Originally posted by whodeyI’m working on the final installment of my study here, so I’ll make this quick:
Do also realize that a "prophesy" may refer to more than one event/person. I think the Bible is full of such examples.
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 Chr ...[text shortened]... way after the time of Christ in order to reflect this prophesy. Am I remembering correctly?
Do also realize that a "prophesy" may refer to more than one event/person. I think the Bible is full of such examples.
I think that is a distinct possibility.
For the rest, please read my post on page 15 of this thread where I distinguish between prophecy and future-telling. If Second Isaiah was a prophet-poet speaking to his people, then his prophecy applied to them—although perhaps on many levels; I am only doing p’shat here (with one allusive aside above), as I noted. As I said before, the prophet speaks always in the context of his/her here and now—but not necessarily only in the context of that here and now, but always in that context.
One first has to know about a distant future personage before one can relate any past future-telling to that personage. That is why, in the case of Jesus of Nazareth, even Matthew could only compile his midrash, drawing from HS texts, after he decided that Jesus was the messiah.
The same is true for Christians today. You can use the NT to “prove” that the HS future-tellings refer to Jesus; or you can use the HS texts to “prove” that Jesus is messiah—you cannot have it both ways. There is no reason for one who does not give that authority (or inerrancy) to the NT to conclude that there are future-tellings in the HS that refer to Jesus For one who does accept that authority, that provides a hermeneutic standard for Christians to read the HS texts—as I think jaywill shows. Similarly, those Jews who think that some texts foretell a future messiah who is not yet come, cannot identify who it is until someone comes who is perceived to fit the bill. I do not know why this seems so hard to understand.
Your concordance is wrong: Isaiah specifically calls Cyrus messiah (Hebrew: moshiach; this is glossed over ion translations that use the word “anointed” there). Saul and David were both called messiah; I did a whole list one time, but I don’t have it at my fingertips. There is not one definitive concept of messiah in Judaism.
What I once said was that all that “seven weeks of years” stuff in Daniel depends on when one dates the book of Daniel, and I provided you with cites to show that the dating of Daniel is no settled matter. And that means that it is not at all obvious. I also reminded you that the Talmud provides many opinions by many rabbis, not settled determinations. My prior quote by Hillel in this thread (please do go back and read my posts starting on page 11) was from the Talmud.
Please recall that my purpose is not to show that my reading is the only possible one (which itself would be in violation of traditional rabbinical exegesis, midrash), but to show that it is not clear and unequivocal. Once again: only if you first accept the NT claims can you insist that Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus. And I neither accept those claims, nor am I going to argue at all about what the NT says.
Now, I have the final piece of my analysis of Second Isaiah 53 to complete… The only reason I allowed myself to get side-tracked here is because I will not complete it any more tonight.
…continued
IV. Verses 11b-12 are a return to the voice of YHVH speaking of “the righteous one, my servant”.
This is a wrap-up of the “servant song”. Can Israel, in spite of her sins and waywardness, be “the righteous one”? Is Israel made righteous once again—by the redemptive power of Y HVH? (Or—and one might recall the taunts by Eliphaz [Job 4:17] and Bildad [Job 25:4] to Job before nay saying the possibility—can any mortal, any people, be righteous at all before God?)
Verse 11b certainly implies the possibility that the unrighteous can be made righteous: “The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous / and he shall bear their iniquities.”
Let’s recap a bit—
* Chapter 41 describes Israel as the chosen servant, but also as “insect” and “worm”.
* Isaiah 42:6-7 says: “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.”
This strongly implies that Israel was at one time righteous; and may also imply that such is an imputed, not any kind of innate, righteousness. Israel was not called because she was already a righteous community, but it is the redeeming call that imputes righteousness. When Israel falls and is redeemed, she once again becomes God’s chosen righteous one. This redemptive happening is little different from the original redemptive happening.
* Isaiah 43:22-28 affirms that Israel suffers because of the people’s own sins, but 44:1, immediately following affirms that Israel is still the chosen servant.
* In Isaiah 49:3 God reaffirms, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified."
—In my third post on page 16 of this thread (dealing with chapter 49) I said: “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.” And: “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.”
Nowhere is the Israel-as-servant motif broken, not even when Israel suffers on account of the people’s waywardness. To assume that that motif is broken at Isaiah 52:13, with subsequent verses referring to some other “servant” requires justification.
Christians may justify the assumption of a break in the Israel-as-servant motif here based on NT statements to that effect. I have noted above the possibility that a shift to Jeremiah-as-servant here could also be justified, even if Jeremiah is not named, since he is one who might be remembered by the exiled Judeans. (Neither of these, however, undoes the prior statements of Israel-as-servant, nor her call in Chapter 49.)
Therefore, I can no longer say that such a break in the Israel-as-servant theme cannot be justified. There are likely other possibilities as well, and—as whodey notes—they need not be considered mutually exclusive (especially at deeper—e.g., d’rash—readings than I have done here). Since I have stressed throughout the fact that all of this is poetic speech, I cannot fault those who find different meanings in the poetic imagery and metaphors than I do.
My conclusion: I still think the Israel-as-servant theme is sufficiently strong as to be unbroken. I think that verses 52:13-53:12 are in accord with the relevant verses in chapter 49, especially. I see no reason to conclude that any kind of break in the Israel-as-servant motif is necessary here; and so I conclude that Israel is still the servant being spoken of—with the admission of other valid possibilities. Such other possibilities would have to be assessed on their own merits.
__________________________________________________
This whole thing, for me, started on page 11 of this thread. I began my actual presentation with three posts of “Preliminaries” on page 15, and continued with my analysis of Second Isaiah on page 15, continuing to this last post. I would like anyone who wants to comment to at least read the stuff on pages 15 and 16 first (where you will also find some cogent comments by jaywill and whodey).