Isaiah 52:13-53: whatever..

[Alien]

Unlike Thrud, I agree with you and Ad-O that the text in question might well have a future application. Firstly because, as you say, Hebrew does not have the same tense-system as English, and in any case, I see no problem using a past tense 'metaphorically' to refer to a future situation. I further see no problem in considering the text in question to refer to the ongoing tribulations of the Jewish people throughout the ages.

The question is why, when 'Israel' has been used to represent the Jewish people as God's Servant throughout the book of Isaiah, when we get to chapters 52-53, we should suddenly start considering the 'Servant' to refer to Jesus uniquely.
Cue something about Jesus taking over the task that the Jewish people were supposed to have performed, but failed in.....

Greetings,
Apologies if someone has mentioned this already, but in the Aramaic Targum (a translation/paraphrase of the OT written before the time of Christ) written because by this time the Jews of Palestine were Aramaic-speakers and therefore struggled with Hebrew texts, it has for Isaiah 52:13, "52:13. Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high, and increase, and be exceeding strong:" Have a butcher's at http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/v02-n05/isaiah53

[Ricky Spanish]

Doesn't alter the fact that Isaiah 53 has fuck all to do with Jesus..

Maybe you could apply it to a christ - if you could be arsed!!

[Sassy]

Doesn't alter the fact that Isaiah 53 has fuck all to do with Jesus..

Maybe you could apply it to a christ - if you could be arsed!!

Nah! just making a comment and no back up evidence does not cut the mustard. Either prove it of shut up!

[Spud]

And verse 3 definitively says that Israel is the Servant.

If this is the case, then how do verses 5 and 6 fit the picture?

[Alien]

Doesn't alter the fact that Isaiah 53 has fuck all to do with Jesus..

Maybe you could apply it to a christ - if you could be arsed!!

Well, some influential Jews thought it referred to the Messiah so it depends on whether Jesus was/is the Messiah then. At least we can see that the idea of applying Isaiah 52/53 was not some invention of the Christians.

[~TW~]

Doesn't alter the fact that Isaiah 53 has fuck all to do with Jesus..

Maybe you could apply it to a christ - if you could be arsed!!

So Thrud taking into account the comments of Spud and Alien and following those comments to a logical conclusion,you are wrong.
~TW~

[Alien]

So Thrud taking into account the comments of Spud and Alien and following those comments to a logical conclusion,you are wrong.
~TW~

That's that sorted then.

[Ricky Spanish]

The major stumbling points for the messianic claims are for a start Isaiah 53 is not a prophetic text. It recalls a PAST event. I.e. before he lived, 8 centuries before Jesus was conceived.

There is absolutely nothing futuristic about this suffering servant he portrays. Not one "will be" always a "was".

It takes a special sort of idiot to transport a was into an is, but they are legion on this board!!

[Sassy]

The major stumbling points for the messianic claims are for a start Isaiah 53 is not a prophetic text. It recalls a PAST event. I.e. before he lived, 8 centuries before Jesus was conceived.

There is absolutely nothing futuristic about this suffering servant he portrays. Not one "will be" always a "was".

It takes a special sort of idiot to transport a was into an is, but they are legion on this board!!

You believe it already happened.
Show us in the bible how it recalls a past event.
Truth has no basic requirements...
The truth about the Messiah was written by the Prophets, as Christ also referred to Isaiah then it was not by any stretch of the imagination a 'was' book was it?

Isaiah 7:14 born of a virgin/maiden.


Micah  Born in Bethlehem.
King James Bible
But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

You try and accuse me of being possessed rather a little stupid in the event you believe in nothing.
You know that you are just annoyed (stop smirking) because I told you to put up or shut up.
You have not put up anything but flesh answers. You have no proof. I have shown that the Messiah being born of a virgin/maiden was actually written in Isaiah and so we know that your opinion has no evidence to support it.

I am not here to try and be clever or have a fight about rights and wrongs.
Jesus Christ, if the Messiah has shown through OT and the understanding of the disciples that he fulfilled the criteria of Moses and Deuteronomy 18:15-21.
It is a well known messianic truth that the Messiah was to bring Gods final words on the truth. Hence before Christ there were the different teachings and beliefs held by Pharisee and Sadducee.
What you omit from your knowledge is the fact the Samaritans and all Messiah believers knew the final truth would come from the Messiah.

So Christ himself would have shown that the truths of the Prophets included his death.
His resurrection and his final truth that all men can be saved from their sins by faith in him.
A faith which bring life in all it's fullness and truth. You cannot go beyond that which you believe because in truth it holds no value for you. You do not seek to learn. You seek to try and tear down. You live as you are a victim of life.
Sowing what you expect and do receive. Not life is it, mere existence which is wearisome and tiresome.

I have a belief, a belief which even when times difficult does not change because truth is not about circumstance.

What your heart is full of, will show in your posts..

[Spud]

Isaiah 51:11
Those the Lord has rescued will return.
    They will enter Zion with singing;
    everlasting joy will crown their heads.
Gladness and joy will overtake them,
    and sorrow and sighing will flee away.

This applies to the return from exile in Babylon of the Jews, but their joy was not everlasting. So did God's promise fail or did that event point to something bigger? The prophets Zechariah and Malachi, writing after the restoration of the Jews, predicted the coming of Christ and salvation for the whole earth. This might be why Mark opens by quoting Isaiah 40:3 - to indicate that Israel and, as he later reveals, the world, was still in exile, awaiting God's salvation.

[Alien]

The major stumbling points for the messianic claims are for a start Isaiah 53 is not a prophetic text. It recalls a PAST event. I.e. before he lived, 8 centuries before Jesus was conceived.

There is absolutely nothing futuristic about this suffering servant he portrays. Not one "will be" always a "was".

It takes a special sort of idiot to transport a was into an is, but they are legion on this board!!

Except that the passage begins at 52:13.

Why do you think it is idiotic to see the whole passage as in the past when the Jews themselves saw it as in the future?

[Dicky Underpants]

Greetings,
Apologies if someone has mentioned this already, but in the Aramaic Targum (a translation/paraphrase of the OT written before the time of Christ) written because by this time the Jews of Palestine were Aramaic-speakers and therefore struggled with Hebrew texts, it has for Isaiah 52:13, "52:13. Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high, and increase, and be exceeding strong:" Have a butcher's at http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/v02-n05/isaiah53

Hello Alan -cuanto tiempo....?

However, as I'm sure you know, this word 'Messiah' has a very wide range of reference in Hebrew and Aramaic. There are two 'Messiahs' mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls - the Priestly and the Warrior. More pertinent here is the reference to King Cyrus, who was responsible for the liberation of the Jews from their Babylonian exile. Isaiah would appear to be quite free in his use of the term 'Messiah':

Thus says the LORD to his Messiah, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped,
 to subdue nations before him
 and ungird the loins of kings,
 to open doors before him
 that gates may not be closed

Isaiah 45

Now that certainly does not refer to Christ (which also means 'anointed' of course).

It is possible that the instance you cite may refer to an individual with a specific, important role for Israel (it may even refer to Jesus ), but the fact that it is used in your quote in association with "Servant", I'd suggest that is just the nation of Israel being personified here, just as throughout Isaiah.

[Dicky Underpants]

Isaiah 51:11
Those the Lord has rescued will return.
    They will enter Zion with singing;
    everlasting joy will crown their heads.
Gladness and joy will overtake them,
    and sorrow and sighing will flee away.

This applies to the return from exile in Babylon of the Jews, but their joy was not everlasting. So did God's promise fail or did that event point to something bigger? The prophets Zechariah and Malachi, writing after the restoration of the Jews, predicted the coming of Christ and salvation for the whole earth. This might be why Mark opens by quoting Isaiah 40:3 - to indicate that Israel and, as he later reveals, the world, was still in exile, awaiting God's salvation.

That's a beautiful text (and it's often been set to beautiful music). Yes, 'God's' promises did fail - and there's nothing new about that in Old Testament prophecies. One that comes to mind is the way that wonders are prophesied and expected of King Josiah, but who strangely met his death from a hostile arrow when he was relatively young.
Nonetheless, for many Jews the above text still expresses an aspiration for a better world. Such aspirations are not the exclusive property of the religious - just consider the final chorus to 'Hellas' by the atheist Shelley.

[Dicky Underpants]

If this is the case, then how do verses 5 and 6 fit the picture?

Maybe refers to a special 'remnant' of Israel. I dunno - it doesn't seem like a text to be logically dissected all the time. It does seem to be some kind of restatement of the old promise to Abraham that 'through his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed' i.e. the Jews were considered to have some special role in world history. That's not a cue for you to go quoting the irrelevant semantics of St Paul, btw.

[Spud]

Hello Alan -cuanto tiempo....?
More pertinent here is the reference to King Cyrus, who was responsible for the liberation of the Jews from their Babylonian exile.

And if we take the book of Isaiah as genuine, we see that Cyrus is named years before he existed:
"Therefore I told you these things long ago;
before they happened I announced them to you
so that you could not say,
'My images brought them about;
my wooden image and metal god ordained them.' " (Isaiah 48:5, NIV)

Israel the Servant was delivered from Babylon for the purpose of turning from idols to the living God.

[Spud]

Maybe refers to a special 'remnant' of Israel. I dunno - it doesn't seem like a text to be logically dissected all the time. It does seem to be some kind of restatement of the old promise to Abraham that 'through his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed' i.e. the Jews were considered to have some special role in world history.

Perhaps the special 'remnant' represents in Yahweh's mind everything that Israel was supposed to be. This becomes a type for the literal individual who does fulfill Israel's mission (which had been to proclaim the living God) by being innocent of all sin. It's interesting that Matthew quotes Hosea 11:1, which refers to the nation of Israel as God's "son" and which Mt sees as a type of His literal Son. Matthew's quote from Isaiah 42:1-4 in ch. 12 also looks like fulfillment of prophecy in the typological sense.
This would make sense of the Servant in Isaiah 49:3 being called 'Israel' but actually referring to an individual representative of Israel.

[floo]

The Bible can and is interpreted to suit the thought process of those doing the interpreting. It was written so long ago so we can't know for sure how much credence the documents making up that book actually have. Of course many people, including some on this forum, make wild speculations stating them as fact!

[~TW~]

The Bible can and is interpreted to suit the thought process of those doing the interpreting. It was written so long ago so we can't know for sure how much credence the documents making up that book actually have. Of course many people, including some on this forum, make wild speculations stating them as fact!

Floo are you looking in a mirror as you write.
~TW~

[Khatru]

Floo are you looking in a mirror as you write.
~TW~

Of course, you do know that Isaiah also got his prophecies wrong?

Don't you?

[~TW~]

Of course, you do know that Isaiah also got his prophecies wrong?

Don't you?

So why not ask the question and display the prophecy's you seem to make hard work of every thing do you have trouble getting dressed in the morning. 
~TW~

[Sebastian Toe]

So why not ask the question and display the prophecy's you seem to make hard work of every thing do you have trouble getting dressed in the morning. 
~TW~

Are you only allowed to dress after your nurse has let you out of your room? 

[Brownie]

What makes you think he leaves the room?

[Alien]

Hello Alan -cuanto tiempo....?

What ho! I'm spending most of my time these days on an atheist Facebook love-in site. I got banned from one (I'll put that on my CV) and am now on one where they are not quite so weird.

However, as I'm sure you know, this word 'Messiah' has a very wide range of reference in Hebrew and Aramaic. There are two 'Messiahs' mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls - the Priestly and the Warrior. More pertinent here is the reference to King Cyrus, who was responsible for the liberation of the Jews from their Babylonian exile. Isaiah would appear to be quite free in his use of the term 'Messiah':
Isaiah 45

Now that certainly does not refer to Christ (which also means 'anointed' of course).

Agreed. Words in any language get used in different ways in different situations. The context can make big differences to the meanings of words.

It is possible that the instance you cite may refer to an individual with a specific, important role for Israel (it may even refer to Jesus ), but the fact that it is used in your quote in association with "Servant", I'd suggest that is just the nation of Israel being personified here, just as throughout Isaiah.

Fair enough, but Jesus certainly was a servant, so it seems, to me at least, quite reasonable to apply Isaiah 52:13 -53:end to him.

[Dicky Underpants]

And if we take the book of Isaiah as genuine, we see that Cyrus is named years before he existed:

By "genuine", do you mean "Written by just one person who was inerrantly inspired by God"?

Well, of course, most objective critics have convincingly argued that it was written by certainly two, and perhaps three distinct individuals. Isaiah of Jerusalem - chaps. 1-40 (pre-exilic), 2nd Isaiah - chaps. 40 onwards (post-exilic), and the final chapters written by 3rd Isaiah.

Now if you know of an event that has happened in the past (the Cyrus episode) and claim much later to the hoi-polloi that this was prophesied, that could be construed as lying (with the best of intentions, no doubt).

[Dicky Underpants]

The Bible can and is interpreted to suit the thought process of those doing the interpreting. It was written so long ago so we can't know for sure how much credence the documents making up that book actually have. Of course many people, including some on this forum, make wild speculations stating them as fact!

That doesn't mean that scholars shouldn't attempt objective research on these writings (something they've been doing for over 200 years now, more and more since the Church released scholars from the stranglehold of having to treat these writings as untouchable divine writ).
The attempted objective research is always influenced by individual confirmation bias - that's one of the misfortunes of being human. That doesn't mean nothing can be gained, or that everything the 'Higher Criticism' has revealed is moonshine. Any more than the deciphering of the Rosetta Stone's hieroglyphics was moonshine.

There is speculation in both camps, both the religious and non-religious (though not all of those pioneering scholars were non-religious). I of course think a non-religious approach is more revealing.

I'm not sure what the alternatives would be: "The fundies and the evangelicals think the Bible is the inerrant word of God - well it isn't, yah boo sucks". And then what?