Isaiah 53 and Human Sin

[Harel13]

From Moses to Malachi, the prophets of God castigate Israel for its sinfulness. It should be apparent from reading the Tanakh that God could not find righteousness in the congregation of his people.

Ugh. Are we really going to get into this again?

You might like to know that already in the beginning of Isaiah, he said:

"Wash yourselves clean; Put your evil doings away from My sight. Cease to do evil. Learn well, devote yourselves to justice; aid the wronged. Uphold the rights of the orphan; defend the cause of the widow. "Come, let us reach an understanding," says the LORD. "Be your sins like crimson, they can turn snow-white. Be they red as dyed wool, they can become like fleece." If, then, you agree and give heed, you will eat the good things of the earth."
​

Frankly, I sincerely doubt that anyone with absolutely no righteousness in him, no good whatsoever, would be deserving of such an easy way out. The way the removal of sins is described here is like removing an old coat and revealing the new clothes underneath.

Moreover, have you any explanation as to why God would stick to a particular group of people if their is no good in their whole essence, in their whole being?

 

[Redemptionsong]

What makes you think that part of Isaiah was written by Isaiah?

The flip side is to ask you why you cannot accept that Isaiah was a prophet?

A scroll of Isaiah was found at Qumran and is presently in the Dome of the Book. The book of Isaiah was evidently in existence before the Christian era. If the words do point us to Jesus as Christ then there can be little doubt that Isaiah's words are prophecy, and come from God.

Jesus read the words of Isaiah 61 in the synagogue [Luke 4:16], claiming to be the Suffering Servant.

 

[Harel13]

A scroll of Isaiah was found at Qumran and is presently in the Dome of the Book. The book of Isaiah was evidently in existence before the Christian era. If the words do point us to Jesus as Christ then there can be little doubt that Isaiah's words are prophecy, and come from God.

The key word here being if.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The flip side is to ask you why you cannot accept that Isaiah was a prophet?

A scroll of Isaiah was found at Qumran and is presently in the Dome of the Book. The book of Isaiah was evidently in existence before the Christian era. If the words do point us to Jesus as Christ then there can be little doubt that Isaiah's words are prophecy, and come from God.

Jesus read the words of Isaiah 61 in the synagogue [Luke 4:16], claiming to be the Suffering Servant.

I am not a scholar, but those that have read this, studied it, and gone into the history of area it appears that there were at least three authors to the work. A change in writing style can be very telling. There are parts of the Bible where history is written as prophecy. That later part of Isaiah appears to be one of those. Meanwhile it appears that you do not have a good reason to believe that Isaiah wrote all of that book of the Bible.

 

[Redemptionsong]

the subject is the nation of Israel and the "we" is the foreign kings who are marveling at what they see. It is something along the lines of "This people which developed from humbleness and who looks horrible and we saw nothing desirable in him so we detested him."

'This people' is not present in the text, and must be seen as your interpretation. The Hebrew word 'root' is, I understand, shoresh, which is the same word as found in Isaiah 11:1: 'And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots'.

So the subject is, IMO, given the consistency of usage in language, not a people, but 'a Branch' from 'out of his roots'. The reason the root comes out of dry ground is because the people are hardened in heart, and not prepared as they should be [the shepherds not doing their job].

A people who 'walk by the flesh' look upon outward appearances, whereas God looks on the inner man. To the Jews of the first century, Jesus was not the Messiah they expected. He was not a grand king, but a Galilean teacher from a humble background.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The key word here being if.

But you don't doubt that Isaiah was a prophet of God.

 

[Harel13]

But you don't doubt that Isaiah was a prophet of God.

I don't, but the proof is not in the J-man.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I am not a scholar, but those that have read this, studied it, and gone into the history of area it appears that there were at least three authors to the work. A change in writing style can be very telling. There are parts of the Bible where history is written as prophecy. That later part of Isaiah appears to be one of those. Meanwhile it appears that you do not have a good reason to believe that Isaiah wrote all of that book of the Bible.

Isaiah is said to have prophesied for over 60 years, during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, 765-698 BCE. It is quite possible that his style and use of words changed over that period.

Not only is Isaiah mentioned in the books of Kings and Chronicles but he is also referred to as a prophet in the NT books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts and Romans. So, two thousand years ago, Isaiah was considered a prophet, and this must have been passed down by continuous tradition amongst the Jews.

 

[dybmh]

On the cross, this may have been true!

ok, ok, how about this?

Jesus is a sad way. דרכ עצו=386 ישוע=386

 

[rosends]

'This people' is not present in the text, and must be seen as your interpretation.

Not exactly -- the text speaks in a second person but doesn't list the subject so one simply looks to see who the subject was in the preceding verses and, if one reads through the section starting earlier, the subject is identified as the servant which has already been identified as the nation of Israel (as early as Is 41:8 and as recently as 49:3). So it isn't interpretation as much as simply reading in context. The English Lit AP exam does this often, asking for an identification of a pronoun in a later line of a poem, requiring the reader to trace it back to the explicitly identified noun many lines earlier. In this situation, the nation, the servant, is part of Isaiah's writing. Adding in an outside character would be pure invention.

The Hebrew word 'root' is, I understand, shoresh, which is the same word as found in Isaiah 11:1: 'And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots'.

Yes, the image is of a people growing up like a tree -- compare to Hosea 14:6-7 which speaks of Israel in the singular and compares it to a tree using the same word, root (in Hosea, check the end of verse 6).

So the subject is, IMO, given the consistency of usage in language, not a people, but 'a Branch' from 'out of his roots'. The reason the root comes out of dry ground is because the people are hardened in heart, and not prepared as they should be [the shepherds not doing their job].

That is, indeed, your interpretation, but one that ignores the image which is textually consistent with other depictions of the nation as a tree. In fact, both the Isaiah and Hosea (verse 7) verses share another word from the root y-n-k (sapling) to describe the same subject.
Isaiah -- וַיַּ֨עַל כַּיּוֹנֵ֜ק
Hosea -- יֵֽלְכוּ֙ יֹֽנְקוֹתָ֔יו

A people who 'walk by the flesh' look upon outward appearances, whereas God looks on the inner man. To the Jews of the first century, Jesus was not the Messiah they expected. He was not a grand king, but a Galilean teacher from a humble background.

Well, he wasn't the messiah so that would make sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isaiah is said to have prophesied for over 60 years, during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, 765-698 BCE. It is quite possible that his style and use of words changed over that period.

Not only is Isaiah mentioned in the books of Kings and Chronicles but he is also referred to as a prophet in the NT books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts and Romans. So, two thousand years ago, Isaiah was considered a prophet, and this must have been passed down by continuous tradition amongst the Jews.

Sorry, weak excuses are not a refutation.

 

[blü 2]

If you were Simon Peter, a first century Galilean Jew, you would say to Jesus, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' [Matthew 16:16]

No, in Simon Peter's shoes I'd avoid his emotional dependence and apply reasoned skeptical enquiry to whatever it was I was witnessing.

The Jews closest to Jesus were able to witness to the truth and grace in the man, to the point that the flesh counted for nothing!

None of that makes Jesus a Jewish messiah, merely a Christian one.

How can people who walk by the flesh be expected to witness to the truth of the Spirit? This is why Jesus responded to Peter by saying, 'flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee'.

And in Peter's shoes, I'd reply, Well, since what you speak of are purely mental events, they'd be different for each individual, and they could never be 'true' in the sense of being an accurate statement about objective reality.

P.S. John, the son of Zecharias the priest, baptised Jesus at the river Jordan. The anointing came from God.

But that was water to wash sins off, and John was giving it to everyone who asked. It wasn't anointing oil appropriate to a Jewish messiah, as I said ─ there, God expresses [him]self through the Jewish priesthood, who do the anointing.

 

[Redemptionsong]

What makes you think that part of Isaiah was written by Isaiah?

Because it's consistent with evertthing else he prophesies.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Sorry, weak excuses are not a refutation.

Come on, atheist! The whole of scripture is against your world view. The only life you know is the life you live, and that doesn't last long.

Jesus said, l am the resurrection, and the life [John 11:25], which means that He claims to be God amongst us! If you choose to reject that claim then you might just as well get back to eating, drinking and making merry. If eternal life is a fantasy to you, then indulge now, because it's all you've got!

At least when l debate with Jews, l know that those involved (usually) look upon the Tanakh as God's Word! The issue between Torah Jews and Christians is one of interpretation.

 

[Redemptionsong]

No, in Simon Peter's shoes I'd avoid his emotional dependence and apply reasoned skeptical enquiry to whatever it was I was witnessing.

That's a joke. Peter was very sceptical...until the evidence hit him bang in the face! Fish were spilling over the boat side, his mother in law was healed, he saw the lame walk, the blind see, and demoniacs delivered. The storms were stilled, and Peter witnessed true faith!

There comes a point when the evidence is overwhelming.

 

[Redemptionsong]

None of that makes Jesus a Jewish messiah, merely a Christian one.

It has to be repeated, but Jesus came as the suffering servant, to deliver mercy. Sin must be conquered before new life can begin.

The time for vengeance and judgment is the time of the Messiah's return. Those that wait for it as a time of peace on earth are forgetting the 'clean up' that takes place first!

To my understanding, God is offering a last chance to the people who live under the covenant of Moses. God chose this people and will not easily let them go! They must do all the Law, which means receiving the SPIRIT of Christ [Jeremiah 31:33].

 

[Redemptionsong]

Ugh. Are we really going to get into this again?

You might like to know that already in the beginning of Isaiah, he said:

"Wash yourselves clean; Put your evil doings away from My sight. Cease to do evil. Learn well, devote yourselves to justice; aid the wronged. Uphold the rights of the orphan; defend the cause of the widow. "Come, let us reach an understanding," says the LORD. "Be your sins like crimson, they can turn snow-white. Be they red as dyed wool, they can become like fleece." If, then, you agree and give heed, you will eat the good things of the earth."
​

Frankly, I sincerely doubt that anyone with absolutely no righteousness in him, no good whatsoever, would be deserving of such an easy way out. The way the removal of sins is described here is like removing an old coat and revealing the new clothes underneath.

Moreover, have you any explanation as to why God would stick to a particular group of people if their is no good in their whole essence, in their whole being?

The question is about the means to becoming 'snow white'. Simply repenting of your sin does not make you clean, nor does offering an animal on the altar. To be made clean you must, to my understanding, be washed clean by the Spirit of God. Repentance prepares a person for the washing, but the washing has to come from God.

God is ever faithful to the people He calls, but not every man in lsrael is faithful to his God.

All lsrael shall be saved, because Israel is the head (shepherd king) and his people. The shepherd king is already saved, and he is now rounding up his flock.

 

[Harel13]

The question is about the means to becoming 'snow white'. Simply repenting of your sin does not make you clean, nor does offering an animal on the altar. To be made clean you must, to my understanding, be washed clean by the Spirit of God. Repentance prepares a person for the washing, but the washing has to come from God

You can diverge from the text all you want, but do not claim that that is what the text says. It says very plainly that all the people need to do is leave their sins and do good.

God is ever faithful to the people He calls, but not every man in lsrael is faithful to his God.

All lsrael shall be saved, because Israel is the head (shepherd king) and his people. The shepherd king is already saved, and he is now rounding up his flock.

You do realize that if Israel is already "saved" then Israel is righteous and can therefore take on the burden of sins, right?

 

[blü 2]

That's a joke. Peter was very sceptical...until the evidence hit him bang in the face! Fish were spilling over the boat side, his mother in law was healed, he saw the lame walk, the blind see, and demoniacs delivered. The storms were stilled, and Peter witnessed true faith!

There comes a point when the evidence is overwhelming.

Pity there's no eyewitness account, no contemporary account, no independent account, no video, no place where you can see go and see it happening for yourself ─ only stories, from an age of stories.

 

[blü 2]

It has to be repeated, but Jesus came as the suffering servant, to deliver mercy. Sin must be conquered before new life can begin.

Oh for goodness' sake! The Suffering Servant is the nation of Israel. Jesus is mentioned nowhere in the Tanakh.

The time for vengeance and judgment is the time of the Messiah's return. Those that wait for it as a time of peace on earth are forgetting the 'clean up' that takes place first!

Mark 9:1 And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

Matthew 10:23When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Matthew 16:28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”

Luke 9:27 But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”​

Promises, promises! Or do you know of some 2,000 year old Judeans or Galileans living in the Bronx or wherever?