in the OP together with Mark's explanation of how some of them thematically point to Jesus while at the same time speak to present day or near-term prophesy?I was talking about Isaiah 53 in particular. You're saying you think Isaiah 53 is speaking of "present day or near-term prophecy"?

John146
Mar 28th 2013, 07:21 PM
Both myself and markedward showed numerous instances where the "servant" is the people Israel. Perhaps you could show instances where it isn't. Isaiah 53, for one, but you already knew that, right? Since you don't accept that as speaking of anything but Israel then I don't know what good it would do for me to tell you that I believe Isaiah 49 and other passages are about Jesus as well. You'll just disagree, even if I show you the NT verses which quote those verses and apply them to Jesus.


"Like sheep to the slaughter" has been applied to the Jews.I see you didn't bother going back to see what my question actually was. My question was regarding how the part that says "he did not open his mouth" could apply to Israel.

Nick
Mar 29th 2013, 01:56 AM
You're asking me what's off base about him saying that Isaiah 53 isn't at all about Jesus?

I was talking about Isaiah 53 in particular. You're saying you think Isaiah 53 is speaking of "present day or near-term prophecy"?

I'm saying Isaiah 53 takes both into account, that there is merit the Hebrew interpretation and the Christian one. They are not mutually exclusive as I once thought. Assuming Isaiah 53 is ONLY speaking about Jesus was myopic on my part. My view on that has completely changed since I posted this thread.

Nick
Mar 29th 2013, 04:50 AM
Read the next verse.

To place for the mourners of Zion, to give them glory instead of ashes, oil of joy instead of mourning, a mantle of praise instead of a feeble spirit...

He's speaking to the Jewish exiles.

Don't these verses point back to 48:16 - "....And now the Lord has sent me (Jesus), and His Spirit"? And more clearly, in 49:5-6, it talks about the servant being the only hope for the world. No prophet has come before or after Jesus claiming to be the only hope for the world except Jesus. How do you read those verses? They are not talking about Cyrus anymore because in 49:7-13 it says this servant of the Lord triumphs worldwide. Is this prophesy yet to be fulfilled?