Reinterpretation of the crucifixion.

Theo102 · Oct 2, 2018

The Christian doctrine of the crucifixion isn't supported by the Bible's own proof text.

Luke 24
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

http://torah.clonehost.net/pages/switched.html

HTacianas · Oct 2, 2018

Theo102 said:
The Christian doctrine of the crucifixion isn't supported by the Bible's own proof text.

Luke 24
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

http://torah.clonehost.net/pages/switched.html

The writer of the article lost my interest in comparing Isaiah to Acts. He is using the Masoretic text as authoritative even though it was not standardized until 600 years after Acts was written.

Theo102 · Oct 2, 2018

HTacianas said:
The writer of the article lost my interest in comparing Isaiah to Acts. He is using the Masoretic text as authoritative even though it was not standardized until 600 years after Acts was written.

Isaiah 53:10-11 was mentioned to support the interpretation of non-physical suffering rather that physical torture and death.

Here's a translation of the LXX, as you can see there are the typical doctrinal differences with the Masoretic. The word πληγῆς could be translated as injury, which like stroke isn't really consistent with being tortured to death.

10 The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his stroke (πληγῆς). If ye can give an offering for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived seed: 11 the Lord also is pleased to take away from the travail of his soul, to shew him light, and to form him with understanding; to justify the just one who serves many well; and he shall bear their sins.

Isaiah 53, KJV
10 Yet it pleased YHWH to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of YHWH shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge (דעת) shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

hedrick · Oct 2, 2018

The OP doesn't make any sense. Luke 24:44-46 is attempting to interpret the crucifixion as fulfillment of the OT. Whether you like the interpretation or not doesn't affect the crucifixion. Every religion gets creative in use of its Scriptures, but if Luke is overly so, he's being creative in understanding what has just happened. If this is a reference Is 53 (and it probably is), all he's taking from it is suffering on behalf of the people. That's really there in Isaiah. The third day could be Hos 6:2. But this kind of creative us of the OT is consistent with Jewish practice at the time.

The rest of the things in the article make sense only when addressed to fundamentalists. Others don't expect testimonies to be in exact agreement.

Theo102 · Oct 2, 2018

hedrick said:
The OP doesn't make any sense. Luke 24:44-46 is attempting to interpret the crucifixion as fulfillment of the OT.

Luke 24:44-46 is an account of Yahushua explaining why it was written that "it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day". He refers to the fulfilment of the law, Psalms, and prophets, but the words that opened the understanding of those listening are not recorded in Luke's account.

A meaningful interpretation of these verses would therefore involve knowing how the law, Psalms, and prophets relate to the idea that "it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day".

Theo102 · Oct 2, 2018

hedrick said:
The third day could be Hos 6:2.

It's the only relevant verse that I know of (apart from the sign of Jonah). If you wanted to validate the Pauline interpretation of the crucifixion then Hos 6:2 should somehow refer to the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, but it doesn't.

hedrick · Oct 2, 2018

Theo102 said:
It's the only relevant verse that I know of (apart from the sign of Jonah). If you wanted to validate the Pauline interpretation of the crucifixion then Hos 6:2 should somehow refer to the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, but it doesn't.

I said it was a creative interpretation. Is 53 refers to someone who suffers for the people. Hos 6:2 is referring to God's punishment of Israel, and speaks of him reviving them afterwards. If you think of Jesus as representing the people and suffering for them, it sort of fits. Not the sort of exegesis I'd do, but consistent with how the NT uses the OT.

Theo102 · Oct 2, 2018

hedrick said:
If you think of Jesus as representing the people and suffering for them, it sort of fits. Not the sort of exegesis I'd do, but consistent with how the NT uses the OT.

Do you mean consistent like the account of the virgin birth, or consistent like Luke 4:17-21 and Matthew 27:9-10? The validation of the virgin birth depends on a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14.

The people of Hosea 2:6 had been torn as if by a lion, which connects to the cry of dereliction from Psalms 22:1, but they idea that the messiah had been punished in their place isn't present.

My El, my El, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so] far from helping me, [and from] the words of my roaring?
Psalms 22:1

cvanwey · Oct 3, 2018

(Pardon the slight 'red herring' for a moment. It will directly tie into the OP)

I've always found these types of discussions interesting, to say the least. I've spoken to individuals, whom claim hermeneutic expertise, whom are young earth creationists. I have also spoken to claimed hermeneutic scholars, whom are old earth creationists. I've listened and spoken to individuals whom also profess Talmudical hermeneutics; whom state Old Testament prophecy does not lead to Jesus as the Messiah at all.

So it's quite interesting, when seeing a 'young earther', 'old earther', and Orthodox Jews, who all read from many of the very same verses, and all 'interpret' them quite differently. And conveniently, all three differently concluded hermeneutic positions which consistently 'support' their own very specific position/conclusions.

So keeping in mind, that of just only the three examples above, all three also somehow conclude the Bible is authoritative to Yahweh. Moving forward, please now decipher below....

********************************

Since hermeneutics does not appear to be the universal end-all-be-all absolute standard for Bible translation, how might any Christian actually be confident in telling any non-believer/skeptic/doubter they are reading/translating the Bible 'incorrectly'?

ViaCrucis · Oct 3, 2018

Theo102 said:
Do you mean consistent like the account of the virgin birth, or consistent like Luke 4:17-21 and Matthew 27:9-10? The validation of the virgin birth depends on a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14.

The people of Hosea 2:6 had been torn as if by a lion, which connects to the cry of dereliction from Psalms 22:1, but they idea that the messiah had been punished in their place isn't present.

My El, my El, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so] far from helping me, [and from] the words of my roaring?
Psalms 22:1

The New Testament writers tend toward a reading of biblical texts that goes beyond the surface meaning. We see a pretty clear example of this with how Matthew uses Hosea 11:1. There's no question that Hosea is referring to the nation, "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." Matthew sees here a deeper meaning.

Historically the Jewish rabbis have recognized several layers of meaning and interpretation, known by the Hebrew acrostic PaRDeS.

For early Christians the fundamental evidence that Jesus was what He was is the resurrection. If Jesus did not rise, then He definitely wasn't the Messiah--but if He did rise, then this is God's vindication; Jesus is the Messiah, Lord, the Son of God, and all else said of Him. It is the resurrection that is the foundation of Christian messianism; and it is from this place of Jesus and His resurrection that Christians (from the beginning) began to look at words for the Law, the Prophets, etc and beheld Jesus in them.

The virgin birth is not dependent on a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14, but an interpretation of almah that includes parthenos. An almah is not the same thing as a parthenos, but that doesn't mean a parthenos can't be an almah. But, this is also an example of what I mentioned above. Isaiah 7:14 is almost certainly referring specifically to the birth of Hezekiah, given the context. But, again, Christians saw here a deeper meaning and that it applied to Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

Theo102 · Oct 3, 2018

cvanwey said:
Since hermeneutics does not appear to be the universal end-all-be-all absolute standard for Bible translation, how might any Christian actually be confident in telling any non-believer/skeptic/doubter they are reading/translating the Bible 'incorrectly'?

By showing that their interpretation is inconsistent, absurd, or repugnant (from Baron Parke's rule).

Theo102 · Oct 3, 2018

ViaCrucis said:
For early Christians the fundamental evidence that Jesus was what He was is the resurrection.

Since this is a apologetics forum it's not really appropriate to limit the scope to what Christians believe.

ViaCrucis said:
The virgin birth is not dependent on a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14, but an interpretation of almah that includes parthenos.

It's dependant on an mistranslation because there's nothing significant about an almah giving birth to a child. A better interpretation can be found by considering the context of the name of Immanuel and the application of knowledge.

Therefore Adonai himself shall give you a sign; Behold, an almah shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
Isaiah 7:14-16

... by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many ...
Isaiah 53:11

hedrick · Oct 3, 2018

Theo102 said:
Do you mean consistent like the account of the virgin birth, or consistent like Luke 4:17-21 and Matthew 27:9-10? The validation of the virgin birth depends on a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14.

The people of Hosea 2:6 had been torn as if by a lion, which connects to the cry of dereliction from Psalms 22:1, but they idea that the messiah had been punished in their place isn't present.

My El, my El, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so] far from helping me, [and from] the words of my roaring?
Psalms 22:1

We need to understand what the NT writers were doing with the OT. Sometimes Christians will talk about the hundreds of prophecies that Jesus supposedly “fulfilled,” as if this was something miraculous. But the Gospel writers weren’t doing that. If you look at Hos 2:6 or Is 7:14 in their original context, they were about something at the time. They weren’t predictions about the 1st Cent. (Is 53 is more difficult.)

But the NT writers saw the OT as a pattern, reflected in current events. E.g. John the Baptist was sometimes seen as a new Elijah. (e.g. Mat 11:14) This doesn’t mean that he was literally a reincarnation, or the original stories about Elijah were somehow secretly really about John. Similarly, the virgin birth story isn’t the result of Matthew misinterpreting Is 7:14 and then creating the story based on that interpretation. Rather, the citation of Is 7:14 is a way of putting Jesus’ birth — which Matthew already believed — in an OT context. As John is the new Elijah, this is the new child who will be a sign for the nation. That the LXX (which was understood as being inspired) translated “virgin” was an extra bonus, but I think Matthew might have used the passage anyway.

In a number of these cases, the NT authors used passages in a way that reflected only one or two elements of their original meaning and context. If we wanted to use the OT passage as “predicting” the NT, and providing something miraculous, I’d want to see a clear match between what the prophet intended in context and Jesus. That is, I’d want to see that the passages, interpreted in their original context, was about a future messiah, whose description matched Jesus. Typically that match is only partial, and the original meaning of the prophecy was something at or near the time of the prophet. But that’s not how the NT is using the OT. Particularly Matthew, but you can see the same kind of thing throughout the NT.

Theo102 · Oct 3, 2018

hedrick said:
We need to understand what the NT writers were doing with the OT.

No. That's a side issue, what is relevant is how the text should be interpreted.

Sometimes Christians will talk about the hundreds of prophecies that Jesus supposedly “fulfilled,” as if this was something miraculous.

That's their problem. Prophecy is fundamentally connected to the Word of John 1:14.

If you look at Hos 2:6 or Is 7:14 in their original context, they were about something at the time. They weren’t predictions about the 1st Cent. (Is 53 is more difficult.)

It's Hosea 6:2 that's relevant here (my mistake with the reference that you quoted). Isaiah 7:14 is referenced by Matthew 1:22-23, and so it supports the point that the gospels reference earlier prophetic texts for validation.

the citation of Is 7:14 is a way of putting Jesus’ birth — which Matthew already believed — in an OT context.

It's presented an an explicit fulfilment an prophecy. Prophecy can have a near fulfillment and a far fulfillment.

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying...
Matthew 1:22

As John is the new Elijah, this is the new child who will be a sign for the nation.

The specifics of the sign relate to a young child called Immanuel who ate butter and honey, and knowing good from evil, rejected the evil within a specific timeframe. Knowledge of good and evil connects to the reason for the expulsion from the garden of Eden and to eternal life. Knowledge is a key part of the prophecies relating to Yahushua, ans he spoke of the promise of eternal life.

That the LXX (which was understood as being inspired) translated “virgin” was an extra bonus, but I think Matthew might have used the passage anyway.

There's a number of doctrinal differences between the LXX and the Septuagint, such differences highlight points of interest for further study.

It remains that there's a significant prophetic connection between the lion of Hosea and the roaring of Psalms 22, with Hosea 6:6 referenced twice in Matthew and the connection to the cry of dereliction.

For I will be unto Ephraim as a lion, and as a young lion to the house of Judah: I, even I, will tear and go away; I will take away, and none shall rescue him.
Hosea 5:14

My El, my El, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so] far from helping me, [and from] the words of my roaring?
Psalms 22:1

The point remains that the only meaningful interpretation of "Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures" involves verses which don't support the Pauline interpretation of the crucifixion. Indeed, the connection to the crucifixion of Psalm 22 highlights this problem.

But I [am] a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.
Psalm 22:6

Reinterpretation of the crucifixion.

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Active Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Similar threads