Who do you say that I am?

As God's love toward us was manifested in His Son, may we not do less than have feelings of goodwill toward each other as we celebrate our Savior's birth? May your days be filled with wonder and expectation in the new year. Audrey

Originally posted by ale1552
As God's love toward us was manifested in His Son, may we not do less than have feelings of goodwill toward each other as we celebrate our Savior's birth? May your days be filled with wonder and expectation in the new year. Audrey

Originally posted by jaywill
God bless you. And may God have mercy upon us all.

jw

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Amen

Originally posted by jaywill
I owe my being a Christian to a miracle which took place in my heart, causing me to understand and believe the words of the Bible.

When I hear the eloquent, well reasoned, presumably logical, carefully arranged arguments of unbelievers, I stop and remember that it is a miracle that I believe the Gospel.

Pray for these skeptics.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
mmm, i think that there are some prerequisites, first of all humility, Christ demonstrated this when he brought the young child into the midst of the Apostles, unless you become like one of these you cannot enter into the kingdom of the heavens, what quality was he expressing if not humility and teachableness. secondly, there must be a consciousness ...[text shortened]... engage in many more discussions and wish everyone well, kind regards

robbie

pray for me.

Originally posted by black beetle
For what it's worth
I 'll pray for ye ye numptie
however ye have to make it throogh
on yer own
haggis and lass and bagpipes an all

Nothing Holy😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh beetle thanks, but i do not believe it is possible. for example look what happened to old Nietzsche, he ascended into the mountains, sought solitude to determine for himself what was the new morality, tried to bridge the gap between self and the divine, and what happened, it drove him to insanity. i cannot see beetle dude, in all earnestness and ...[text shortened]... ur ground rent of one dram when you visit the island - hope you like it - kind regards robbie.

Re Isaiah 53—Preliminaries

[Note: I have broken this “essay” into three posts.]

This project has not taken me as long as I thought it would for two reasons:

(1) The answer to the question of whom Isaiah 53 is referring to is so apparent, on a straightforward reading in the context of Second Isaiah (Isaiah Chapters 40 – 55) as a single author; and

(2) I decided to restrict my reading to what, in rabbinical midrashic hermeneutics is called p’shat, the “plain” reading. But—


That “plain” reading takes account of context and style of speech. The local context, as noted, is Second Isaiah; the style is prophetic speech as poetry. And p’shat should not be confused with some kind of reading (if there could be such a reading) that requires no interpretation at all.


—The [Hebrew] text is written in such a way that it implies the necessity of being interpreted, unfolded. [Marc-Alain Ouaknin, The Burnt Book: Reading the Talmud; the reference here is to Torah text.

—Proper exegesis is an effort to understand the philosopher in terms and categories of philosophy, the poet in terms and categories of poetry, and the prophet in terms and categories of prophecy. [Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Prophets]

But: Isaiah is both prophet and poet! And so both categories must be examined.

NOTE: The question I set out to answer is just “to whom does Isaiah 53 refer”? I pay no attention to the secondary question, “…if not Jesus?”. You will not find here any “why it can’t be Jesus" argumentation either.

I am not going to use the NT as a lens through which to read the Tanakh. I fully expect to be at impasse with those who do, and don’t expect to convince anybody of anything.

I do not claim my results here as the only plausible interpretation (if there could be such a thing!), or even the only one that I might find (if I could wish such a thing!).

_______________________________________________________________

A Word on Poetry

As noted above, this is poetic speech. “The prophet’s use of emotional and imaginative language, concrete in diction, rhythmical in movement, artistic in form, marks his style as poetic.” (Heschel, ibid.)


With regard to Isaiah 53, Peter R. Ackroyd, University of London, King’s College, from The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible,comments:


“The obscurities of detail, however, do not prevent appreciation of the series of pictures. Perhaps most misunderstanding of the passage has occurred through failure to appreciate the presence of metaphor. If any one of these phrases is to be taken literally, there is no good reason why they should not all be; but if all are so taken the whole becomes absurd. As so often in Hebrew poetry (cf. e.g. Ps 23) the metaphors change rapidly, without explanation, and we are given an impressionistic picture, rather than an exact description.” (My bolds)

With regard to that last sentence, one might add: “like Dylan Thomas’ ‘The Force That Through the Green Fuse…’ for that matter.”

Such use of metaphor often confounds attempts as discerning some “one right meaning”, including whatever the author might have intended. Poets do not often (even generally?) see their own metaphors as foreclosing all but a single possibility. At the same time, both traditional rabbinical midrash and post-modern literary views assert the participation of the reader in engagement with the text as crucial. Rabbinical exegesis does not seek the “one right meaning” (an impossibility with Biblical Hebrew, anyway), but all the creative possibilities for meaning.

As I say, I am restricting myself here, however, to p’shat, a poetic p’shat that relies on the metaphors in Second Isaiah—especially the “servant” metaphor, which prologues Chapter 53, and sets it up.

Continued…

…continued

Some Words On Prophets

[This section draws heavily on Heschel’s work; ibid.]

Hebrew prophets (nevi’im) are not strictly dreamers, dream interpreters, future-tellers. If they were, then Daniel would be included among the prophets in the Hebrew canon, which it is not—it is included among “the writings” (ketuvim). Nostradamus would not be considered a prophet under the Jewish understanding.

[Consider: Nowhere is Joseph, despite his dream-interpretation, called a prophet; Abraham is. (So is Miriam.) What clues can you find there as to the distinction?]

—The prominent theme is exhortation, not mere prediction. While it is true that foretelling is in an important ingredient and may serve as a sign of the prophet’s authority (Deut. 18:22; Isa. 41:22, 43:9), his essential task is to declare the word of God to the here and now; to disclose the future in order to illumine what is involved [what is at stake] in the present. (Heschel, ibid. Italics, bold and bracketed words are mine.)

Nor must whatever predictions a prophet might make necessarily “come true” for the prophetic voice to be validated. There seems often to be a kind of “If this, then that; but if that, then this” rhythm:

—The prophet’s predictions can always be proved wrong by a change in man’s conduct, but never the certainty that God is full of compassion. (Heschel, ibid.)

—The only medium of the prophet was the word or the symbolic act to illustrate its content. Even predictions of things to come did not always serve to verify the prophet’s word. (ibid.)

—The contradictions in the prophetic message seem perplexing. The book of Amos, out of which come the words, “The end has come upon My people Israel” (8:2) and “Fallen no more to rise is the virgin Israel” (5:2), concludes with the prediction: “I will restore the fortunes of My people Israel […; Amos 9:14-15]”. … Does the apparent contradiction within the assertions of a prophet destroy the validity of his message? It would if prophecy dealt only with laws or principles. But the prophet deals with relations between God and man, where contradiction is inevitable. … The prophetic utterance has, therefore, no finality. (ibid.)

—Therefore, the prophetic speeches are not factual pronouncements. (ibid.)

What then is a prophet? What then is prophecy?

—Prophecy is not simply the application of timeless standards to particular human situations, but rather an interpretation of a particular moment in history, a divine understanding of a human situation. Prophecy, then, may be described as exegesis of existence from a divine perspective. Understanding prophecy is an understanding of an understanding rather than an understanding of knowledge; it is exegesis of exegesis. (ibid; my bold, italics in original)

—The main vocation of a prophet is “to declare to Jacob his transgression and to Israel his sin” (Micah 3:8), to let the people know “that it is evil and bitter…to forsake…God” (Jer. 2:19), and to call upon them to return. (ibid.)

—Indeed, the attitude he takes to the tension that obtains between God and the people is characterized by a dichotomy. In the presence of God he takes the part of the people. In the presence of the people he takes the part of God. (ibid.)

But—

—The prophet is a person, not a microphone. (ibid.)

—By insisting on the absolutely objective and supernatural nature of prophecy, dogmatic theology has disregarded the prophet’s part in the prophetic act. Stressing revelation, it has ignored the response; isolating inspiration, it has lost sight of the human situation. (ibid.)

Prophets then, speak the word of God (i.e., exegete God’s intention in terms of current issues), speaking of potential consequences and outcomes—albeit in highly metaphorical, poetic language, that perhaps hints at deeper, broader issues and movements in the divine-human relationship. Always the here and now; not necessarily only the here and now. But always with the expansive possibilities contained in metaphor. (For example, Second Isaiah is cast in the context of the Babylonian exile; but that does not mean the metaphors—just like the exodus from mitzraim [Egypt; literally “narrow places” ]—cannot be extended to spiritual exile, spiritual captivity and exodus.

Continued…

…continued

[Note: Despite my heavy drawing on Heschel above, I have not drawn on his reading of Second Isaiah at all here.]

For Second Isaiah, “the servant” is Israel—

>>> Isaiah 41:8 But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend; 9 you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, "You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off ";


>>> Isaiah 44:1 But now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen!


>>> Isaiah 44:21 Remember these things, O Jacob, and Israel, for you are my servant; I formed you, you are my servant; O Israel, you will not be forgotten by me.


>>> Isaiah 49:3 And he said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified."


[Note: Use of the personal singular as metaphor for the community of Israel is also exampled in Exodus 4:22 and Hosea 11:1.]


There is no a priori reason to think that Isaiah 53 (which really begins at 52:13) is speaking about anyone other than Israel. Further, there is no need—or even reason—to assume that the singular language means that it must be an individual that Isaiah is talking about. The same is true of Isaiah 42 (where at one point, Israel is described as a blind and deaf servant—but one who will be redeemed) and 43:

>>> Isaiah 43:1 But now thus says YHVH, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine… 10 You are my witnesses, says YHVH, and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. 11 I, I am YHVH, and besides me there is no savior. (My bold)


>>> Isaiah 44:22 I have swept away your transgressions like a cloud, and your sins like mist; return to me, for I have redeemed you.


>>> Isaiah 44:23 Sing, O heavens, for YHVH has done it; shout, O depths of the earth; break forth into singing, O mountains, O forest, and every tree in it! For YHVH has redeemed Jacob, and will be glorified in Israel.


>>> Isaiah 48:20 Go out from Babylon, flee from Chaldea, declare this with a shout of joy, proclaim it, send it forth to the end of the earth; say, "YHVH has redeemed his servant Jacob!"



In all of these chapters, Isaiah is consistent: the servant is Jacob/Israel. And the only true redeemer/savior is YHVH.


The salvation is specifically from the Babylonian exile, for which purpose YHVH has chosen King Cyrus as his messiah (Hebrew: moshiach) and “shepherd”, “For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen…” (45:4). But, again, I see no reason why it cannot also be read in terms of spiritual exile:

>>> Isaiah 45:17 But Israel is saved by YHVH with everlasting salvation; you shall not be put to shame or confounded to all eternity.


__________________________________________________


Note: Specific commentary by J.J.M. Roberts, Princeton Theological Seminary, in The Harper Collins Study Bible:

On verses 53:1-6—“The nations speak, expressing their astonishment at the deliverance of Israel, which forces them to revise their assessments of Israel.”


And on 53:8—“1Cut off from the land of the living. Many Israelites saw the Babylonian exile as the death and burial of their nation. (Ezek 37:11-14)”


That “the land of the living” refers here to eretz Yisrael is also the reading in the Stone Edition Tanach, Mesorah Publications, Ltd.


_______________________________________



In sum, Isaiah 53, like other servant passages in Second Isaiah, refers to Israel.


The language is poetic/prophetic—in the context of the Babylonian exile. And Isaiah’s explicit use of the servant metaphor for Israel makes this the most straightforward possible reading.

______________________________________________


NOTE: All Biblical quotations from NRS version, except that “the LORD” has been reverted to “YHVH”.

Well done, vistesd, thank you for the information.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]…continued

[Note: Despite my heavy drawing on Heschel above, I have not drawn on his reading of Second Isaiah at all here.]

For Second Isaiah, “the servant” is Israel—

>>> Isaiah 41:8 But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend; 9 you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called f Biblical quotations from NRS version, except that “the LORD” has been reverted to “YHVH”.[/b]

Originally posted by jaywill
vistesd writes:

[b]=========================================
There is no a priori reason to think that Isaiah 53 (which really begins at 52:13) is speaking about anyone other than Israel. Further, there is no need—or even reason—to assume that the singular language means that it must be an individual that Isaiah is talking about. The same is true of Isai ...[text shortened]... hich is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." (Matt. 26:28)[/b]

Originally posted by jaywill
visted,

So basically, you come down on the side of those who thought Jesus should be crucified. Am I right?

I mean as He stood before Caiphas, basically, you (based on your research) are in agreement with the high priest and the scholars recomending that He has blasphemed and is worthy of death.

Is there a nickel's worth of difference between their rejection of Jesus as Son of God and your own?