Bible Options Bible Study Software
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
On Isaiah 53
#1
I wanted to know if we could get feedback on something that I have written up.

You can download it at:

http://www.thehebrewcafe.com/articles/isaiah_52-54.pdf

It deals with the Hebrew text of Isaiah chapters 52 to 54, regarding the use of pronouns referring to the "servant" and elaborates on the Jewish view of who the servant refers to (Israel) and how this is supported from the text. All feedback is welcome. I'll change whatever is demonstrated to be weak.

Thanks,
Baruch
#2
Take a look at the last wrap-up section specifically. It lays out the verses that present difficulty if we understand the passage as referring to Jesus.
#3
Please avoid nitpicking, if possible. I'm interested in serious replies that will have a constructive end. Thanks!
#4
I am no Hebrew ‘scholar’ – so – I cannot comment of your scholarship, which I am certain is without fault – but – as to ‘interpretation’ or even ‘application’ I must defer to the ‘understanding’ of the early Christians, many of whom were Jews. When Peter preached the ‘Good News’ on that first Pentecost after ‘my’ Lord’s resurrection – of the estimated – oh – 30,000 who may have been within earshot – only about 3,000 ‘believed’ the message. So, the fact that you do not ‘believe’ comes as no surprise. But this same Peter, in his first letter to the Christian Jews of the Diaspora in Asia Minor referred to Isaiah 53 as though it was referring to Iesus:

1Peter 2:24 who Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, in order that having died to sins, we might live unto righteousness--by whose stripes you were healed.

Peace & Love
#5
Oliver Wrote:I am no Hebrew ‘scholar’ – so – I cannot comment of your scholarship, which I am certain is without fault – but – as to ‘interpretation’ or even ‘application’ I must defer to the ‘understanding’ of the early Christians, many of whom were Jews. When Peter preached the ‘Good News’ on that first Pentecost after ‘my’ Lord’s resurrection – of the estimated – oh – 30,000 who may have been within earshot – only about 3,000 ‘believed’ the message. So, the fact that you do not ‘believe’ comes as no surprise. But this same Peter, in his first letter to the Christian Jews of the Diaspora in Asia Minor referred to Isaiah 53 as though it was referring to Iesus:

1Peter 2:24 who Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, in order that having died to sins, we might live unto righteousness--by whose stripes you were healed.

Peace & Love

Thank you, Oliver, but I'm not too sure how this can be very constructive to (or even critical of) my article. While you personally find Peter authoritative, I'd like to have a decent argument levied against what I've said - not just an appeal to an authority that I myself do not accept. Anyway, if you read any portion of it, I hope you enjoyed it. If not, kinda missed my point in posting it. Wink

Have a great day, either way.
#6
I guess my question for you is why not include chapters 50 and 51 in the song?

I agree with the passages clearly stating Israel will be restored to glory. That many and most passages are of the end time restoration.

My second question is .....why do you only see a national , physical picture of the events?

You read Is. 52:3as Israel not having to pay for their return from exile.  Why not Israel not having to pay the price for their sins?

Is. 51:11 says, "so the ransomed of the Lord shall return"  it seems a price was paid before their return.

chapters 50 and 51 seem to speak more of the person aspect of being, the child of God. and not speaking so much a "the nation".

Is. 51:1 "listen to Me, you who follow after righteousness"
Is. 51:7 "listen to Me, you who know righteousness"

Israel went into bondage because they were a sinful and disobedient people.  In Egypt, the were delivered. Did not they slaughter the lamb so the first born was not killed?  Was not a price to be paid? Have not your people sacrificed bulls and goats for their sins and iniquities?

So can't the whole story of the song be both the restoration of the physical nation of Israel and also the spiritual nation of Israel?

Can't you see the need for a redeemer for the individual lives of Israel?

Look at Ps.34:22  PS.49:15 Ps. 103:4  Hos.13:14

Can't you see the need for a ransom to be paid for the salvation of your soul?  And perhaps, just maybe, Isaiahs suffering servant is that price that was paid to ransom Israel.  That God sent His Son, the perfect Lamb of God, to pay that price.  It is a beautiful story if you can see it.
#7
baruch Wrote:It deals with the Hebrew text of Isaiah chapters 52 to 54, regarding the use of pronouns referring to the "servant" and elaborates on the Jewish view of who the servant refers to (Israel) and how this is supported from the text. All feedback is welcome. I'll change whatever is demonstrated to be weak.

Thanks,
Baruch

Isaiah makes a plain distinction between Israel and a Man. Israel is seen in the feminine, often referred to as "her" not "he". It is easy to see when comparing ch. 52 with 66 below:

Yeshayahu 52:

14. As many wondered about you, "How marred his appearance is from that of a man, and his features from that of people!"

If Isaiah 53 were about Israel, then Isaiah would have used words such as: "Jerusalem", "her" or "Israel" or a "nation" or "Zion" or a "land" etc. often in conjunction with one another, just as Isaiah did in ch. 66 below:

Yeshayahu 66:
8. Who heard [anything] like this? Who saw [anything] like these? Is a land born in one day? Is a nation born at once, that Zion both experienced birth pangs and bore her children?

10. Rejoice with Jerusalem and exult in her all those who love her: rejoice with her a rejoicing, all who mourn over her.

The use of the word "her" is in reference to Israel, not "he" which is in the masculine and referenced to Messiah.

#8
HonestAbe Wrote:I guess my question for you is why not include chapters 50 and 51 in the song?

The presentation is already 27 pages long. Do you really think it would be worth adding another two chapters from Isaiah? People will have a hard enough time as it is. I want it to be readable, not to become a burden.

HonestAbe Wrote:I agree with the passages clearly stating Israel will be restored to glory. That many and most passages are of the end time restoration.

Excellent. My claim is that this is the entire context, and it makes no sense to take any of the verses as referring to something else.

HonestAbe Wrote:My second question is .....why do you only see a national , physical picture of the events?

Because that's what the text presents, in the same way that there was a national redemption at the Exile from Egypt.

HonestAbe Wrote:You read Is. 52:3as Israel not having to pay for their return from exile.  Why not Israel not having to pay the price for their sins?

It says that they would be redeemed without payment, not that someone else would pay the price.

HonestAbe Wrote:Is. 51:11 says, "so the ransomed of the Lord shall return"  it seems a price was paid before their return.

Israel was ransomed from Egypt without having someone die for their sins once and for all.

HonestAbe Wrote:chapters 50 and 51 seem to speak more of the person aspect of being, the child of God. and not speaking so much a "the nation".

We can definitely speak of that separately. I'd prefer to deal with the chapters in question right now.

#9
HonestAbe Wrote:Israel went into bondage because they were a sinful and disobedient people.  In Egypt, the were delivered. Did not they slaughter the lamb so the first born was not killed?  Was not a price to be paid? Have not your people sacrificed bulls and goats for their sins and iniquities?

Look at the return from Babylon and use that as your example. The sacrifices were made after the return and rebuilding of the Temple - not before. The same is the case in our situation.

HonestAbe Wrote:So can't the whole story of the song be both the restoration of the physical nation of Israel and also the spiritual nation of Israel?

There's no doubt that spirituality is involved. It is clear from all the prophets that God will make a renewed covenant with the people of Israel at the time of the redemption. I cover that in the presentation. It will indeed be spiritual. That's not the issue here.

HonestAbe Wrote:Can't you see the need for a redeemer for the individual lives of Israel?

Look at Ps.34:22  PS.49:15 Ps. 103:4  Hos.13:14

God ransoms his people without sacrifice.

HonestAbe Wrote:Can't you see the need for a ransom to be paid for the salvation of your soul?  And perhaps, just maybe, Isaiahs suffering servant is that price that was paid to ransom Israel.  That God sent His Son, the perfect Lamb of God, to pay that price.  It is a beautiful story if you can see it.

No, I don't see that need at all. Not in the slightest.

Thanks for your comments.
#10
MessianicJew Wrote:Isaiah makes a plain distinction between Israel and a Man. Israel is seen in the feminine, often referred to as "her" not "he". It is easy to see when comparing ch. 52 with 66 below:

Yeshayahu 52:

14. As many wondered about you, "How marred his appearance is from that of a man, and his features from that of people!"

If Isaiah 53 were about Israel, then Isaiah would have used words such as: "Jerusalem", "her" or "Israel" or a "nation" or "Zion" or a "land" etc. often in conjunction with one another, just as Isaiah did in ch. 66 below:

Yeshayahu 66:
8. Who heard [anything] like this? Who saw [anything] like these? Is a land born in one day? Is a nation born at once, that Zion both experienced birth pangs and bore her children?

10. Rejoice with Jerusalem and exult in her all those who love her: rejoice with her a rejoicing, all who mourn over her.

The use of the word "her" is in reference to Israel, not "he" which is in the masculine and referenced to Messiah.

Seems to me that you didn't even read my presentation. Of course, the masculine pronoun is used of Israel!! Give me a break....


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)