Isaiah 53 and Human Sin

[Redemptionsong]

Nothing there helps the pretense that Jesus is a Jewish messiah.

The passage you quote is about leaders of the Jewish people.

Jesus was never a leader of the Jewish people ─ not civil, not military, not religious.

His messiah status is totally a Christian invention.

Let's deal with one point at a time.

You claimed that Jesus could not be the Messiah because he was not anointed by the priesthood in lsrael. I have shown you the scriptural evidence that David was anointed by God, using the prophet Samuel as his priest.

Make the jump to the baptism, or anointing, of Jesus by John the Baptist. John, the son of a priest, was also a prophet of God, chosen to anoint in the manner of Samuel.

This shows that your claim is baseless. For, if God's anointing of a king is the one that matters [see 1 Samuel 16:1], then Jesus was anointed as Messiah in the likeness of King David. David becomes the 'type' or shadow of Jesus.

 

[blü 2]

Let's deal with one point at a time.

No, let's cut to the chase.

No way does Jesus qualify as a Jewish messiah.

His status as messiah is a Christian invention, a brand new meaning for the word.

 

[Harel13]

To describe Jesus, who was without sin, as 'saved', requires explanation. He took the sin of others upon himself. The Spirit of God, which rested upon him, left him when he bore the sin of others. Hence, Psalm 22:1. The soul of Jesus descended into sheol, but he was resurrected by the Spirit of God after three days and nights (as the sign of Jonah indicates ). Jesus' resurrection is the 'firstfruits' of the harvest, and all other believers must find life in his spiritual body.

I'm afraid this makes little sense. You are consciously conflating "taking sins", "being saved" and "being resurrected". Three different concepts that are not equal to one another. To prove that Jesus was saved, you explain that he was resurrected. This would somehow allow him to take the sins of mankind. But he was not saved. He was resurrected. If he was without sin, he would have entered Sheol pure and left it pure. There was nothing to save him from. Do you understand? The salvation you are talking about is a purely spiritual process, a cleansing of the soul/essence, whilst the resurrection involves a semi-physical spacial journey to a lower realm you call "Sheol" and the exiting of it. Therefore, saving ≠ resurrection.

So, since Jesus was not saved but merely resurrected, how is it that you consider him the head of the body of Israel, thereby explaining your contradicting views about the salvation of Israel?

 

[rosends]

The notes in the JPS on lsaiah 42:1-9 are instructive. Commenting on verses 1-9, the commentator writes, 'The servant in this passage is parallel to, though not identical with, the ideal Davidic king described in ch 11; promises made to the king there are transferred to the whole nation here. Cf. 53:3 n; 60:1-22 n.; 62:25 n.'

So what you find instructive isn't the explicit statement that the servant in 42 is not the future messiah? And what you find useful is a JPS (unsourced there) commentary? So the opinion of someone you don't know, who gives no evidence for his conclusion you find useful? Got it.

This leads me to ask the question, ls the resting of the Spirit upon the individual Davidic king linked to the resting of the Spirit upon the nation of lsrael? In other words, can the nation receive the Spirit of God without the king being present?

Linked to? The nation will receive the spirit of God during messianic times, once the prophecies required to prove that someone is the messiah have been fulfilled. Then there will be a king who will have the spirit resting on him.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Jesus was not a Jewish messiah. He was never anointed by the Jewish priesthood (whereas 'anointed by the Jewish priesthood' is what 'messiah' means).

He was never a civil, military or religious leader of the Jews.

His purported messiah status is a Christian invention ─ the result of Jesus has been two thousand years of rapacious and often murderous Christian antisemitism, an absurd qualification for a Jewish messiah to have.

He was indeed. How was John annunciated? When his father was in the Holy of Holies ministering before the Ark! John was creme de la creme of the priesthood.

Of course, God is ironic--and hides from the "wise"; Jesus also "anointed" when the priests slapped and struck Him since you must LAY HANDS on the lamb sacrifice!

But don't confuse the rabid antisemitism of Rome with the Bible's truth, please.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You keep saying that and yet...the logic doesn't hold.

Isaiah never mentions Jesus anywhere so...I don't see why your interpretations are any less labored. And I say this without even looking up the exact references you mentioned, because I find yet another debate on that to be pointless at the moment.

By the way, I find it interesting that you use the English names for every biblical figure but for Jesus you use his supposed Hebrew name.

We need the Gentiles to follow the flow, "all things to all people".

Isaiah mentions Jesus EVERYWHERE.

You don't "see why my interpretations are less labored"? The entire Gentile world proclaims Jesus as Prince of Peace--Hezekiah fought in wars and was besieged. Jesus did alongside wicked sinners then was laid in a rich man's tomb, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Redemptionsong]

No, let's cut to the chase.

No way does Jesus qualify as a Jewish messiah.

His status as messiah is a Christian invention, a brand new meaning for the word.

The belief in Jesus as Messiah has existed since the first century, and is not going away. The evidence is not just scriptural, it's experiential.

The Jewish teacher Gamaliel got it right when he told the Sanhedrin, 'Ye men of lsrael, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men (followers of Jesus).
For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.
After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him were dispersed.
And now l say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this work be of men, it will come to nought:
But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found to fight against God.' [Acts 5]

Given that he spoke these wise words 2000 years ago, we can retrospectively say that God must have been in the movement all along!

As regards the use of the word Messiah, or Christ, it's important to recognise how anointed priests and kings of the OT differ from the Christ whom God makes 'his covenant' in the NT. All the anointed priests and kings of the OT are dead. Why? Because only the Christ of God can meet God's standard of righteousness.

As it says in 2 Corinthians 5:19, 'To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;'

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry, I know this may be hard for you to accept, but the truth is that Jesus is an irrelevancy to Judaism. Indeed, the only time I talk about Jesus is online because Christians there bring him up.

I'm nor really concerned with Messianic Jews. They are apostates fro Judaism, Jews who have become Christian.

Jesus IS the fruit of Judaism. Tanakh says Messiah will be adored worldwide by Gentiles! No, there are far too many, literal, specific prophecies to ignore.

If I worship Mashiach in Spirit and truth--my identification as "apostate" rather than identifying with my own best efforts at keeping the Law of Moses, you may call me an apostate.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No eyewitnesses, no contemporary accounts within 20 years, no independent accounts. Do you believe Apollonius of Tyana was also a wandering miracle-worker? Could Simon Magus fly? Could you get useful statements about the future from the sybil of Delphi? The evidence for those things is at least as good as the evidence for the resurrection (a low bar indeed).

There are one dozen teams of NT writers AND apocrypha about Jesus, so those are "contemporary" accounts and many of them have been dated early by LIBERAL scholars. And numerous Roman and non-Messianic Jewish scholars testify that the Christians claimed Yeshua had risen from the dead.

You know I'm Jewish, right? I GET how we would have been steeped in law and tradition and needed extraordinary evidence to be so moved, and in such numbers. Many non-Messianics fought Rome while more Messianics survived, since the Master warned us about the sword...

...Your counter arguments are strange to me. I have reasons to believe, for example, that Simon Magus could NOT fly, for example, he is listed in the NT as a charlatan! You are making the argument for both of us.

PS. You know biblically, that we have no excuse and that the very wonders seen through telescopes and microscopes alike testify to God as Creator--and Judge?

 

[Harel13]

We need the Gentiles to follow the flow, "all things to all people".

I don't know what that even means.

Isaiah mentions Jesus EVERYWHERE.

Literally nowhere.

The entire Gentile world proclaims Jesus as Prince of Peace

You know this isn't true, right? A significant percentage of the world is Christian, to be sure, but a significant percentage of the world is non-Christian, as well.

Jesus did alongside wicked sinners then was laid in a rich man's tomb, etc., etc., etc.

Then there was that time he tried to evade the Judean IRS. And that time he went crazy on the Temple Mount. And that time he used sorcery for "miracles". And that time he was rude to his family. Yep, a big ol' bundle of morals. What are those in your eyes? --The price of peace? And here I thought that price was actually the dozens of Christian wars the world has seen, the mass killings and pogroms and all that. What's your excuse - that those people weren't really Christians?

 

[Redemptionsong]

I'm afraid this makes little sense. You are consciously conflating "taking sins", "being saved" and "being resurrected". Three different concepts that are not equal to one another. To prove that Jesus was saved, you explain that he was resurrected. This would somehow allow him to take the sins of mankind. But he was not saved. He was resurrected. If he was without sin, he would have entered Sheol pure and left it pure. There was nothing to save him from. Do you understand? The salvation you are talking about is a purely spiritual process, a cleansing of the soul/essence, whilst the resurrection involves a semi-physical spacial journey to a lower realm you call "Sheol" and the exiting of it. Therefore, saving ≠ resurrection.

So, since Jesus was not saved but merely resurrected, how is it that you consider him the head of the body of Israel, thereby explaining your contradicting views about the salvation of Israel?

What you are overlooking is the vicarious nature of Jesus' death. Although Jesus' soul was without sin, on the cross he bore in his flesh the sin of mankind. This is why the Spirit of God departed when the temple of his body became polluted, and why his body had to die.

Jesus was, according to the NT, resurrected, which means that his soul was raised in an incorruptible, spiritual body. This means he was raised to eternal life by the will and power of the Father. I call this being saved, but one could call it 'preserved'.

Jesus Christ is also called the 'firstborn son' because he is Mary's first born, and the first to be resurrected. As it says in Psalm 89:27-29, 'Also l will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.
My mercy will l keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.
His seed also will l make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.'

Revelation 20:6. 'Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death [of the soul] hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.'

 

[Harel13]

What you are overlooking is the vicarious nature of Jesus' death. Although Jesus' soul was without sin, on the cross he bore in his flesh the sin of mankind. This is why the Spirit of God departed when the temple of his body became polluted, and why his body had to die.

Jesus was, according to the NT, resurrected, which means that his soul was raised in an incorruptible, spiritual body. This means he was raised to eternal life by the will and power of the Father. I call this being saved, but one could call it 'preserved'.

Oh, I definitely got all that. However, you are still conflating the three concepts I mentioned above, without providing a logical explanation. He was resurrected and he took sins - but there is no way to make the claim that he was also saved. What would he have been saved from? To be saved means that you have sins you are not able to get rid of. Jesus could have decided to drop the weight of the world - they weren't his own sins, he was perfect, etc etc - nothing to save him from.
Hence, all of this still does nothing to explain your contradictory view.

Jesus Christ is also called the 'firstborn son' because he is Mary's first born, and the first to be resurrected. As it says in Psalm 89:27-29, 'Also l will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.
My mercy will l keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.
His seed also will l make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.'

Revelation 20:6. 'Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death [of the soul] hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.'

Sure, great, whatever. This has nothing to do with the J-man's supposed salvation.

 

[rosends]

Jesus Christ is also called the 'firstborn son' because he is Mary's first born, and the first to be resurrected. As it says in Psalm 89:27-29, 'Also l will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.
My mercy will l keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.
His seed also will l make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.'
'

Ouch. You really should start to read Psalm 89 earlier, like, maybe verse 20 which describes how God found a warrior and made him exalted. Then verse 21 names that warrior, David (this is important because these verses are referring to the events in Sam 2, 7:1-17). That warrior then speaks in 27, saying, "He shall say to Me,
‘You are my father, my God, the rock of my deliverance.’" So then God appoints David as a firstborn, higher than all kings in the world.

Taking it out of context and claiming "Jesus is called first born because Jesus is the 'him' in that verse" is illogical and intellectually dishonest. The text is clear about whom it is talking.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Oh, I definitely got all that. However, you are still conflating the three concepts I mentioned above, without providing a logical explanation. He was resurrected and he took sins - but there is no way to make the claim that he was also saved. What would he have been saved from? To be saved means that you have sins you are not able to get rid of. Jesus could have decided to drop the weight of the world - they weren't his own sins, he was perfect, etc etc - nothing to save him from.
Hence, all of this still does nothing to explain your contradictory view.

Sure, great, whatever. This has nothing to do with the J-man's supposed salvation.

You make a valid point about the use of the word 'save' in reference to a sinless soul. Clearly, a sinless soul does not require salvation. Resurrection, however, according to 1 Corinthians 15 , is about a transformation from bodily corruption to incorruption. In resurrection, the body has to be changed from mortal to immortal. A dead body becomes a living body.

We know from the record of Jesus' resurrection that his body was in a changed state after resurrection; so even if his soul was unchanged his body certainly was changed. This change was brought about by God the Father giving life to a dead body. In the case of Jesus, the dead body rose, indicating that it had been 'saved' from corruption.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Ouch. You really should start to read Psalm 89 earlier, like, maybe verse 20 which describes how God found a warrior and made him exalted. Then verse 21 names that warrior, David (this is important because these verses are referring to the events in Sam 2, 7:1-17). That warrior then speaks in 27, saying, "He shall say to Me,
‘You are my father, my God, the rock of my deliverance.’" So then God appoints David as a firstborn, higher than all kings in the world.

Taking it out of context and claiming "Jesus is called first born because Jesus is the 'him' in that verse" is illogical and intellectually dishonest. The text is clear about whom it is talking.

Yet, we know from Ezekiel, and other prophets who post-date David, that 'my servant David' is a reference to the king Messiah.

Your insistence that a text is without spiritual significance, or dual meaning, has the ultimate effect of making prophecy a source of nothing but human history.

In Psalm 89:36,37 the everlasting nature of David's seed and throne are mentioned. Clearly, this is not David son of Jesse's throne because the royal Davidic line is at an end!

 

[rosends]

Yet, we know from Ezekiel, and other prophets who post-date David, that 'my servant David' is a reference to the king Messiah.

Actually, while in some contexts this is true (in that it refers to a future king of the proper Davidic line) in some places, when it speaks of events in the past, it is not true. The text in Psalm 89 is in the past tense, making reference to a specific historical event. Just check the tenses -- Ezekiel's prophecy about David in 37 is in the future tense. The Psalms text uses the past tense.

Your insistence that a text is without spiritual significance, or dual meaning, has the ultimate effect of making prophecy a source of nothing but human history.

Spiritual significance and dual meaning are not only 2 separate things, but they are both meaningless. Biblical text has many meanings and points, some of which are more related to conceptual or even theological ideas but to ignore the historical and literal part and invent some other meaning instead, especially out of context is wasted breath.

In Psalm 89:36,37 the everlasting nature of David's seed and throne are mentioned. Clearly, this is not David son of Jesse's throne because the royal Davidic line is at an end!

Who says it is at an end? All the prophecies of a future messiah indicate that it isn't. Why would you say otherwise?

And, of course, we could move this entire conversation into one which focuses on the fact that Jesus was not of the Davidic line, but that's a separate problem.

 

[blü 2]

He was indeed. How was John annunciated? When his father was in the Holy of Holies ministering before the Ark! John was creme de la creme of the priesthood.

Of course, God is ironic--and hides from the "wise"; Jesus also "anointed" when the priests slapped and struck Him since you must LAY HANDS on the lamb sacrifice!

So the priests' wives and children and family and friends were all messiahs for the same reason, eh? Gosh, I didn't know that!

But don't confuse the rabid antisemitism of Rome with the Bible's truth, please.

You seem to think antisemitism was confined to the RCC. No, the Protestants were dab hands at it too! And wasn't there a movement just a few years ago to remove the out-loud antisemitic parts of Orthodox liturgy?

No, antisemitism is as Christian as apple pie. It started with John (eg but not only John 8:44) and seldom looked back.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Who says it is at an end? All the prophecies of a future messiah indicate that it isn't. Why would you say otherwise?

And, of course, we could move this entire conversation into one which focuses on the fact that Jesus was not of the Davidic line, but that's a separate problem.

Rather than being an obstacle to belief in Jesus as the 'anointed' of God, the two genealogies, in Matthew and Luke, provide support for his credentials not just as the Son of David, but as the Son of Man and Son of God. The beauty and harmony of the two genealogies makes it possible for us to see that Jesus fulfilled all these roles.

The problem for Torah Jews is that invaluable genealogical records, available to the first Christians, were lost in the destruction of Jerusalem. This needs to be highlighted, because the books that the Gospel writers wrote were based on available information and genealogies.

Since the loss of these important genealogical tables, which played a crucial role in the religious life of Judaism, there exists a problem that is not easily resolved. How will Torah Jews recognise the Messiah? For a start, they have concluded that the Messiah is only a man, despite the problem arising from Psalm 110:1, and other passages of scripture, which indicates that an exalted 'Lord' stands between David and God the Father. Jesus raised this issue with the Jews of his day, and they had no answer [Matthew 22:41-46].

So, as the day of the Messiah's appearance draws near, Torah Jews are left in a confused state of mind. Will the Messiah appear 'lowly, and riding on an ***' or will he descend upon the clouds of heaven as the King of Kings? It's hard to see him doing both!

Then we have the whole issue of the nature of man, and how the appearance of a man-Messiah can contribute to a change in man's nature. If God is the only Saviour, then a man-Messiah will make little difference to the salvation of men.

Here's an example of the confusion!

 

[blü 2]

Rather than being an obstacle to belief in Jesus as the 'anointed' of God, the two genealogies, in Matthew and Luke, provide support for his credentials not just as the Son of David, but as the Son of Man and Son of God.

Of course, as you know, the first substantial biography of Jesus is in Mark, and Mark's Jesus is neither born of a virgin, nor anything special, being just an ordinary Jew until God adopts him in the same way God adopted David (Psalm 2:7, confirmed Acts 13:33); and Mark's Jesus is expressly NOT descended from David.

Then the Jesus of Matthew has a genealogy for Joseph purporting to show his descent from David, but of course in Matthew Joseph is expressly NOT the father of Matthew's Jesus, who instead is the result of divine insemination.

Then the Jesus of Luke has a different, entirely irreconcilable and equally incredible genealogy for Joseph purporting to show his descent from David, but of course Joseph is NOT the father of Luke's Jesus, who instead is also the result of divine insemination.

The Jesus of Paul, like the Jesus of John but unlike the Jesuses of Mark, Matthew or Luke, pre-existed in heaven with God and (in the role of the gnostic demiurge) created the material universe. The Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John are said to be descended from David, though no attempt to explain how this is the case, and no mention of Jesus' parents, is offered in either case.

The beauty and harmony of the two genealogies makes it possible for us to see that Jesus fulfilled all these roles.

The matters I've mentioned above show what an irreconcilable mess the stories are.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Of course, as you know, the first substantial biography of Jesus is in Mark, and Mark's Jesus is neither born of a virgin, nor anything special, being just an ordinary Jew until God adopts him in the same way God adopted David (Psalm 2:7, confirmed Acts 13:33); and Mark's Jesus is expressly NOT descended from David.

Then the Jesus of Matthew has a genealogy for Joseph purporting to show his descent from David, but of course in Matthew Joseph is expressly NOT the father of Matthew's Jesus, who instead is the result of divine insemination.

Then the Jesus of Luke has a different, entirely irreconcilable and equally incredible genealogy for Joseph purporting to show his descent from David, but of course Joseph is NOT the father of Luke's Jesus, who instead is also the result of divine insemination.

The Jesus of Paul, like the Jesus of John but unlike the Jesuses of Mark, Matthew or Luke, pre-existed in heaven with God and (in the role of the gnostic demiurge) created the material universe. The Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John are said to be descended from David, though no attempt to explain how this is the case, and no mention of Jesus' parents, is offered in either case.
The matters I've mentioned above show what an irreconcilable mess the stories are.

It is only an irreconcilable mess to those who fail to study it carefully!

Each of the Gospels reflects a perspective on 'the Branch'. The Gospel of Matthew looks at the life of Jesus as the coming King of the Jews. Royalty keep genealogies, and this is reflected in the royal line through David.

Luke focuses on Jesus as the Son of Man, and the genealogy of Luke takes us back to Adam.

By combining these two genealogies it is possible to demonstrate that Jesus was of the royal line of David, whilst also being the Son of God (ie without Joseph as his father).

The following article clarifies the difficulties, and solutions.

The Genealogies of Jesus, R.A.Torrey

'1. The genealogy given in Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, his father in the eyes of the law. The genealogy given in Luke is the genealogy of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and is the human genealogy of Jesus Christ in actual fact. The Gospel of Matthew was written for Jews. All through it Joseph is prominent, Mary is scarcely mentioned. In Luke, on the other hand, Mary is the chief personage in the whole account of the Saviour’s conception and birth. Joseph is brought in only incidentally and because he was Mary’s husband. In all of this, of course, there is a deep significance.



2. In Matthew, Jesus appears as the Messiah. In Luke He appears as ‘the Son of Man’, our Brother and Redeemer, who belongs to the whole race and claims kindred with all kinds and conditions of men. So in Matthew, the genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph and Jesus, because all the predictions and promises touching the Messiah are fulfilled in Him. But in Luke the genealogy ascends from Jesus to Adam, because the genealogy is being traced back to the head of the whole race, and shows the relation of the Second Adam to the First.



3. Joseph’s line is the strictly royal line from David to Joseph. In Luke, though the line of descent is from David, it is not the royal line. In this Jesus is descended from David through Nathan, David’s son indeed, but not in the royal line, and the list follows a line quite distinct from the royal line.



4. The Messiah, according to prediction, was to be the actual son of David according to the flesh (2 Samuel:12-19; Psalm 89:3, 4,3 4-37; 132:11; Acts 2:30; 13:22,23; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8). These prophecies are fulfilled by Jesus being the Son of Mary, who was a lineal descendant of David, though not in the royal line. Joseph, who was of the royal line, was not his father according to the flesh, but was his father in the eyes of the law.



5. Mary was the descendant of David through her father, Heli. It is true that Luke 2:30 says that Joseph was the son of Heli. The simple explanation of this is that , Mary being a woman, her name according to Jewish usage could not come into the genealogy, males alone forming the line, so Joseph’s name is introduced in the place of Mary’s, he being Mary’s husband; Heli was his father-in-law and so Joseph is called the son of Heli, and the line thus completed. While Joseph was son-in-law of Heli, according to the flesh he was in actual fact the son of Jacob (Matt.1:16).



6. Two genealogies are absolutely necessary to trace the lineage of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the one the royal and legal, the other the natural and literal, and these two genealogies we find, the legal and royal in Matthew’s Gospel, the Gospel of law and kingship; the natural and literal in Luke’s, the Gospel of humanity.



7. We are told in Jeremiah 22:30 any descendant of Jeconiah could not come to the throne of David, and Joseph was of this line, and while Joseph’s genealogy furnished the royal line for Jesus, his son before the law, nevertheless Jeremiah’s prediction is fulfilled to the very letter, for Jesus, strictly speaking, was not Joseph’s descendant and therefore was not of the seed of Jeconiah. If Jesus had been the son of Joseph in reality, He could not have come to the throne, but He is Mary’s son through Nathan, and can come to the throne legally by her marrying Joseph and so clearing His way legally to it.’