Isaiah Chapter 63.

[John D. Brey]

In another thread, @IndigoChild5559 questioned whether there's a prophesy concerning Messiah destroying a lot of people. My initial response dove into the exegesis of Isaiah chapter 63 a bit deeper than I thought IndigoChild5559 would enjoy or entertain such that I nixed that message and decided to provide the exegesis to Isaiah chapter 63 as a freestanding thread.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

In another thread, @IndigoChild5559 questioned whether there's a prophesy concerning Messiah destroying a lot of people. My initial response dove into the exegesis of Isaiah chapter 63 a bit deeper than I thought IndigoChild5559 would enjoy or entertain such that I nixed that message and decided to provide the exegesis to Isaiah chapter 63 as a freestanding thread.

Although it may perturb some Jews to hear Christians argue that Messiah will destroy a large number of people just prior to, or as part-and-parcel of the redemption that's the foyer to the messianic-age, nevertheless, the prism used to interpret the messianic-prophesies determines whether or not that is or isn't the case. Many Jewish sages who might agree Messiah is a metaphor for certain kinds of actions and events, as well as being a type of the nation of Israel as a whole, nevertheless tend to concede that the Tanakh also teaches of a singular Messiah who's the archetype for all the messianic actions and events that might preceed his eventual unveiling before all the world. Maimonides, for instance, teaches that anyone who rejects the arrival of a singular Messiah is not teaching Judaism proper (or at least not properly).

As long as we teach Judaism properly, at least so far as Maimonides is concerned, we can say: Yes Virginia, Messiah will indeed destroy a large swath of people. And when we find out precisely who's included in the lot of the dead and dying we might begin to understand why so many Jewish exegetes aren't as straightforward in their interpretation of the numerous prophetic passages that say so as they should be. Carefully exegeted, Isaiah chapter 63 paints a picture very few Jews would like to look at. I mean who could deny that it's tastelessness of the highest order to paint a picture of the greatest hero of the Bible from his corpse? Faithfully exegeted, that's precisely what Isaiah chapter 63 does.



John

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Although it may perturb some Jews to hear Christians argue that Messiah will destroy a large number of people just prior to, or as part-and-parcel of the redemption that's the foyer to the messianic-age, nevertheless, the prism used to interpret the messianic-prophesies determines whether or not that is or isn't the case. Many Jewish sages who might agree Messiah is a metaphor for certain kinds of actions and events, as well being a type of the nation of Israel as a whole, nevertheless tend to concede that the Tanakh also teaches of a singular Messiah who's the archetype for all the messianic actions and events that might preceed his eventual unveiling before all the world. Maimonides, for instance, teaches that anyone who rejects the arrival of a singular Messiah is not teaching Judaism proper (or at least not properly).

As long as we teach Judaism properly, at least so far as Maimonides is concerned, we can say: Yes Virginia, Messiah will indeed destroy a large swath of people. And when we find out precisely who's included in the lot of the dead and dying we might begin to understand why so many Jewish exegetes aren't as straightforward in their interpretation of the numerous prophetic passages that say so as they should be. Carefully exegeted, Isaiah chapter 63 paints a picture very few Jews would like to look at. I mean who could deny that it's tastelessness of the highest order to paint a picture of the greatest hero of the Bible from his corpse? Faithfully exegeted, that's precisely what Isaiah chapter 63 does.



John

Isaiah 63 is about God, not the messiah.

 

[John D. Brey]

Isaiah 63 is about God, not the messiah.

What if they're one and the same?



John

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What if they're one and the same?

That idea never existed until Christianity. That's why you find nothing about any such thing in the Tanakh.

 

[John D. Brey]

That idea never existed until Christianity. That's why you find nothing about any such thing in the Tanakh.

I would say, with Sartre, we mostly find what we're looking for. Jews aren't looking in the Tanakh to find an idea virgin born in Christianity. I, on the other hand, am. That said, how would you define the "arm of the Lord" as used in Isaiah?



John

 

[IndigoChild5559]

the "arm of the Lord" as used in Isaiah?

I didn't look it up for context or anything, but off the top of my head, it is a metaphor that refers to God's power and might.

 

[John D. Brey]

I didn't look it up for context or anything, but off the top of my head, it is a metaphor that refers to God's power and might.

How would you negotiate the transition between the second statement in Isaiah 53 (To whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?), and the third statement (For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant)? In your opinion, does the third statement refer to the second?



John

 

[GoodAttention]

Isaiah 63 is about God, not the messiah.

Is it?

Reads like it is about a “mighty” man from Edom who was able to slay his enemies, even though the city was destroyed.

It sounds like he meets with the Jews who’s city/temple has been destroyed, and he praises God nevertheless, asking that he and his people be “remembered” again, foretelling perhaps their joining of the Jewish people?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Is it?

Reads like it is about a “mighty” man from Edom who was able to slay his enemies, even though the city was destroyed.

It sounds like he meets with the Jews who’s city/temple has been destroyed, and he praises God nevertheless, asking that he and his people be “remembered” again, foretelling perhaps their joining of the Jewish people?

Ibn Ezra, Rashi, and Radok all say the passage is about God. Edom represents the nations hostile to Israel, and the passage is about God's future vindication of the Jews, with the description of "the man from Edom" referring to God having dealt with these nations.

 

[GoodAttention]

Ibn Ezra, Rashi, and Radok all say the passage is about God. Edom represents the nations hostile to Israel, and the passage is about God's future vindication of the Jews, with the description of "the man from Edom" referring to God having dealt with these nations.

Ibn Ezra, Rashi, and Radok all say the passage is about God. Edom represents the nations hostile to Israel, and the passage is about God's future vindication of the Jews, with the description of "the man from Edom" referring to God having dealt with these nations.

Interesting.

I thought it was describing Obadiah directly.

 

[dybmh]

how would you define the "arm of the Lord" as used in Isaiah?

It's defined in verse 12. It's the power which parted the waters at the right hand of Moses.

מוליך לימין משה זרוע תפארתו בוקע מים מפניהם לעשות לו שם עולם׃

Who caused his glorious arm to go at the right hand of Moses, parting the waters before them, to make himself an everlasting name?