Originally posted by jaywillI don't know why vestesd did not say that Cyrus was the servant in Isaiah 53.
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 ich is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." (Matt. 26:28)[/b]
Maybe I missed a verse: I did not see Cyrus referred to as “servant”, and I thought the “my servant Israel” motif was stylistically strong. One could certainly call Cyrus a servant, but he did not seem to me to be identified with that (poetic) motif.
One reason why Israel is not the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53 is because it says:
"He has no attracting form nor majesty that we should look upon Him, nor beautiful appearance that we should desire Him." (53:2)
But Israel as a land called "that which is beautiful " (Daniel 8:9), "the beautiful land" (Dan.11:16,41) and "the beautiful holy mountain" (Dan. 11:45)
I think you are confusing the land of Israel with the people Israel here. [Of course, you could perhaps hoist me by me own "it's poetry" petard here. Then again, I'd need some evidence that Daniel's poetry fits with Second Isaiah's poetry. If I were doing a deeper midrash, I might go there; but, as i said, I'm for now limiting myself to a p'shat reading. Maybe down the line...]
Furthermore it would make no sense for the prophet to say that God has laid on Israel the iniquity of Israel in a redemptive sense.
This, and the question of “the stroke falling on the undeserving one” are by far your strongest arguments, and you flesh it out well.
One question is whether the so-called “suffering servant” passages (nowhere does Isaiah use that phrase) can be properly isolated from the rest of Second Isaiah. If it can be, then your argument is strengthened; if it cannot be then it has to be read in the context of the clearly set-out “Israel as servant” motif—even if that raises textual difficulties.
But it is I, not you, who must now address the kind of textual difficulties that you have raised. Because I want to do a broad tracing of the chosen servant motif, I will break it again into several posts. This is partly to help me work through the lines (and to make sure I do my due diligence), and you can skip to the post that begins with Chapter 49 if you like—
Continued…
…Continued.
I begin with Chapter 41:
>>> 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 "; 10 do not fear, for I am with you, do not be afraid, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my victorious right hand. 11 Yes, all who are incensed against you shall be ashamed and disgraced; those who strive against you shall be as nothing and shall perish. 12 You shall seek those who contend with you, but you shall not find them; those who war against you shall be as nothing at all. 13 For I, YHVH your God, hold your right hand; it is I who say to you, "Do not fear, I will help you." 14 Do not fear, you worm Jacob, you insect Israel! I will help you, says YHVH; your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel.
Here, Israel is clearly identified as the servant whom God will redeem (“and all who are incensed against you shall be ashamed and disgraced” ); yet also calls Israel “insect” and “worm”.
Then follows a hymn to God’s power, the futility of idolatry and the calling of Cyrus “from the north”.
Chapter 42, again, I think clearly refers to Israel: “Here is my servant whom I uphold, my chosen in whom my soul delights; I have put my spirit upon him: he will bring forth justice to the nations” (42:1); and, “I am YHVH, I have called you in righteousness, I have taken you by the hand and kept you; I have given you as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations, to open the eyes that are blind, to open the eyes that re blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness.” (42:6-7)
[An alternative reading might identify this servant, in a poetic voice-shift, as Isaiah himself, however, bringing the message of redemption to the exiled Israelites. But—]
But, then, in 42: 18-23, the very servant that God is speaking about is said to be deaf and blind! Is this Jesus?! [Is this Isaiah?!] Clearly, this must be Israel—
>>> Isaiah 42: 22 But this is a people robbed and plundered, all of them are trapped in holes and hidden in prisons; they have become a prey with no one to rescue, a spoil with no one to say, "Restore!"
And who gave up this blind and deaf servant (who is also “a covenant to the people, a light to the nations” )?
>>> Isaiah 42:24 Who gave up Jacob to the spoiler, and Israel to the robbers? Was it not YHVH, against whom we have sinned, in whose ways they would not walk, and whose law they would not obey? 25 So he poured upon him the heat of his anger and the fury of war; it set him on fire all around, but he did not understand; it burned him, but he did not take it to heart. 43:1 But now thus says the 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.
Thus begins Chapter 43, with assurances of redemption for the “deaf and blind servant”.
>>> Isaiah 43:14 Thus says YHVH, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: For your sake I will send to Babylon and break down all the bars, and the shouting of the Chaldeans will be turned to lamentation.
Verses 43:22-28 make clear that Israel has suffered for her own offenses. But—
>>> Isaiah 44:1 But now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen! 2 Thus says YHVH who made you, who formed you in the womb and will help you: Do not fear, O Jacob my servant, Jeshurun whom I have chosen. 3 For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my spirit upon your descendants, and my blessing on your offspring. 4 They shall spring up like a green tamarisk, like willows by flowing streams.
Immediately following 43:28, Israel is still identified as the chosen servant! The running motif still holds. And it still holds in 44:21.
Chapter 45 is generally addressed to Cyrus.
Chapter 46 concerns idolatry, but: “46:3 Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all the remnant of the house of Israel, who have been borne by me from your birth, carried from the womb; 4 even to your old age I am he, even when you turn gray I will carry you. I have made, and I will bear; I will carry and will save.”
Chapter 47 deals with the humiliation of “virgin daughter Babylon”.
Chapter 48 laments Israel’s waywardness, but: “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!’ 21 They did not thirst when he led them through the deserts; he made water flow for them from the rock; he split open the rock and the water gushed out. 22 ‘There is no peace,’ says YHVH, ‘for the wicked.’”
—The context makes clear that “the wicked” here is Babylon.
Continued…
…continued
Chapter 49, I think, raises the first real dilemma about how Israel can simultaneously be both the chosen servant and the one to be saved. But verse 3 specifically states that Israel is the servant:
>>> Isaiah 49:3 And he said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified."
In the purely poetic dialogue that follows, Israel protests (verse 4), but God answers:
>>> Isaiah 49:5 And now YHVH says, who formed me in the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him, and that Israel might be gathered to him, for I am honored in the sight of YHVH, and my God has become my strength--
There it is! Problematic or not, the opening verses of Chapter 49 unequivocally identify Israel as the servant who will bring Jacob/Israel back to God! God says:
>>> Isaiah 49:6 "It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth."
Now, you said: “If Israel suffers for her own iniquities she cannot be an offering for sin in a substitionary way for herself. In that case she is just being judged for her sins. In that case she is not interceding for others but for her own self.”
But— That is precisely the kind of thing we are seeing. The Israel as servant motif is not once broken. Israel is servant (though at times blind and deaf); Israel suffers exile/captivity because of her own waywardness; Israel is called to bring Jacob/Israel back to God; and in the process, Israel is to be a light for salvation for the nations.
[That word “substitutionary” may or may not be problematic; it does not seem to have any place in the theme thus far. I will give a closer reading of Chapter 53 itself when done here.]
Ackroyd, in the Interpreters One-Volume Commentary (cited in my first series of posts) comments about these verses of Chapter 49:
“The passage does, however, abound with difficulties—not least because the servant, here so clearly identified as Israel, appears also to have a mission to Israel. Various suggestions have been made for reordering the material, esp. in vs. 5, but we may doubt whether any can carry conviction; there is so great a danger of proving a case by suiting the evidence to it. The answer to the dilemma must be sought in the recognition of the sense of Israel as a corporate entity which can nevertheless by symbolized by the servant concept. Israel is both the called people of God and herself called to be the agent of creating the people of God.”
Well, that’s not so much an answer to the dilemma as it is a simple restating of the dilemma that is unequivocally claimed in the Chapter 49 passages.
Now, it is clear that Israel is not her own redeemer; for Second Isaiah only God is redeemer. But Israel the chosen servant is called to serve in that process of redemption, for herself and for the nations, as Cyrus is chosen as messiah/shepherd to release Israel from bondage in Babylon. Whether one thinks that makes any sense or not, even given poetic license, it is undeniably what the poet/prophet has said.
_________________________________________________________
I do not think that the next intervening chapters break the theme, so the next step must be a closer reading of Chapter 53 itself. My assumption from the very beginning has been that Chapter 53 should be contextualized by the rest of Second Isaiah. We shall see if that assumption has merit, or whether 53 represents such a break in the theme that it needs to be isolated from the rest.
We have seen that servant Israel, though deaf, blind and wayward—and suffering for that waywardness—is nevertheless (mysteriously perhaps) called to “raise up and restore” Israel. We need to see if Chapter 53 represents a continuation of that theme, or something else altogether.
I will give at least as much time and effort to that next step, as I have to this project thus far.
======================================
One question is whether the so-called “suffering servant” passages (nowhere does Isaiah use that phrase) can be properly isolated from the rest of Second Isaiah. If it can be, then your argument is strengthened; if it cannot be then it has to be read in the context of the clearly set-out “Israel as servant” motif—even if that raises textual difficulties.
=======================================
What response I have time for today I preceed with this comment
I do not consider that teaching concerning believing Christ a sport or game. I realize that something I write may effect some person's salvation.
If some impressionable mind is caused to disbelieve in Christ and thus perish because I taught them to disbelieve the Bible, their blood could be my head.
This may be a Chess Forum, but I don't consider debate over believing or not in Christ to be a chess game. It is serious business to me and not sport.
The strongest argument for Isaiah 53 refering to Jesus Christ is the New Testament's proclamation that it is. I may make a mistake. The New Testament canon however is authoritative on the subject.
We Christians do not consider that the New Testament just an error prone human commentary on the Hebrew Bible. We believe that the New Testament is the oracles of God like the entire Old Testament is the word of God.
To us the New Testament is the authoritative word of God.
If the New Testamen says that an Old Testament passage refers in a prophetic way to Christ, there is no more authoritative statement than that. That is the end of the matter - period, for the Christian.
Now the Apostle Peter's testifies to the prophetic Christ reference in Isaiah 53:
"For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered on your behalf, leaving you a model so that you may follow in His steps,
Who commited no sin, nor was guile found in His mouth.
Who [Christ] Himself bore up our sins in His body on the tree, in order that we, having died to sins, might live to reighteousness; by whose bruise you were healed.
For you were like sheep being led astray, but you have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls." (1 Peter 2:21-25)
Peter is teaching concerning Jesus from Isaiah 53 here, specifically Isa. 53:5 with strong allusions to verse 4 also. That is the end of the matter. There is no more argument. Isaiah prophesied of the redemption of Jesus Christ.
The Apostle Paul refers to Isaiah 53:1 to explain the New Testament Gospel in Romans 10:16 That is authoritative for the orthodox Christian. Isaiah talked about the new covenant.
Mark and Luke tie Isaiah 53:3 to Christ:
"He was despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows and acquiantied with grief; And like one from whom men hide their faces and we did not esteem Him.(v.3)
Compare - Mark 9:12)
The disciples told Jesus that the scribes understood that "the Son of Man should suffer many things and be counted as nothing" (Mark 9:12) So not only does the New Testament seal that the Isaiah 53 speaks of Christ but some of the scholars believed it spoke of the Son of Man suffering and being rejected.
Matthew writes in Matthew 8:17 - "So that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, He Himself took away our infirmities and bore our diseases" a reference to Isa.53:4.
That is authoritative. That is the word of God in the New Testament. There is no argument to us then that Isaiah spoke of Jesus.
Paul refers to Isa. 53:5 in Rom. 4:25.
Matt. 27:26, Mark 15:15; 1 Cor. 15:3, 1 John 3:5 allude to the passage for sure.
The Apostle John quotes Isaiah 53:1 in his Gospel about Christ:
"That the word of the prophet ISAIAH which he said might be fulfilled, 'Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?' " (John 12:38)
That is the divinely authoritative to the Christians. Isaiah was speaking about Christ - period. We say "Amen".
The Apostle Paul also refers to the passage:
"But not all have obeyed the gospel, for ISAIAH says, 'Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us.' "(Romans 10:16)
Philip the evangelist also refered to Isaiah 53 speaking these words to the Ethiopian eunuch. The eunuch was reading from that chapter at the time he asked Philip for an interpretation:
"Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this: 'As a sheep He was led to slaughter; and a lamb before its shearers is dumb, so He does not open His mouth.
In His humiliation His judgment was taken away. Who shall declare His generation? For His life is taken away from the earth.'
And the eunuch answered Philip and said, I beseech you, Concerning whom does the prophet say this? Concerning himself or concerning someone else?
And Philip opened his mouth, and BEGINNING FROM THIS SCRIPTURE he announced Jesus as the gospel to him. ... And Philip said, If you believe from all your heart, you will be saved. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." (See Acts 8:32-37, my emphasis)
From that point in the passage Philip preached and taught of the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Other indications confirm that the New Testament regarded the prophecy to point ultimately to Jesus Christ. That is authoritative enough for the believer in Christ. There is left no argument.
That is all I have time for right now.
Jesus is Lord.
Originally posted by jaywill[/b]Well, in a sense, that declares impasse. We simply disagree about the authority of the NT. I will nevertheless pursue my study of Second Isaiah, for my own benefit anyway. None of this is simply a “game” for me either.
[b]======================================
One question is whether the so-called “suffering servant” passages (nowhere does Isaiah use that phrase) can be properly isolated from the rest of Second Isaiah. If it can be, then your argument is strengthened; if it cannot be then it has to be read in the context of the clearly set-out “Israel as servant” motif—ev rgument.
That is all I have time for right now.
Jesus is Lord.
I want to make a few side observations:
The first one is simply to suggest that you read my “thought experiment” in my last post on page 11 of this thread.
Second, you can either use the NT to confirm the meaning of the prophecies from the HS; or you can use the prophecies of the HS to confirm NT claims about Jesus as the Christ. How anyone could think they can have it both ways is beyond me. How can such circular illogic serve any evangelical purpose? Why evangelical Christians would insist on such is also beyond me.
As regards the texts in question here: either the Second Isaiah texts confirm (foretell—I will not use the word prophecy for simple “future-telling” ) NT claims about Jesus as the messiah, or the NT texts confirm that Second Isaiah is such a foretelling. To claim both is just illogical and silly. And no amount of spiritual inspiration can overcome that. Given your concerns about possible readers’ salvation, I would think that you would eschew such stuff. You can have it either way, you just can’t have it both ways.
Third—and this is not directed specifically to you, but just to get it off my chest—my spiritual life and religious philosophy are not centered on “rejecting Jesus”. The fact that accepting Jesus as the messiah is central to your spirituality does not mean that “rejecting” Jesus as the messiah—or considering Jesus much at all—is central to anyone else’s spirituality. It would be a bit like claiming that, for someone who doesn’t eat okra , their entire diet and daily eating choices are centered around avoiding okra—when, in fact, they may seldom even think about okra at all.
Fourth, because I value my own integrity in such matters, I still have to look at the question of whether or not Isaiah 53 is best read in the context of Second Isaiah as a whole, or not.
I think I have clearly shown that Second Isaiah, up to this point, consistently identifies Israel as the chosen servant who—although having been blind and deaf, and having suffered for her waywardness—is nevertheless seen by Second Isaiah as having an active role to play in both her own redemption and restoration (as effected by YHVH, the only redeemer), as well as—in the process—being a light to the nations. That is just what the prophet/poet has said thus far.
Fifth, I clearly do not give the NT the authority that you do. I allow that the NT writers can be wrong about things (which is not to say that they are wrong about everything: e.g., I am not one of those who claim that Yeshua ben Yoseph never existed, and is a fabrication). I do not take either the HS nor the NT as texts whose meanings are “graven in (metaphorical) stone”—let alone a particular reader’s understanding of those meanings.
The following is a poetic layout of the “Servant Song” of Second-Isaiah. Once again, I have principally used the NRS translation (since that is the easiest one for me to work from on here), except for reverting “the LORD” to the original YHVH; and some use of the JPS translation, as noted.
One of the features that marks Hebrew poetry—parallelism becomes readily apparent; sometimes the parallelism between lines is echoing, sometimes it is expansive or intensifying. There is also explicit simile, and—I will argue—imagery, metaphor, and metaphorical hyperbole.
I have generally followed the line-layout of the JPS translation. The quotation marks are from JPS, indicating different possible voices (speakers)—52:13-15; 53:1-6; 53:7-11a (without quotes); and 53:11b-12.
52:13 “See, my servant shall prosper;
he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.
14 Just as there were many who were astonished at him—
so marred was his appearance, beyond human semblance,
and his form beyond that of mortals—
15 so he shall startle many nations;
kings shall shut their mouths because of him;
for that which had not been told them they shall see,
and that which they had not heard they shall contemplate.”
53:1 “Who has believed what we have heard?
And to whom has the arm of YHVH been revealed?
2 For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by others;
a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity [JPS: disease];
and as one from whom others hide their faces [JPS: as one who hid his face from us]
he was despised, and we held him of no account.
4 Surely he has borne our infirmities [JPS: sickness]
and carried our diseases; [JPS: suffering]
yet we accounted him stricken, [JPS: plagued]
struck down by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions,
crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the punishment that made us whole, [JPS: chastisement]
and by his bruises we are healed.
6 We all went away like sheep; [JPS]*
each going his own way, [JPS]
and YHVH visited upon him [JPS]
the guilt of us all.” [JPS]
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By a perversion of justice he was taken away.
Who could have imagined his future? **
For he was cut off from the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people.
9 They made his grave with the wicked
and his tomb with the rich,
though he had done no injustice, [JPS]
and had spoken no falsehood. [JPS]
10 But YHVH chose to crush him by disease [JPS; NRS: “with pain”]
that, if he made himself an offering for guilt, *** [JPS]
he might see his offspring, and have long life; [JPS; NRS: “shall”]
that through him YHVH’s might prosper. [JPS; NRS: “shall]
11 Out of his anguish he shall see light;
he shall find satisfaction through his knowledge.
“The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous,****
and he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;
because he poured out himself to death,
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.”
_______________________________________
* NRS has imperfect tense here; but the Hebrew appears to be perfect tense (completed action); either translation may be possible. NJB has “We had all gone astray…”
** JPS: “Who could describe his abode”; Hebrew uncertain.
*** Note to JPS translation: Hebrew uncertain.
**** JPS has present tense here; the Hebrew appears to be imperfect (uncompleted action).
Now, there are several a priori possibilities for who the servant in Isaiah 53 is supposed to be—
(1) Israel (my choice, and I think that the voice-structure of the JPS rendering may support that);
(2) The prophet himself (I find this unlikely, but I’ll keep it in mind as I go);
(3) Some unknown contemporary of the prophet, who remains unidentified (which is really a dead-end);
(4) An ideal or archetype (a messianic archetype); or
(5) Another historical person of the past, present or future.
Christians, based on NT texts, choose (5) and believe that that person is Jesus as messiah.
Some Jews choose (5), but believe that the messiah is yet to come. Some Jews also choose (4).
I have found one speculation that it might have been a reference to the prophet Jeremiah, who lived shortly before Second-Isaiah, and warned against behavior that would (and did) lead to defeat at the hands of Babylon, and the Babylonian exile that began in 586 BCE. (I have not yet had a chance to look into this one further.)
I want to dig a bit deeper before I make my final argument, but thought that I’d go ahead and lay this stuff out.
Originally posted by vistesdNonsense!
Now, there are several a priori possibilities for who the servant in Isaiah 53 is supposed to be—
(1) Israel (my choice, and I think that the voice-structure of the JPS rendering may support that);
(2) The prophet himself (I find this unlikely, but I’ll keep it in mind as I go);
(3) Some unknown contemporary of the prophet, who remains un ...[text shortened]... it deeper before I make my final argument, but thought that I’d go ahead and lay this stuff out.
Don't fool yourself. Don't make it more complicated than it is. You're spinning your wheels out on a tangent that has no basis in rational thought. You KNOW Isaiah 53 is a clear and concise reference to the messiah.
Originally posted by josephwHad you read my whole series of posts, you would know already that that isn’t true. It really started on page 11 with the claim that Isaiah is clear and unequivocal, and I was quite politely invited to take up the challenge; but you could just read this page and the preceding one.
Nonsense!
Don't fool yourself. Don't make it more complicated than it is. You're spinning your wheels out on a tangent that has no basis in rational thought. You KNOW Isaiah 53 is a clear and concise reference to the messiah.
Assuming what “must be “because one has always thought/been told that is what “must be” makes one blind and hostile toward alternate possibilities, and sometimes toward the ones who may hold them.
Jaywill’s (I take it, final) response above has the merit of taking a stand on a straightforward hermeneutical principle: the primacy of the NT for reading/interpreting the HS. The only response I can make to that is: (a) I disagree, but (b) as long as one doesn’t try to have it both ways….
I am taking Second Isaiah as a text within the Hebrew corpus, without reading it through the NT lens.
You should also be aware that are any number of different people called messiah (Hebrew: moshiach) in the HS. Second Isaiah specifically calls Cyrus messiah. There is no singular Jewish concept of messiah.
I intend to continue this study project. You are free to disagree, but it is not nonsense. And I’m not going to allow myself to get sidetracked but strident (if well-meaning) objections along the way…
Cyrus is also a type of Christ in the book of Isaiah.
In chapters 43 - 45 Christ as the Servant of Jehovah is typified by Cyrus the king of Persia. Does this mean that Cyrus is like Christ in all regards? Of course not.
Jonah was a type of Christ in the circumstance of being three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish as Christ was three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (See Matt. 12:40).
Cyrus was a type of Christ in these regards:
As Jehovah's shepherd to fulfill all the desire of Jehovah. Cyrus served God by defeating Babylon, God's enemy (Isaiah 48:14). Babylon had captured God's people and destroyed the temple (2 Kings 24 - 25). He typifies Christ as the Servant of God who destroys that which captures God's people and holds them away from the promise destination of God for them.
By declaring the release of Israel from captivity, and by issuing a decree allowing the Jews to rebuild their temple in Jerusaelm (Isaiah 45:13; Ezra 1:2,3) Cyrus typified Christ as the one who releases those willing to give themselves for the building up of the living temple of God and the Body of Christ. (See also Revelation chapters 17-22, the defeat of religious and material Babylon by Christ for the building up of New Jerusalem).
In these three things Cyrus is a type signifying Christ's defeating of Satan (Hebrew 2:14), releasing His believers from Satan's captivity (Luke 4:118b; Eph. 4:8), and building up the church as God's temple (Matt.16:18; Eph. 2:21).
In these regards God used Cyrus King of Persia to symbolize the Son of God as the Servant of Jehovah.
Originally posted by vistesdOuch!
Had you read my whole series of posts, you would know already that that isn’t true. It really started on page 11 with the claim that Isaiah is clear and unequivocal, and I was quite politely invited to take up the challenge; but you could just read this page and the preceding one.
Assuming what “must be “because one has always thought/been told that i ...[text shortened]... oing to allow myself to get sidetracked but strident (if well-meaning) objections along the way…
Now I'm laughing at myself for being so strident. I apologize.
"And josephw said with a loud voice, vistesd, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad."
The central theme and character of the entire Bible is about the messiah, the Christ. After all the wrangling about words is done, the only reasonable conclusion about who Isaiah 53 is talking about has to be Christ. A child can see that!
But I'll go back and read your posts carefully and see if I can find any holes in it. I should get credit for this you know. 😉
Originally posted by josephw"And josephw said with a loud voice, vistesd, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad."
Ouch!
Now I'm laughing at myself for being so strident. I apologize.
"And josephw said with a loud voice, vistesd, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad."
The central theme and character of the entire Bible is about the messiah, the Christ. After all the wrangling about words is done, the only reasonable conclusion about who ...[text shortened]... s carefully and see if I can find any holes in it. I should get credit for this you know. 😉
That’s better! 😉 I’m glad you can laugh; no apologies necessary.
Jaywill and I, I think have no more debate here because he—quite validly—takes the NT (and Jesus as the Christ) as the “hermeneutical standard” via which to read the HS texts; and he will no doubt do so cogently and consistently (as he already is).
I still have to consider some of his prior critiques of my hypothesis, though, since they too were cogent.
But, I am not going to get into any “asides”—strident or not 😉—until I have completed my own analysis of 52-53.
Having walked through previous chapters, laid out Isaiah 53 in its poetic form, and identified the a priori possibilities, now Isaiah 53 itself must be closely considered—
I. The first thing to note is that the “Servant Song” begins at verse 52:13 with the opening phrase: “See, my servant shall prosper.”
Now this is either the servant that Second Isaiah has consistently referred to throughout—i.e., Israel—or it is suddenly somebody else altogether. If somebody else, who? And why is this new servant not named? If it refers to former fellow-prophet Jeremiah (as apparently some have suggested), then why not name him. If it refers to the coming Jesus of Nazareth, then why not name him? If it refers to somebody else we don’t know, why not name him?
I think the most straightforward course is to conclude that the prophet-poet here is speaking of the same servant he has been speaking of all along: Israel. Verses 52:13-15 represent God speaking of his servant Israel, who has been so beaten down that no one expects to see him recover.
Any of the other “a priori” possibilities that I listed require the assumption that these verse mark the beginning of s break in the pronounced servant-Israel motif that runs through Second Isaiah up to this point (most radically, perhaps, in chapter 49)—a break that Second Isaiah himself seems to leave unexplained. Perhaps his immediate readers would have recognized it as such without explanation., and had an idea who he was talking about (e.g., Jeremiah). But I see no warrant for such an assumption.
[Jaywill, in his analysis that now seems to running parallel to mine, finds the explanation for such a break in the NT texts he has cited.]
Note: We have noted before how the prophet-poet uses personalistic metaphors to describe the people Israel, so that should now be noncontroversial.
II. Verses 53:1-6 represent a shift in voice: it is no longer God who is speaking, but a plural “we”. Following several commentaries, I think this is likely the voice of “the nations”—not just the Babylonians. [“We all went away like sheep / each going his own way.” (v. 6)]
Therefore, it is not just about the Babylonian exile, but the sufferings of Israel generally. On the other hand, it could be a kind of lament by other peoples that they had ignored the treatment of Israel at the hands of the Babylonians. Either way, it is a kind of poetic “chorus” speaking.
Verses 4-6: The JPS The Jewish Study Bible comments: “Either the servant suffered on behalf of the speakers (i.e., the guilty were not punished at all), or he suffered along with the guilty, even though he did not share in the guilt of his fellow Israelites. The former idea (i.e., the notion of vicarious suffering) would be unusual for the [Hebrew] Bible; the latter idea (the idea of corporate guilt) is not.”
Well, unusual perhaps; absent, I think not. One thinks of the sacrifices of animals “without blemish” in Leviticus: “sin offerings”. In this reading, the “chorus” could be other Judeans speaking of the innocent among them, who also suffers.
My objection to this commentary is that it seems to assume the kind of “break” mentioned above. I see it as following from foregoing verses (especially in chapter 49) that suggest that Israel suffers for her own waywardness—but also on account of the transgressions of others (e.g., Babylon, the nations). That seems to me to be far more consistent.
However, whether the “chorus” represents Judeans/Israelites or someone else, the notion that the Babylonian exile may have laid suffering upon the innocent among Judah/Israel as well as the guilty—and that this passage may be, at least in part, a lament for that fact—is not at all impossible within the motif laid out by Second Isaiah up to this point. I have a further comment on this in III below…
_________________________________________
A move into remez
If one moves from the plain-level (p’shat) to the level of “hints and allusions” (remez), this “chorus” could be the chorus-voice of conscience that confronts us when we turn away from the sufferings and tragedies of others, “each going our own way”. Even if they may be suffering, directly or indirectly, on our behalf, or on our account. Is there anyone who suffers so that I can enjoy the quality of life that I have? Bearing infirmities and diseases so that I can live in health and comfort? From whom I hide my face, and of whom I take no account, whom I despise and treat as if they had the plague. Whose plight I blame on God—or luck or providence—so that I am absolved?
Once again, this is poetic speech and can, as such, be read on a number of levels. This is only suggestive, and in no way pretends to be exhaustive.
To be continued…
Originally posted by vistesdDo also realize that a "prophesy" may refer to more than one event/person. I think the Bible is full of such examples.
Having walked through previous chapters, laid out Isaiah 53 in its poetic form, and identified the a priori possibilities, now Isaiah 53 itself must be closely considered—
[b]I. The first thing to note is that the “Servant Song” begins at verse 52:13 with the opening phrase: “See, my servant shall prosper.”
Now this is either the servant that Sec ...[text shortened]... s. This is only suggestive, and in no way pretends to be exhaustive.
To be continued…[/b]
Having said that, the parellels between the life of Christ and Biblical prophesy are unmistakable. For example, I can provide web sites, as I'm sure you know, that can give hundreds of prophesies in the OT that pertain to the life of Christ such as being a root from the tribe of Judah, having his side peirced, riding on a donkey, etc etc. Now the conclusions I would think are that Christ had actiually come to fulfill these prophesies or the gospels were manipulated in such a way for him to have fulfilled these prophesies. These are the ONLY two possiblities. There is little room for mere coincidence.
I know I have shared with you Daniel 9:24-27. I ran across it when attempting to look up the word Messiah in my concordance. In fact, it was the ONLY place that the word Messiah was used in the OT according to my concordance. In addition, I think it obvious that it is a calendar for the coming of a Messiah. Of course, we can haggle as to whether the calendar is a precise interpretation of when Christ came but by in large I think it obvious it points to the general time of Christ. If I am not mistaken, you claimed that perhaps Daniel was altered in some way after the time of Christ in order to reflect this prophesy. Am I remembering correctly?
…continued
III. Verses 7-11a seem to be the prophet-poet himself (or herself) speaking again. Hence the absence of quotation marks as a hermeneutical decision in the JPS translation.
In part, Second Isaiah here seems to be affirming the sentiments of the “chorus” in 53:1-6; and my comments to those versus apply here as well. But this may represent—along the lines of the innocent among Judah/Israel suffering along with the guilty—an example of what I cited before, quoting Heschel (page 15 of this thread):
“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.” (Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Prophets)
But—
“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.)
In other words, Judah/Israel may be guilty—but they are not all guilty (remember Jeremiah!). As a corporate body, Israel is the servant of YHVH, but—corporately—a flawed servant (42:18-23).
On the other hand, these verses seem the strongest support for those who think that the “suffering servant” may refer to Jeremiah—who witnessed the conquest of Judah, and exiled himself to Egypt rather than accept exile in Babylon. It certainly seems unlikely that Second Isaiah did not know of Jeremiah, and his sufferings as a prophet whose people did not heed his words. Especially verses 10b and 11 would seem to fit this possibility.
The answer to my objection in I. above: “Why not name him?”, could be that most of Second Isaiah’s immediate audience could pretty much figure out that he meant their former prophet Jeremiah. In this case, the chorus could be Judah/Israel. There is a certain poignancy to the idea that Second Isaiah might be remembering to the people his predecessor, to whom they refused to listen.
So—it seems that I have to allow the possibility that there is a “break” in the Israel-as-servant motif here: one that need not be announced as such because the prophet-poet’s audience would recognize who he was talking about. Nevertheless, I think that the “poetic extravagance” of these passages can apply as well to Israel.
Verses 8b-9:
These need not be taken literally at all. The Jewish Study Bible (JPS) comments: “Scholars debate whether these lines describe the literal death of the servant or the severe straits he was in. Exaggerated descriptions on one’s plight as equivalent to death are common in the Bible; see Pss. 18:5-6; 30:4; Jonah 2:2,8.”
Once again, this is poetic speech.
Verses 10b-11a
The Jewish Study Bible comments: “The servant is vindicated. Either he is saved from a fate like death, or he is actually described as being resurrected. In the latter case, his resurrection is probably a metaphor for the renewal of the nation at the end of exile. Similarly, in Ezek. 37 Israel in exile is described as dead; the nation is brought back to life when the exile ends.”
To be continued…