Isaiah 52-53 ~ Israel or The Messiah? - part 2

afishamongmany · Jan 14, 2016

Isaiah 52-53 ~ Israel or The Messiah? - part 2
This is a second post critiquing an exposition of Isaiah 52-54 that one can find here -http://www.thehebrewcafe.com/articles/isaiah_52-54.pdf
http://www.thehebrewcafe.com/articles/isaiah_52-54.pdf
In the first post we looked at the writer's argument that the context of chapters 52 and 53 proved his assertion that “My Servant” refers only to the people of Israel. Now I want to look at the writer's linguistic justifications for this argument.

First, let's put away completely any notion that we do not understand that the third person singular is often used in Isaiah and elsewhere in The Bible to speak of the people of Israel as a collective. No serious, thinking person has any problem understanding this. The problem is with claiming that in this portion of scripture it never refers to an individual. The writer puts forward an argument based on making all uses of he, him, his, fit to refer to Israel/Jacob the people. Fair enough. To my mind this 'fitting' is linguistically/stylistically stretched and strained. The crucial point is that nowhere does he give any linguistic reason why an individual person may not be meant.

Now let's look at what the the writer says on page 18 of his thesis referring to verse 15 of Isaiah 52, ''The word translated here as “sprinkle” should be “startle. ''. I've read christian commentaries which say the same thing. I would like to know how those commentators and the writer explain the use of this verb in Isaiah 63:3 and Leviticus 16:14 where the sprinkling or splashing of blood is the clear meaning. This is important not only because the “sprinkled” translation gives a link to blood sacrifice but also because the writer uses the “startled” translation to put verses 1 to 7(8?) into the mouths of the gentile kings.

It is crucial to the writer's argument that it is the gentile kings speaking these words. But, apart from the writers desire that it should be so, there is nothing in the text to indicate that there is a change of speaker. Neither is there any any indication of a change of speaker at the end of this supposed 'prophecy of the gentile kings'. At the end of verse 8 the use of “my people” precludes the kings from being the speakers but the preceding text connects seamlessly to verse 8 and those following.
The only gentile kings prophesying in the Bible, that I can remember, are Nebuchadnezzar and Darius in the book of Daniel. Their prophecies are clearly attributable to them. 'Gentile kings' as an all embracing collective prophesying, sorry that cut no carpet with me.

The Hebrew Cafe writer's knowledge of Hebrew is obviously much greater than mine, mine is close to zero. Thankfully, these days there are available to us all many commentaries by people who have given themselves to a study of biblical Hebrew and whose understanding of the language, perhaps the writer would admit, is at least no worse than his. For this reason I will not address the writers linguistic arguments verse by verse, line by line (the universe gives a sigh of relief). Having gone through his thesis and, to the best of my ability, researched other linguistic analyses of the text I can observe that there are contrary view to all the linguistic arguments that he makes. Sometimes the different opinions are deemed to be evenly balanced, but nowhere in the text is there a linguistic 'torpedo' that can 'sink' a messianic view of it.

On page 21 the writer refers to a key verse, verse 8 of Isaiah 53 (key because his view is “In this verse, we might observe a switch in speaker. It seems that from here on that the speaker is God and the prophet.''),“The pronoun 'lamo' here is in the plural, calling attention to the fact that we’re not just talking about one person in reality.”. (On BibleHub lamo is classified as a prepositional particle ?)
On page 25 he states, “While this verse seems to match the missionaries’ story regarding Jesus, the plural pronoun lámo ... mixes the plural into the verse, which adds weight to the standard Jewish claim that this is not speaking of Jesus.''
It would be interesting to know why he thinks there is this 'mixing', why the change?
Is he happy with the JPS Tanakh translation,
“For he was cut off out of the land of the living,
For the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due.”,
which works fine for a messianic understanding but but for his view the question is, why the use of plural and singular in the same phrase?
I'm sure the writer would not be happy with the OJB presentation of the verse, but here it is,
"… mipesha ami (for the transgression of my people [Yisroel]) -nega (plague cf Ps 91:10) lamo ([fell] on him [i.e., Moshiach; in light of Ps 11:7 and Job 22:2 we are warranted in saying the suffix is a singular, "him," not "them". Cf Gen 9:26-27; Deut 33:2; Isa 44:15; also compare Divrey Hayamim Alef 21:17]).”
The Isaiah 44:15 reference is particularly to the point seeing that it is the book of Isaiah we are studying.

For those who have the concentration and the stamina for it, this is all interesting stuff, as are the various commentaries, but the point is that in the end the weight is with a messianic reading of Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12.

In Barnes Notes on The Bible we read,
"There is the fullest evidence that the passage (52:13-52:12) was applied by the early Jews, both before and after the birth of Jesus, to the Messiah, until they were pressed by its application to Jesus of Nazareth, and were compelled in self-defense to adopt some other mode of interpretation; and even after that, it is evident, also, that not a few of the better and more pious portion of the Jewish nation still continued to regard it as descriptive of the Messiah.”

I will finish here and look forward to responses. Please try to keep any response focused and sulphur free.
There still remains, God willing, a need to examine the theological view of redemption, sacrifice and suffering that underpins the Hebrew Cafe writer's exposition of the text we have been looking at.
><>

LoAmmi · Jan 14, 2016

afishamongmany said:
It is crucial to the writer's argument that it is the gentile kings speaking these words. But, apart from the writers desire that it should be so, there is nothing in the text to indicate that there is a change of speaker. Neither is there any any indication of a change of speaker at the end of this supposed 'prophecy of the gentile kings'. At the end of verse 8 the use of “my people” precludes the kings from being the speakers but the preceding text connects seamlessly to verse 8 and those following.
The only gentile kings prophesying in the Bible, that I can remember, are Nebuchadnezzar and Darius in the book of Daniel. Their prophecies are clearly attributable to them. 'Gentile kings' as an all embracing collective prophesying, sorry that cut no carpet with me.

It isn't a prophecy of the gentile kings. It isn't a prophecy of the speaker but rather what the speakers will say or feel. So the prophecy is that they will say this not what they are saying. Perhaps I can give you the general idea behind this verse.

Let's say that tomorrow the Messiah comes and it isn't Jesus. Israel is confirmed to be correct, Jews are seen to have been right all along and all the nations of the world who have looked down upon Jews somewhat for not "getting with the program" are now faced with the very idea that these people had the correct program all along and were killed, beaten, abused because of it. Even someone like you might have to feel bad for arguing with us on here and trying to convince us to believe Jesus when it wasn't the case.

They stand there, startled at what they are see and are saying "How can this be?"

Now you say the speaker doesn't change but it has to change. The speaker prior to the kings of the world reference is G-d. Unless you believe G-d is delivering the speech at the beginning of Isaiah 53, it has to be someone else. So, who is it? Israel? Do you think the Jews of today view Jesus that way? As someone diseased and afflicted? We don't really view him as anything at all, to be honest. A Jew who lived in the First Century and was killed. Now, if you want to ask how Jews view Christians, that could be a very different line of discussion due to things like the treatment of Jews in the Middle Ages and things like the Holocaust which happened in a majority Christian nation. But Jesus himself? Would we really be saying that?

So the speaker has to be someone else. Jews believe it is the Kings of the World (which could just be summed up as "the world" for modern use).

Keep in mind we firmly believe Zech 8:23:
This is what the LORD Almighty says: "In those days ten people from all languages and nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe and say, 'Let us go with you, because we have heard that God is with you.'"

We see that as something that will happen in the Messianic times when Gentiles come to us to be taught.

As to why there is a mixing of singular and plural, well, that doesn't bother us at all. It happens in other places where Israel is described:
Hosea 11:1
When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.
2 The more I called them,
the more they went from me;
they kept sacrificing to the Baals,
and offering incense to idols.

Loved him, then called them. A shift from singular to plural. It just isn't something that bothers us because it works both ways, but when it comes to it being an individual that's more difficult to reconcile.

The OJB should be ashamed for adding words to the text and making it seem like it is a publication of Orthodox Jews.

afishamongmany · Jan 16, 2016

LoAmmi,
There was no need to, again, explain your understanding of the text in question. I understand your understanding of it. I understand how you view the text and why.
What I was (and am) interested in knowing is:

1- Why (other than because it 'fits' the interpretation that you want) would 'startle' be a better translation than 'sprinkle' when this word's previous usage in The Torah is obviously sprinkled?

2- What linguistic justifications do you see in the text to support your view that it is the kings saying these prophesies? The Hebrew Cafe writer give 53:1 to the kings you seem to say that they start at 53:2. Never mind, for either, how is there any kind of linguistic link from a future shutting of their mouths in verse 15 to a past believing 'our report' (who's report? who are they reporting to?) in verse 1 or a present 'grows up' and 'is no beauty' in verse 2? The same question goes for the ending of things said by the kings. Where exactly do the words pass back to God and/or the prophet, verse 7?, 8?, 9? There is such an artificiality and forcedness in this. The natural reading of 52:13 through to 53:12, linguistically as well as theologically, is that God and Isaiah, in duet, are singing of The Messiah.

Lo you say this, “As to why there is a mixing of singular and plural, well, that doesn't bother us at all.” and “Loved him, then called them. A shift from singular to plural. It just isn't something that bothers us because it works both ways, but when it comes to it being an individual that's more difficult to reconcile.”

So, this bothers me. I believe all of Isaiah and Hosea (and all the other books of 'your' Bible) are divinely inspired. Don't you? Every word has weight, purpose, significance. It is our theology that should always be shaped and submitted to God's word not vise versa. If The Lord speaks with a plural or with a singular, whether it is about the same person/object or not, there will be a reason for why one is used rather than another. It shouldn't be a matter of indifference to us.
Go well
><>

LoAmmi · Jan 16, 2016

afishamongmany said:
1- Why (other than because it 'fits' the interpretation that you want) would 'startle' be a better translation than 'sprinkle' when this word's previous usage in The Torah is obviously sprinkled?

The word has multiple meanings. On of them is sprinkle (or spurt) and another is leap or startle. When I see the entire thought, where the second half speaks about them standing still and covering their mouths, startle works a lot better as the second part is describing a startled person. Since some Christian translations also use startle, I see little reason that it "fits" my interpretation more than some Christians want it to be sprinkle because it fits theirs.

2- What linguistic justifications do you see in the text to support your view that it is the kings saying these prophesies? The Hebrew Cafe writer give 53:1 to the kings you seem to say that they start at 53:2. Never mind, for either, how is there any kind of linguistic link from a future shutting of their mouths in verse 15 to a past believing 'our report' (who's report? who are they reporting to?) in verse 1 or a present 'grows up' and 'is no beauty' in verse 2? The same question goes for the ending of things said by the kings. Where exactly do the words pass back to God and/or the prophet, verse 7?, 8?, 9? There is such an artificiality and forcedness in this. The natural reading of 52:13 through to 53:12, linguistically as well as theologically, is that God and Isaiah, in duet, are singing of The Messiah.

Ok, so Isaiah is speaking, I assume for Israel as a whole, according to you. Let's go over this a bit:

1Who has believed our message

and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

Who is Israel speaking about here? There's 2 billion (BILLION) Christians in the world right now. If I told you that Jesus came back and was the Messiah, would it be that surprising to you or the rest of the 2 billion Christians? No, not really. I don't see this linguistically fitting Israel.

2He grew up before him like a tender shoot,

and like a root out of dry ground.

Jesus grew up 2000 years ago. Why would modern Jews (who are the speakers if this is Israel being shocked by Jesus's return) say he grew up before us? I didn't see him grow up.

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,

nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

The New Testament describes a person so well liked, he had to get on a boat to escape a crowd. Doesn't seem like someone without beauty or majesty.

3He was despised and rejected by mankind,

2 billion Christians plus a well loved leader while he was alive. Who's despising and rejecting him?

a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.

Ok.

Like one from whom people hide their faces

he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

By whom?

I'll just end here. In my opinion, it makes much more sense that from Isaiah 53:1 (I don't know why you said I thought it started at 2) the world was speaking about Israel than Israel speaking about Jesus. I think it's stretching it to the breaking point to say it's Israel speaking.
I won't post the text over, but let's go through the first part of Isaiah 53 with that as the interpretation:

Who would believe them if they told everybody in the world that tiny Israel, who 2 billion Christians thought were wrong, that 1 billion Muslims thought were wrong, and that only has less than 1% of the world's population in it was right?

Jews have been depicted for centuries as ugly, horrible people. As those who would corrupt countries, as those who had no place in society. Who were, in fact, rejected, hated, and, yes, even killed just for being Jews. Just for being those people who refused to give up our Torah and our ways.

To me that fits so well it's staggering to me that people insist it isn't right.

If I were to ask you what linguistic clues in the text tell you this is about the Messiah and not someone else such as some other righteous person, what would you tell me? You can't use the New Testament, you must use the text given. Where is it about the Messiah?

Lo you say this, “As to why there is a mixing of singular and plural, well, that doesn't bother us at all.” and “Loved him, then called them. A shift from singular to plural. It just isn't something that bothers us because it works both ways, but when it comes to it being an individual that's more difficult to reconcile.”

So, this bothers me. I believe all of Isaiah and Hosea (and all the other books of 'your' Bible) are divinely inspired. Don't you? Every word has weight, purpose, significance. It is our theology that should always be shaped and submitted to God's word not vise versa. If The Lord speaks with a plural or with a singular, whether it is about the same person/object or not, there will be a reason for why one is used rather than another. It shouldn't be a matter of indifference to us.

You misunderstand. We know that Israel is viewed both as a collection of individuals (they) and as a single, corporate entity (he) in scripture. We, as Jews, are judged not just for our individual actions but also for Israel as a whole. Many, many loyal Jews were marched into Babylon right alongside those who had abandoned G-d. So, seeing the shift between plural and singular isn't something that bothers us. In fact, it shows the important theological point about us being both a collection and a single entity.

ewq1938 · Jan 16, 2016

afishamongmany said:
1- Why (other than because it 'fits' the interpretation that you want) would 'startle' be a better translation than 'sprinkle' when this word's previous usage in The Torah is obviously sprinkled?

Startle makes more sense in the context as they come to see/understand something which they weren't previously told in conjunction that their mouths are "shut" when this happens to them...so startle fits far better than sprinkle.

H5137
נזה
nâzâh
BDB Definition:
1) to spurt, spatter, sprinkle
1a) (Qal) to spurt, spatter
1b) (Hiphil) to cause to spurt, sprinkle upon
2) to spring, leap
2a) (Hiphil) to cause to leap, startle
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 1335, 1336

Also, the word is in the hiphil tense.

afishamongmany · Jan 17, 2016

Hello Lo Ammi, Happy Sunday to you. First thanks for your info on the other thread. Really interesting. Am thinking about finding and visiting a synagogue? We'll see, could be a 45 km drive at the least.

So, let's have at least one more shake at this. It's important enough. Yes I know, your view is firm and fixed. This passage cannot be about the Messiah because the Messiah could not have come to be rejected and to suffer and die.

Concerning the translation of 'yaz-zeh' you say, “The word has multiple meanings. On of them is sprinkle (or spurt) and another is leap or startle.” It seems there are 24 occurrences of this word in the Hebrew Bible. Only in Isaiah 52:15 have some people gone for 'startled' as a translation. The majority of translations and scholars go for 'sprinkled' or something similar. All other uses of this word have the context of purification or anointing, with blood, or water or oil. The entire thought of verse 15 is much more that of reflective ('they shall consider') humility ('shut their mouths') than of sudden shock.

You say, “Ok, so Isaiah is speaking, I assume for Israel as a whole, according to you.”

No, according to what I had, perhaps wrongly, assumed was our shared view of divine inspiration, Isaiah speaks (writes) what God's Holy Spirit 'inspires' him to say. So we can also say that God is communicating through/by Isaiah. In the first place this communication (report) was to God's people Israel at that time. But it was also a communication to future generations and to all people. It is God's word that would not return to Him until it had accomplished all that it was spoken to accomplish.
So – verse1,”Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? “
Isaiah by The Spirit of God poses this rhetorical question to His(God's)/his (and also Isaiah's) people and to you and me today. God through/with Isaiah then goes on to give many details about His Servant (The arm of the Lord), what he was like, what would happen to him, what he would accomplish. You believe that God here is speaking about Israel the people. I believe Him to be telling us about The Messiah that was to come.
“And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all”
A sinful people can in no way atone for humanity's sinfulness.

Ok lastly,
v2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground
"Jesus grew up 2000 years ago. Why would modern Jews (who are the speakers if this is Israel being shocked by Jesus's return) say he grew up before us? I didn't see him grow up."
Sorry don't understand? My understanding of this verse is, 'the Messiah grew up before God' (as in Isaiah 11)

v2 He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him
"The New Testament describes a person so well liked, he had to get on a boat to escape a crowd. Doesn't seem like someone without beauty or majesty."
We have no description at all of The Lord's physical appearance. He wore no crown or costly robes (except one of thorns and Herod's robe at the end). Yes liked and loved by a few but despised and rejected by many more (and at the end by everyone), then and now.

Lo you talk of 2 billion Christians. I'm sure you and I have completely different definitions as to who qualifies for that label. All we can be sure of is that The Lord knows those who are his. It is also sure that now as always in this world the majority says, “We will not have this man to rule over us.”
You ask, "If I were to ask you what linguistic clues in the text tell you this is about the Messiah and not someone else such as some other righteous person, what would you tell me? You can't use the New Testament, you must use the text given. Where is it about the Messiah?"
I asked for clues in the text that supported a bringing in of 'startled kings' as the speakers. There are many parallel verses and passages in the OT speaking of 'The suffering servant Messiah' I'm sure you know most of them and would say, I suppose, that they are speaking of Israel as a people.
Is this how you read Psalm 22?
Go well brother man
><>

LoAmmi · Jan 17, 2016

Psalm 22 is about David. I'll see if I can respond more later but I think we're going to disagree on almost all things you think are messianic prophecies.

afishamongmany · Jan 17, 2016

LoAmmi said:
Psalm 22 is about David. I'll see if I can respond more later but I think we're going to disagree on almost all things you think are messianic prophecies.

Sure. I'm soon to bed. go well

peepnklown · Jan 20, 2016

I’ll copy and paste a piece I wrote a while back:

Isaiah 52:13: ‘Behold, My servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.’ Isaiah plainly establishes, ‘My servant.’ Isaiah 41:8-9, Isaiah 44:1-2, Isaiah 45:4, Isaiah 48:20, Isaiah 49:3 all plainly say that Israel is ‘My servant.’ Isaiah 43:10: ‘Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and My servant whom I have chosen.’

Synopsis of Isaiah 53: They (the kings of the nations) will grasp what they have not known, which is the proper temperament of the Jews as God’s chosen nation. It will be a shocking recognition for the nations, but a necessary part of the redemption of the Jewish people. The nations will confess that they have caused sorrow and sadness upon God’s servant. Israel, through tests and misfortunes has served as a people of priest for the world and shall bring redemption to humanity.

Isaiah 53 is a tale about the ‘servant’ but, who is reporting? Isaiah 52:15: So shall he startle many nations, kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they perceive. The kings of the nations are going to endure a shocking comprehension about ‘the servant.’ They will be silenced in shocked revelation by what they will now understand about ‘the servant.’ Isaiah 53:1: Who would have believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the LORD been revealed? They (the kings of the nations) will share their recognition.

So, this sets up who are talking in Isaiah 53, the nations of the world (gentiles).

ewq1938 · Jan 20, 2016

peepnklown said:
So, this sets up who are talking in Isaiah 53, the nations of the world (gentiles).

No, it is Isaiah speaking as he was in the start of chp 52. The kings of the nations can't even speak, and the natuions they represent are startled....neither are the speaker.

Isa 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.

It is obviously a singular speaker and the people are Israel. This rules out any plurality speaking.

The same speaker continues in 54:

Isa 54:3 For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.

Obviously not the gentiles speaking.

peepnklown · Jan 21, 2016

ewq1938 said:
Obviously not the gentiles speaking.

I am not claiming the gentile nations wrote Isaiah 53. I am not claiming the gentile nations were ‘My servant.’
This was something I typed up as a synopsis of Isaiah 53.
The gentile nations will share their recognition (they will be talking).
The main reason for my post was to show who ‘My servant’ was but, I thought I might as well leave the rest.

LoAmmi · Jan 21, 2016

peepnklown said:
I’ll copy and paste a piece I wrote a while back:

Isaiah 52:13: ‘Behold, My servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.’ Isaiah plainly establishes, ‘My servant.’ Isaiah 41:8-9, Isaiah 44:1-2, Isaiah 45:4, Isaiah 48:20, Isaiah 49:3 all plainly say that Israel is ‘My servant.’ Isaiah 43:10: ‘Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and My servant whom I have chosen.’

Synopsis of Isaiah 53: They (the kings of the nations) will grasp what they have not known, which is the proper temperament of the Jews as God’s chosen nation. It will be a shocking recognition for the nations, but a necessary part of the redemption of the Jewish people. The nations will confess that they have caused sorrow and sadness upon God’s servant. Israel, through tests and misfortunes has served as a people of priest for the world and shall bring redemption to humanity.

Isaiah 53 is a tale about the ‘servant’ but, who is reporting? Isaiah 52:15: So shall he startle many nations, kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they perceive. The kings of the nations are going to endure a shocking comprehension about ‘the servant.’ They will be silenced in shocked revelation by what they will now understand about ‘the servant.’ Isaiah 53:1: Who would have believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the LORD been revealed? They (the kings of the nations) will share their recognition.

So, this sets up who are talking in Isaiah 53, the nations of the world (gentiles).

Thank you. I like this as it is fairly concise and to the point.

peepnklown · Jan 21, 2016

ewq1938 said:
Obviously not the gentiles speaking.

I disagree.
Just to be clear I am talking about Isaiah 52:15 – Isaiah 53:1.
The nations of the world (gentiles) are doing the talking (Micah 7:12-17 also references this).
The nations (gentiles) and their kings will be astonished at what happens and they will say ‘who would believe what we have heard?’
‘Who would have believed our report?’
It’s the nations of the world (gentiles) who will report is status of Israel.
It’s the nations of the world (gentiles) who will confess their wrong doings toward Israel.

In Isaiah 53:2-8, the kings of nations continue to express their profound confession.
They understand that the nation of Israel suffered because of the sins of their own people.

peepnklown · Jan 21, 2016

LoAmmi said:
Thank you. I like this as it is fairly concise and to the point.

Thank you. I wasn't given the nickname 'rabbi peepnklown' for nothing. :oldthumbsup:

gord44 · Jan 21, 2016

peepnklown said:
I’ll copy and paste a piece I wrote a while back:

Isaiah 52:13: ‘Behold, My servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.’ Isaiah plainly establishes, ‘My servant.’ Isaiah 41:8-9, Isaiah 44:1-2, Isaiah 45:4, Isaiah 48:20, Isaiah 49:3 all plainly say that Israel is ‘My servant.’ Isaiah 43:10: ‘Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and My servant whom I have chosen.’

Synopsis of Isaiah 53: They (the kings of the nations) will grasp what they have not known, which is the proper temperament of the Jews as God’s chosen nation. It will be a shocking recognition for the nations, but a necessary part of the redemption of the Jewish people. The nations will confess that they have caused sorrow and sadness upon God’s servant. Israel, through tests and misfortunes has served as a people of priest for the world and shall bring redemption to humanity.

Isaiah 53 is a tale about the ‘servant’ but, who is reporting? Isaiah 52:15: So shall he startle many nations, kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they perceive. The kings of the nations are going to endure a shocking comprehension about ‘the servant.’ They will be silenced in shocked revelation by what they will now understand about ‘the servant.’ Isaiah 53:1: Who would have believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the LORD been revealed? They (the kings of the nations) will share their recognition.

So, this sets up who are talking in Isaiah 53, the nations of the world (gentiles).

Thanks for sharing. I remember when I first heard a similar argument I was like 'wow. that clicks and makes so much more sense then the Christian view of Isaiah.'

ewq1938 · Jan 21, 2016

peepnklown said:
I disagree.
Just to be clear I am talking about Isaiah 52:15 – Isaiah 53:1.

Except you can't just arbitrarily cut off related scripture just because you want to.

The nations of the world (gentiles) are doing the talking (Micah 7:12-17 also references this).

No, they don't do any speaking. Isaiah is the speaker.

The nations (gentiles) and their kings will be astonished at what happens and they will say ‘who would believe what we have heard?’
‘Who would have believed our report?’
It’s the nations of the world (gentiles) who will report is status of Israel.
It’s the nations of the world (gentiles) who will confess their wrong doings toward Israel.[

In Isaiah 53:2-8, the kings of nations continue to express their profound confession.

Already proven they aren't the speaker using the verse in chp 54. The same speaker is speaking through 53 and 54. It is Isaiah speaking for God.

They understand that the nation of Israel suffered because of the sins of their own people.

Nope. This servant of God is smitten by God for the sins of Israel, an Israel that had forsaken God and were full of sins and iniquities.

peepnklown · Jan 21, 2016

ewq1938 said:
No, they don't do any speaking. Isaiah is the speaker.

You are incorrect. Nobody is cutting off scripture. Chapter divisions were instituted later and are not original thus, I am simply pinpointing the verses that show who is speaking. Yes, the book was written by Isaiah but, we have different points of view being displayed.

For example, Isaiah 41:8, yes, Isaiah is the author but, is Isaiah speaking when it says, ‘Israel is MY Servant?’ No, God is speaking.
Isaiah 52:15 - Isaiah 53:1, ‘…so shall he startle many nations, kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they perceive.’ THEY are the nations of the world (gentiles). ‘Who would have believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the LORD been revealed?’ THEY are the nations of the world (gentiles). Isaiah isn’t talking about himself here. God isn’t speaking through Isaiah here. THEY are asking questions. The arm of the LORD (redemption of the Jewish people) will be revealed to the nations of the world.

Isaiah 58:10 ‘Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease,…’ Now Isaiah is speaking.

Yes, Isaiah is the author but in his narrative several people/s are speaking.

Robban · Jan 21, 2016

ewq,
Life is not easy, you also must have observed,

but there is no easy fix, not what I know of.

Ezekiel 18:27-28,
And when a wicked man repents of his wickedness that he has done,
and does justice and rightousness, he will keep his soul alive.

He will see and repent of all his transgressions that he has commited-he shall
surely live; he shall not die.

It is about accountability and responsibility.

How much better would the World be,

Though it maybe only through the Grace of God one is brought to repentence.

If however the heart is hardened, it may take suffering or strife,
also that is through the Grace of God.

Therefore the Christian message does not make sense, not to me.

ewq1938 · Jan 21, 2016

peepnklown said:
You are incorrect. Nobody is cutting off scripture. Chapter divisions were instituted later and are not original thus, I am simply pinpointing the verses that show who is speaking. Yes, the book was written by Isaiah but, we have different points of view being displayed.

You aren't accepting what chp 54 says....it's clear the speaker (singular) is not the gentiles.

Isaiah 52:15 - Isaiah 53:1, ‘…so shall he startle many nations, kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they perceive.’ THEY are the nations of the world (gentiles). ‘Who would have believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the LORD been revealed?’ THEY are the nations of the world (gentiles).

No, It is Isaiah speaking on behalf of God's prophets who give the reports.

God isn’t speaking through Isaiah here. THEY are asking questions. The arm of the LORD (redemption of the Jewish people) will be revealed to the nations of the world.

No....you have it wrong...many reasons have already been provided why it cannot be the gentiles speaking nor is it Israel.

ewq1938 · Jan 21, 2016

Robban said:
Therefore the Christian message does not make sense, not to me.

Understandably but the Christian interpretation fits the wording and context the best. And as was shown, Jews in the far past did see this about the Messiah which matches perfectly how Christians view it.

Isaiah 52-53 ~ Israel or The Messiah? - part 2

Oldbie

Dispassionate

Oldbie

Dispassionate

I love you three.

Oldbie

Dispassionate

Oldbie

rabbi peepnklown

I love you three.

rabbi peepnklown

Dispassionate

rabbi peepnklown

rabbi peepnklown

Well-Known Member

I love you three.

rabbi peepnklown

-----------

I love you three.

I love you three.

Similar threads