Isaiah 53: A Contextual Discussion

[LittleLambofJesus]

You'll have to elaborate on some of these points, but I know there have been, and are, Messianic rabbis who believe in Jesus without necessarily thinking that everything in the Bible concerning them has been fulfilled.

Rabbi Werthemier's testimony can probably still be found on the net somewhere.

Yes, here: http://www.theologos.net/e-books/Wertheimer.html

When I went to Jerusalem, I was told about the Messianic rabbi who regularly tries to witness to other Jews on the streets of Jerusalem and ends up in hospital for his efforts.

If Jesus did not fulfill everything in the Bible within His generation, then He cannot be the Messiah.
Sad but that is what the Jews believe.

 

[peepnklown]

Further, the evidence from the aggadic midrash is that a messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53 was one early Jewish view.

This is why a good foundation of Judaism [historical and cultural] is required.
Midrash is highly metaphorical and is not the literal meaning of the text.

My own sources tell me that the words shim and asham in the Hebrew text of Isaiah 53:10 indicate the making of a guilt offering.

Then your source did not do their homework when it comes to Hebrew.
The term asham has two proper functions in the Hebrew Bible.
1 – It is used to point to a guilt offering brought by a sinner for atonement.
2 – It is used to point to a sin or an iniquity committed with intent.
A good foundation in Judaism would illuminate the fact that it is unfeasible for a person to bring themselves as a guilt offering.

which would not make sense.

Isaiah 53:10 in context is pointing to a sin or an iniquity committed with intent; a prize is promised to the servant if he confesses his guilt and repents.

To say that the Servant in Isaiah 53 is the Jewish nation of Israel is no easy or obvious interpretation.

Yet, in context of Isaiah he clearly defines the Servant several times.
Isaiah 53:8 in context is the Gentile nations speaking.
Isaiah 53:9 in context is God speaking.
If you want I can go verse by verse.

Christians would say that the word "Servant" in the Servant Songs is a Messianic title!

Of course they can claim anything but, they are going to have to substantiate it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Joe
Christians would say that the word "Servant" in the Servant Songs is a Messianic title!

I would say that is any individual who suffers in the Name of YHWH, or in case of Christ-ians, in the Name of His Christ, Jesus and for Muslims, ALLAH.
Note Paul for example:

http://www.scripture4all.org/

[Young LT] Acts 9:15 And the Lord said unto him, `Be going on, because a choice vessel to Me is this one, to bear My name before nations and kings--the sons also of Israel; 16 for I will shew him how many things it behoveth him for My Name to suffer.'

Matt 23:34 `Because of this, lo, I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes, and of them ye will kill and crucify, and of them ye will scourge in your synagogues, and will pursue from city to city;

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Here is the Hebrew and Greek wording of Acts 8 and Isaiah 53.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Acts 8:32 And the contents of the Scripture that he was reading was this: `As a sheep/probaton<4263> unto slaughter/sfaghn <4967> he was led, and as a Lamb/amnoV <286> before his shearer dumb, so he doth not open his mouth;

Isaiah 53:7 He-is-oppressed/exacted. And-he one-being-humbled, and-not he-is-opening mouth-of-him.
As-flockling/07716 seh to-slaughter he-is-fetched. And-as-ewe/sheep/07353 rachel before/faces ones-shearing-her. She is mute. And-not he-is-opening mouth-of-him.

07716 seh {seh} or sey {say}
probably from 07582 through the idea of pushing out to graze;
TWOT - 2237; n m
AV - sheep 18, cattle 10, lamb 16, ewe 1, lamb + 03532 1; 46
1) one of a flock, lamb, sheep, goat, young sheep, young goat
1a) sheep, goat

07353 rachel {raw-kale'}
from an unused root meaning to journey; TWOT - 2145a; n f
AV - ewe 2, sheep 2; 4
1) ewe

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Con't Isaiah 53:

Isaiah 53:3 He-is-despised/0959 bazah and-being-forbeared/rejected-of/02310 chadel men/0376 'iysh, man-of/0376 'iysh painful-sorrow/04341 mak'ob.

Strong's Number H2310 matches the Hebrew &#1495;&#1491;&#1500; (chadel).
AV — frail 1, rejected 1, forbear 1

2310 chadel khaw-dale' from 2308; vacant, i.e. ceasing or destitute:--he that forbeareth, frail, rejected.
2308 chadal khaw-dal' a primitive root; properly, to be flabby, i.e. (by implication) desist; (figuratively) be lacking or idle:--cease, end, fall, forbear, forsake, leave (off), let alone, rest, be unoccupied, want.
2309 chedel kheh'-del from 2308; rest, i.e. the state of the dead:--world.

 

[peepnklown]

Isaiah 53

I don’t understand your point in post #84 and #85.
Plus, I would upgrade your Hebrew/Greek lexicons.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I don&#8217;t understand your point in post #84 and #85.
Plus, I would upgrade your Hebrew/Greek lexicons.

Shalom peep.
I use an interlinear for the word for word translation, but even lexicons can not sometimes give the meaning to a lot of Hebrew words and it is even the same way with the Biblical Koine Greek a lot of times.

I would like to hear anyone else's translation of the verses in Post # 84 and 85. Thanks.

 

[JoeWill]

Boy, are we still going? Let's all keep it friendly then.


You wrote:

"Midrash is highly metaphorical and is not the literal meaning of the text."

Are not metaphorical narratives used to explicate the literal meaning of a text? The metaphors themselves are not to be taken literally, but the meaning they encapsulate can be the meaning of the verse that they build up from.

Certainly, Jewish authorities in the past understood most of the midrash on Isaiah chapter 53 to express the meaning that this passage relates to the Messiah.

In about 1500 Rabbi Don Yitzchak Abarbanel, who did not personally accept that the Isaiah 53 passage refers to the Messiah, had to admit:

"Jonathan ben Uzziel interpreted it in the Targum of the future Messiah; but this is also the opinion of our learned men in the majority of the midrashim."


In addition to the midrash, we also find messianic references to Isaiah 53 in the Targums (Aramaic translations of portions of the Biblical Hebrew that also provided a commentary on the verses).

Jonathan ben Uzziel's Targum on this passage of Isaiah dates to the first century AD. It begins: "Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper..."

The Targums Yalkut 11:338:7 refers Isaiah 52:13 to the Messiah and says of this passage: "He shall be exalted and extolled - He shall be higher than Abraham, higher than Moses, higher than the ministering angels."

Writing of the Isaiah 53 passage, Rabbi Naphtali ben Asher Altschuler (c 1650) said: "I am surprised that Rashi and Rabbi David Kimchi have not, with the Targums, applied it to the Messiah likewise."


A messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53 is also found in the Talmud: (The Jewish library of oral law and tradition):

"The Messiah - what is his name? . ..those of the house of Rabbi Yuda the Saint say, The sick one, as it is said, &#8220;Surely he had borne our sicknesses" (98b).

Some time around 1500, Rabbi Joseph ben Kaspi angrily upheld the Talmudic interpretation that Isaiah 53 refers to the Messiah, against those who were popularising the interpretation that the passage is about Israel.

Jewish tradition has believed that the Isaiah 53 passage is about the Messiah.


You wrote:

The term asham has two proper functions in the Hebrew Bible.

1 &#8211; It is used to point to a guilt offering brought by a sinner for atonement.

2 &#8211; It is used to point to a sin or an iniquity committed with intent.

A good foundation in Judaism would illuminate the fact that it is unfeasible for a person to bring themselves as a guilt offering.

I saw your two meanings when I looked at an interlinear Bible with Strong's notes. The word asham appears numerous times with reference to a guilt offering sacrifice. I also saw instances of your second meaning for asham.

The context of Isaiah is that an innocent person is sacrificed for the sins of the people (e.g. "he bore the sins of many" Isaiah 53:12). Therefore the first meaning that you give is the appropriate one, and we run into the problem of Israel being substituted for Israel again.

The Servant does not bring himself, he is "brought" by God ("Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him" Isaiah 53:10).


You wrote:

Isaiah 53:8 in context is the Gentile nations speaking.

Isaiah 53:9 in context is God speaking.

This view would have to be substantiated in the same way that substantiation has been required of my own interpretations. Nowhere does Isaiah 53 indicate that the Servant is Israel, or that the Gentile nations are speaking.

Your alternative interpretation of these verses does not escape the original problem that I identified. Namely, the suggestion is that the Servant in Isaiah 53:8 is innocent, and with no deceit in his mouth. This cannot be Israel or any nation of people, as Jeremiah wrote that the heart of man is above all things deceitful and desperately wicked.


How would Christians substantiate that the word "Servant" is a messianic title? They might point to the parallels between the Servant of the Servant Songs and the Messiah, or to the ancient Jewish messianic interpretations of Isaiah chapter 53, for a start.


Look after yourself peepnown.

 

[JoeWill]

If Jesus did not fulfill everything in the Bible within His generation, then He cannot be the Messiah.
Sad but that is what the Jews believe.

It is sad for them, but we go on trying.

 

[peepnklown]

Jewish tradition has believed that the Isaiah 53 passage is about the Messiah.

You still do not understand Midrash; until you do you will keep misrepresenting the Jewish sages. I would recommend: Introduction to the Talmud by Moses Mielziner.
I mean if you want to use Midrash to support your view of Isaiah 53 then why not include Sotah 14a which says Isaiah 53 is about Moses? How about using Rabbi Saadiah Goan who says Isaiah 53 is about Jeremiah or Don Yitzchok Abarbanel who says Isaiah 53 is a bout Josiah? Using Midrash the Rabbis have said that Psalms 22 [which is about David] is also about Esther.
I will try to make this clear: Midrash is NOT a translation or accurate commentary.
I mean if you want to play with the Targum it points to Israel in 52:14, 53:2, 53:4, 53:6, 53:8, 53:10, and 53:11.
Well, once you take the Targum in context without cherry picking you’ll see that it points to the nations in 53:3, 53:7, and 53:9.
I mean if you really want to play; Moshiach ben Yosef is not mentioned in the Targum dealing with Isaiah 53.
The problem as I have said numerous times is that you do not have the foundation.

Therefore the first meaning that you give is the appropriate one

1 - If you had a good foundation you would know that no human could be a sin sacrifice or for the sins of any people.
2 – Isaiah 53 says nothing of sin sacrifices thus, your ‘appropriate definition’ fails.

Nowhere does Isaiah 53 indicate that the Servant is Israel, or that the Gentile nations are speaking.

Once more, if you had a good foundation in the Hebrew Scriptures you would know that Isaiah 53 [or the separate chapters] is not original in the texts; you have to look at the CONTEXT!
Isaiah 41:8, 44:1, 44:21, 45:4 and 49:3 all make it clear: the Servant is ISREAL.
Isaiah 52 identifies Zion, of the nation of Israel is being spoken about; Isaiah 52 sets the stage for Isaiah 53.
For example: Isaiah 52:15 So shall he cast down 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. [which leads right into] Isaiah 53:1 Who would have believed our report, and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed?
And who is speaking? THE NATIONS!

They might point to the parallels between the Servant of the Servant Songs and the Messiah

Just like the Jewish sages of Midrash can point to Moses, Jeremiah and Josiah as the Servant in Isaiah 53?
The problem is that this is all conjecture: I can parallel anyone I want using Midrash.

Jewish messianic interpretations of Isaiah chapter 53

They are not interpretations; but it takes research to understand Midrash…go take a course or two.

 

[JoeWill]

Thanks for your response and the book you recommended. Perhaps you can also recommend a good lexicon of Hebrew words that appear in the Tanaach?




I understand your frustration with my arguing that the Jewish texts I referred to, give evidence of a messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53 among the Jewish traditions. However, you have to understand that other authorities do not agree with you.

The Messianic Jew, Dr Albert Fruchtenbaum, who has devoted a lifetime to the study of related topics, writes:

"The original interpretation of Isaiah 53 by Jewish rabbis has been that it is speaking of an individual - the Messiah himself. In fact, the concept of Messiah, the Son of Joseph, comes from this passage."

That the midrash and targum produced multiple and conflicting interpretations of verses, does not overturn the argument that a Messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53 is one of the ancient Jewish beliefs reflected within those texts.



You wrote:

1 - If you had a good foundation you would know that no human could be a sin sacrifice for the sins of any people.

2 &#8211; Isaiah 53 says nothing of sin sacrifices thus, your &#8216;appropriate definition&#8217; fails.

Well you will have to elaborate on why "no human could be a sin sacrifice", but I suspect that a subjective rather than a provable argument will follow.

I was interested to learn in Leviticus 4:3, that when the high priest sinned, his guilt was transferred onto the whole community. A young bull without defect had to be sacrificed for the guilt of the people:

"if the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, he must bring to the Lord a young bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed."

(A defective sacrifice could not be a substitute for a defective people.)

I therefore put it to you that a similar event is being depicted in Isaiah 53. An individual who is without defect is sacrificed for the sins of the people:

"...though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth." (Isaiah 53:9)

"for the transgression of my people he was stricken" (Isaiah 53:8)

We need to add to that, the fact that a Hebrew word (asham) which appears dozens of times in the Tanaach in relation to a guilt offering, also appears in Isaiah 53:10 in relation to the Servant's suffering.

Also, that some sort of substitionary sacrifice is clearly being made:

"...the punishment that brought us peace was upon him..." (Isaiah 53:5)

Then the case that the Servant is being sacrificed for the sins of the people becomes substantial.

And because no nation of people is without defect, the Servant cannot be Israel in this passage. Instead, the figure who dies is God's sinless Servant, the Messiah.



Now let's look at some of the occurrences of the word "Servant" that you gave me...

Isaiah 41:8

"But you, O Israel my servant, Jacob ... you descendants of Abraham..."

compare this with Isaiah 49:5:

"And now the Lord says -
he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring back Jacob to him..."

Do you see the problem here? The first verse says that the servant is Jacob - the Jewish descendants of Abraham. The second verse says that the servant is sent to Jacob - the Jewish descendants of Abraham.

So the second verse shows that the "Servant" leading up to the Isaiah 53 passage, must be someone other than the nation of Israel.


Isaiah 49:3

"He said to me you, 'You are my Servant Israel in whom I will display my splendour.'"

We have already seen that the Servant in Isaiah 49 cannot be the nation of Israel, because he is sent to Israel. In fact, the next verse indicates that Israel had failed as God's servant in the task given them:

"But I said I have laboured to no purpose; I have spent my strength in vain and for nothing..."

The context of this passage is that the Messiah now stands in place of the nation of Israel to fulfil the task that they were originally given to do. The Messiah becomes true Israel. He is called "Israel" in a similar way to his being called "David", as the one who fulfils what David stood for (e.g. Ezekiel 34:23-4).

In contradistinction to the Jewish nation of Isaiah's day, the sinless, resurrected life depicted of the Servant in Isaiah 53, further demonstrates that the Servant is now the Messiah.


Isaiah chapter 52

This whole chapter says nothing about the Servant being Israel. The mention of Zion is a reference to how the Messiah will comfort Israel during the millenium.


Isaiah 53:1

"Whom has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"

This verse needs to be cross-referenced with subsequent verses to get the meaning:

"...we esteemed him not..." (Isaiah 53:3)

Isaiah is predicting that the Jewish nation with which he identified, would not believe the truth about the Messiah, and would reject him.



Take care then,

Joe.

 

[peepnklown]

I understand your frustration with my arguing that the Jewish texts I referred to; give evidence of a messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53 among the Jewish traditions.

My frustrations come from your lack of knowledge in Judaism [historically and culturally], and your continued effort to push misinformation instead of stopping to do the research. You so-called evidence is not an interpretation of Isaiah 53; you continue to push this misinformation without actually researching Midrash which is not an interpretation of the texts.

That the midrash and targum produced multiple and conflicting interpretations of verses, does not overturn the argument that a Messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53 is one of the ancient Jewish beliefs reflected within those texts.

1 – I will make this clear: Moshiach ben Yosef is not mentioned in the Targum dealing with Isaiah 53. 2 – The same so-called ancient Jewish beliefs also point to Moses, Jeremiah, and Josiah as the ‘servant’ spoken about in Isaiah 53; this shows the correct context of Midrash; it’s not an interpretation.

Instead, the figure who dies is God's sinless Servant, the Messiah.

Again, you have no foundation in the Hebrew Scriptures and Judaism; human sacrifices were prohibited throughout the Jewish Scriptures: Deut 12:30-31, Jeremiah 19:4-6, Ezekiel 16:20, and Psalm 106:37-38.
The Hebrew term asham also appears in the Jewish Scriptures as a sin or an iniquity committed with intent. It all depends on the context: Isaiah 53:10 and the surround verses do not support the ideal of a guilt offering [which has to be brought by a sinner for atonement] yet talks about a sin or feeling guilt.

Isaiah 41:8; “But you, Israel My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham, who loved Me,”
1 – Israel is the servant, period [bold].
2 – Do you even know the history of Jacob? Jacob is the nation of Israel from which the 12 tribes came from.
Isaiah 49:5; see when placed in context your magically problem goes away; because it is explained in Isaiah 49:6 And He said, "It is too light for you to be My servant [Israel], to establish the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the besieged of Israel, but I will make you a light of nations, so that My salvation shall be until the end of the earth."
Not to mention the clear definition in Isaiah 49:3 And He said to me, "You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast."
At the time if Isaiah Israel was gone; thus it is explained that bring back Jacob means to restore the nation again.

Isaiah 52 is not separate from Isaiah 53; it’s the building stage…and all it talks about is the nation of Israel. Isaiah 53:1 in context with Isaiah 52:15 clearly shows that it’s the nations that are talking.
Not once does Isaiah 52 or 53 mention the Messiah; throughout the Jewish Scriptures the Messiah is clearly identified by a few phrases which are absent in Isaiah 52/53.

Please stop and go research Judaism.

 

[JoeWill]

Okay Peep, let's take another look. I had some more points to make, so I'm glad you wrote back. I hope that instead of seeing me as someone determined to misappropriate your heritage to make my point, you will see that there really is a valid argument on the table.



The Jewish writings

You have made clear your view that the Midrash is not an interpretation of the text of the Tanaach / Old Testament. The difficulty is that other authorities disagree with you:

"In simple terms, Midrash is the oldest form of Bible interpretation" (Jacobs, The Midrashic Process, p.3).

"...the overwhelming use of Midrash is for interpretation and enlisting of a verse or verses of Scripture" (Hammer, Classic Midrash: Tannaitic Commentaries on the Bible, p.2.)

It is true that such interpretations could be very creative and unrestricted, to the point where yes, there would be problems with taking the writings too literally. However, I find that voices other than your own, have a fair point when they maintain that a Messianic perception of the Suffering Servant is one early Jewish tradition preserved within those writings.

What do you make of the Musaf Prayer in the Mahsor - the Prayer Book for the Day of Atonement? Written in the 7th century AD, part of it reads:

Messiah our Righteousness is departed from us: horror hath seized us, and we have none to justify us. He hath borne the yoke of our iniquities, and our transgression, and was wounded because of our transgression. He beareth our sins on his shoulder, that he may find pardon for our iniquities. We shall be healed by his wound, at the time that the Eternal will create him (the Messiah) as a new creature. 0 bring him up from the circle of the earth, Raise him up from the land of Seir, to assemble us on Mount Lebanon, a second time by the power of Yinon.

Do you think an early tradition that the Messiah would die in the manner of Isaiah 53 might just be preserved here? Or are these words just arbitrary...they don't really mean anything?



The Isaiah 53 passage

I looked into the verses you put forward to argue that the sacrifice of a man in Isaiah 53 would break the laws given by God in the Tanaach / Old Testament.

Deut 12:30-31, Ezekiel 16:20, Jeremiah 19:4-6 and Psalm 106:37-38 all concern child sacrifices to pagan gods that would have been involuntary. In fact, Jeremiah 19:4-6 cross-referenced with 7:31 and 19:11, pinpoint Topheth and the Valley of Ben Hinnom as places where these sacrifices were being made. These were centres of child sacrifice.

But the Isaiah 53 passage depicts the voluntary sacrifice of a man that God willed to make (Isaiah 53:10). So I see no problem here.

Could it be that your Judaic "foundation" rather than the words of the Tanaach itself, are actually preventing you from seeing the bigger picture?


I want to show again how the context of Isaiah indicates that the Messiah is sacrificed for the sins of the people. Look:


1) At Yom Kippur / the Day of Atonement, a ceremony was performed to transfer the sins of the people onto a goat. The High Priest laid both hands on the head of the goat so that the punishment for the people's sins would be put upon it, and the people would have peace with God (Leviticus 16:21).

Likewise, in Isaiah 53:5 we read:

"...the punishment that brought us peace was upon him..."

or according to the Judaic Complete Tanaach translation:

"...the chastisement of our welfare was upon him...

Isaiah is saying that the punishment for the sins of the people was put upon the Servant of God.

(Note that the atonement goat was sent to die outside of the Israelite camp, like Jesus died "outside of the camp" i.e. outside the walls of Jerusalem, to bear the punishment for your sins and mine.)


2) The punishment for sin is death. As Ezekiel put it, "the soul that sins, it shall die". But in the sin offering and the guilt offering, that punishment was transferred to the animal, which died in place of the trangressor.

Likewise, the Servant in Isaiah 53 bears the punishment of the people, which is death:

"...the punishment that brought us peace was upon him..." (Isaiah 53:5)

"...he was cut off from the land of the living..." (Isaiah 53:8)


3) An animal to be sacrificed had to be free of defects. In Leviticus 22:20 we read:

"Do not bring anything without a defect, because it will not be accepted on your behalf."

Likewise, we see that the victim of the sacrifice in Isaiah 53:9 is without defect:

"...though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth."


4) Then of course, we have the word asham, which occurs many times in the Tanaach / Old Testament as "guilt offering", coupled with the fact that a substitionary sacrifice is being made.

"...the punishment that brought us peace was upon him..." (Isaiah 53:5)

"...and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering [asham]..." (Isaiah 53:10)


So the context of Isaiah 53 is that the Servant pays the price for the sins of the people. It really is becoming very obvious Peep, I wish you could see it.

Against this position you offer two strange arguments. You say that a feeling of guilt is involved in Isaiah 53. What difference does this make? Why wouldn't the beneficiary of a guilt offering have a sense of guilt over their wrongs? You also say that a guilt offering has to be brought by a sinner. But it is God who makes any guilt offering what it is. If Isaiah says that it pleased God to make the Servant a guilt offering, then that is what we must accept. Are you going to argue with God?


The word "servant" in other parts of Isaiah

In Isaiah 53, the Servant is depicted as being without defect, so he cannot be the wayward nation of Israel regardless of any earlier occurences of the word "servant" in relation to Israel. Rather, the Servant in Isaiah 53 is the Messiah - the ideal type of Israel - just as he is also "David" (cf. Ezekiel 34:23-24). This alone is sufficient to answer your arguments from the earlier passages of Isaiah.

However, when we look at Isaiah 49:5 we see:

"And now the Lord who formed me in the womb to be his Servant to bring back Jacob to him and gather Israel to himself..."

The problem here is that if the servant is the nation of Israel in this verse, then the servant would be sent to the servant. As you have already indicated, "Jacob" is the 12 twelve tribes of Israel. The twelve tribes of Israel would therfore be sent on a mission to the twelve tribes of Jacob! It doesn't make sense (even if the passage refers to the restoration of Israel).

Rather, it is the Messiah who is sent to the Jewish nation, as the true Servant, "Israel", just as he is sent to them as "David" in Ezekiel 34.



Isaiah 52

Let's see.

Isaiah 52:1-12 refers to the inauguration of the kingdom that the Messiah will establish. Only then will the sufferings described such as the disaporas and the invasion of Jerusalem by the heathen truly come to an end. This passage should be compared with other passages relating to the Messiah's reign. Compare:

"He [the Messiah] will reign on David's throne
and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness" (Isaiah 9:7)

"Awake, awake, O Zion,
clothe yourself with strength.
Put on your garments of splendour,
O Jerusalem, the holy city..." (Isaiah 52:1)

We can go on if you want, but I will be showing that these verses are about the Messiah restoring Israel.


Then Isaiah 52:13-15 commences the discussion of the Messiah that continues into Isaiah 53. It begins with his coming as the one who dies for the sins of the people, and then touches upon his victory over death, leading to his coming as the restorer in Isaiah 54.



References to the Messiah

You wrote:

"Not once does Isaiah 52 or 53 mention the Messiah..."

Can you see the circular nature of this argument? You are saying that the Servant Songs are not messianic, because they don't contain Messianic titles. But you reject the idea that the word "Servant" in the Servant Songs can be a Messianic title, because you say that the passages are not about the Messiah!

There are more than enough parallels between the Messiah elsewhere in scripture and the Servant in Isaiah to substantiate my case. Compare:

"A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse... The spirit of the Lord will rest on him..." (Isaiah 11:1-2)

"He grew up before him like a tender shoot..." (Isaiah 53:2)


Peep, I really do respect you, but I urge to stop appealing to this "foundation" which is not holding together very well, and look at the Isaiah 53 passage with new eyes. It relates God's scheme of salvation for you.


God bless, Joe.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Isaiah 52 is not separate from Isaiah 53; it&#8217;s the building stage&#8230;and all it talks about is the nation of Israel. Isaiah 53:1 in context with Isaiah 52:15 clearly shows that it&#8217;s the nations that are talking.
Not once does Isaiah 52 or 53 mention the Messiah; throughout the Jewish Scriptures the Messiah is clearly identified by a few phrases which are absent in Isaiah 52/53.

Shalom. May I respectfully ask if you view the new "heaven/land/jerusalem" in Isaiah 65 as literal or symbolic? I would think the Jews would favor Paul as he never brings up the "virgin birth" or "eternal hellfire" like the Gospels and Koran does. Just a thought. Peace.

I disagree with a lot of Christ-ians interpretation perhaps because I read the Bible as "Fulfilled" for me, and no, I am not expecting a future return of the Christ for the Jews. Thanks.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Isaiah 65:17 For, lo, I am Creating new heavens, and a new land, And the former things are not remembered, Nor do they ascend on the heart. 18 But joy ye, and rejoice for ever, that I Creator, For, lo, I am Creating Jerusalem a rejoicing, And her people a joy. 19 And I have rejoiced in Jerusalem, And have joyed in My people,

2 Corin 5:17 so that if any one [is] in Christ--[he is] a New Creation/ktisiV <2937>; the old things did pass away, lo, become new have the all things.

Romans 8:21 That also herself, the Creation/ktisiV <2937>, shall be being freed of the servitude of the corruption into the freedom of the glory of the Children/Offspring/teknwn <5043> of the God;

Reve 12:5 and she brought-forth/eteken a son/uion <5207> M, a male/arrena <730> N, who is about to be Shepherding/poimainein all the nations with a rod of iron. And caught-away was the Child/Offspring/teknon<5043> N of her toward the God and the throne of Him,

 

[JoeWill]

Isaiah 65:17 For, lo, I am Creating new heavens, and a new land, And the former things are not remembered...

2 Corin 5:17 so that if any one [is] in Christ--[he is] a New Creation/ktisiV <2937>; the old things did pass away, lo, become new have the all things.

Shalom LittleLamb,

The "former things" in the top verse are the old order of things, including sorrow and death (see Revelation 21:4).

Therefore Isaiah 65:17 is not fulfilled by the "new creation" of 2 Corinthians 5:17, because even individuals who are in Christ continue to experience sorrow and death.

As we still have sorrow and death with us, it cannot be the case that God's plans for us are already fulfilled as you say.

The "new creation" of 2 Corinthians 5:17 refers to the Christian's spiritual rebirth in line with God's intended purpose of our creation.

Romans 8:21 That also herself, the Creation/ktisiV <2937>, shall be being freed of the servitude of the corruption into the freedom of the glory of the Children/Offspring/teknwn <5043> of the God;

This is a prediction of what will be, not what has happened. The "corruption" in the above verse is decay. Again, since we live in a world where there is decay, it cannot be said that God's plans for us have reached their fulfillment.


Concerning the second coming of the Messiah, how do you understand Revelation 1:7 compared with Zechariah 12:10-14 in your ISA interlinear Bible?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Concerning the second coming of the Messiah, how do you understand Revelation 1:7 and Zechariah 12:10-14 in your ISA interlinear Bible?

Let me work on it later with the ISA as it takes time to copy then do a search on every word used.. That is why it took me almost 2 months to translate Revelation LOL.

ALthough the word "pierced" is used as thrust thru in Zech, the word used in Revelation is different than that used by the roman soldier.

Jesus said the Jewish Rulers/Priests that gave Him up were guilty of greater sin, even though the Romans actually strung Him up. Although the Jews suffered in AD70, so did the Romans.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

[ISA] Reve 1:7 Behold! He is coming with the clouds, and shall be seeing Him every eye, even who any Him they "pierce"/ex-ekenthsan <1574>. And shall be bewailing over Him all the tribes of the Land. Yea Amen. [Jeremiah 4:13/Zech 12:]

[Rotherham] Zech 12:10 I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitant of Jerusalem, the spirit of favour, and of supplications, and they will look unto me, whom they have pierced,--and will wail over him, as one waileth over an only son, and will make bitter outcry over him, as one maketh bitter outcry over a firstborn. 11 In that day, will the wailing, be great, in Jerusalem, as the wailing of Hadadrimmon, in the valley of Megiddon;

Jeremiah 4:13 Lo! like clouds, shall he come up, Even as a storm-wind, his chariots, Swifter than eagles, his horses,--Woe to us for we are laid waste!

 

[muffler dragon]

Please stop and go research Judaism.

I wish this admonition would be accepted. 'Tis a shame it hasn't been.

I hope that instead of seeing me as someone determined to misappropriate your heritage to make my point, you will see that there really is a valid argument on the table.

Peep isn't Jewish. He's an atheist who has studied the Jewish religion. He's put the time in, just as I have.

Peep, I really do respect you, but I urge to stop appealing to this "foundation" which is not holding together very well, and look at the Isaiah 53 passage with new eyes. It relates God's scheme of salvation for you.

You would do well to stop holding onto Replacement Theology and attempt to understand what Judaism teaches BEFORE you attempt to evangelize others with your misappropriated doctrines.

I only came back in to elucidate the FACT that you need to go and investigate what peep and I have been presenting. It's not a google search and response type of thing. I implore you to take the time, because you're dead wrong on how you view Judaism and the Jewish Bible.

 

[peepnklown]

Peep, I really do respect you, but I urge to stop appealing to this "foundation" which is not holding together very well, and look at the Isaiah 53 passage with new eyes.

1 – A good foundation in Hebrew, the Hebrew Scriptures, and Judaism, the historical and cultural context and subjects is required to discuss this theme, period.
I don’t understand how these important pieces of the puzzle are being missed.
2 – I have been discussing this theme way too much that I need a break; I hope you take my advice and stop and research the following foundational items.
I mean; if you do not understand the basic Jewish ideal that humans cannot be used as sacrifices then I do not know what to tell you.
I am taking a small break; thanks.

 

[peepnklown]

For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the first ones shall not be remembered, neither shall they come into mind.

I think we have to remember the historical context of Isaiah 65. Isaiah 65 [3rd Isaiah] was written in Israel shortly after the end of the exile and they show a sense of frustration or dissatisfaction with the restoration. 3rd Isaiah is trying to persuade the Judeans that the God of Israel is still commanding and still loyal to them. 3rd Isaiah looks forward to the dawn of a new era, a new Israel.

 

[peepnklown]

I wish this admonition would be accepted.

I think we understand why my admonition will not be accepted.
I think we should write a counter-missionary book together, brother.