|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Messianic Prophecies
« Back to club forum
| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Messianic Prophecies“Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” (Isaiah 53) |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Exegetical assumptions involved This is the critical step that too many modern readers miss. They immediately think "What does this mean to ME, in the 21st century A.D.?" Sorry, all you modern readers; the prophecy wasn't written with you in mind. It was written to a specific audience at a specific time facing specific questions, to convey God's words to those people. Only after we understand how God was answering THOSE people, we can then think about how that advice can be applied to our different questions. The first thing to note is that Deutero-Isaiah is loaded with 'Creation' imagery. It has more 'Creation language' than even Genesis. Out of respect for Vic, I will quote the King James Version of 43:19:- "Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it? I will even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert." This theme of a 'New Thing' is carried over to a return to Judah, a Second Exodus as implied by streams in the Desert (like Moses at Elim), and a renewal of the covenant is foreshadowed in 51:1,2. Not the Mosaic covenant, but the much more fundamental Abrahamic covenant, a covenant of promise and grace rather than law and obedience:- "Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him." And there will be a New Israel as well! There will be continuity with God's covenant of old, but Israel will be re-born! (44:1,2) "Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen: Thus saith the Lord that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen." This is frequently contrasted with how the Israel of history, the Old Israel, repeatedly fell short. (e.g., 43:22-24; 48:1,2; 58:3-5) This New Israel will not merely fulfill the task of the Old Israel; it will surpass it! (49:6) “It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.” So when reading Deutero-Isaiah, be conscious of the 'New Thing' the prophet is talking about. Now we can look at ch. 53 with better understanding of context within the book. It my understanding that the subject of this passage is the New Israel that God will bring forth. This New Israel will be the One who is faithful to God, who is righteous, who keeps the covenant, who is everything that Adam was meant to be in the Old Creation (the Image of God), but failed. Here God is forming the New Israel, the true Image of God. So is this chapter a prophecy of the Messiah, the Christ? Yes it is! Is it a prophecy of Jesus? Yes it is, but not directly; it prophecies him because he is the one who will include in himself everything that the New Israel will be. And because this world will always react savagely to God, that New Israel will be the target of all the world's brutality. So this chapter is much more than an exercise in future-telling. It shows not only the abuse of the Messiah, but also exactly what is being abused in him; the New Israel, the New Creation that God is bringing to birth. It also adds another layer to understanding the New Testament writers (such as Paul and John) when they talk about us being 'the Body of Christ' and being 'grafted into Jesus'. We who are 'in Christ' are the New Israel; the Old Israel was the caterpillar from which the butterfly emerged. Reading in context adds such depth and richness! |
||||||
|
The only points I would make are… • The Lord (God) is the one punishing the subject of Isaiah 53, not the world. “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” (Isaiah 53:6) “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief:” (Isaiah 53:10a) • I think it’s clear the subject of Isaiah 53 is a substitutionary sacrifice – He’s not being punished for His sins, transgressions or wrongdoing, but for the sins, transgressions and wrongdoing of others. “because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.” (Isaiah 53:9b) “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows:” (Isaiah 53:4a) “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” (Isaiah 53:5) “and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” (Isaiah 53:6b) “for the transgression of my people was he stricken.” (Isaiah 53:8c) “when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin,” (Isaiah 53:10b) “for he shall bear their iniquities.” (Isaiah 53:11c) “and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” (Isaiah 53:12c) So we have a subject who has done no violence and is not deceitful being punished by the Lord for the transgressions and sins of others. • Isaiah 53 was written as much for first century Jews as Daniel 9:24-27 was written for them. But just like first century Jews missed the time of the Messiah’s visitation as recorded some 500 years earlier in Daniel 9:24-27, so they missed that the Messiah would not be a conqueror of Rome and liberator of Jews from Roman rule, but would be a conqueror of death and liberator of Jews and Gentiles from the yoke of the Mosaic Law, which no one could keep. • I see a distinct progression from the substitutionary blood sacrifices of animals for sins in the Old Testament (which had to be repeated over and over) to the substitutionary blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, which was a one-time sacrifice. “For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Hebrews 9:13-14) Obviously all the above is imo |
||||||
|
youtu.be Video is 30:33 The part where Seth Postell talks about salvation through Isaiah 53 is from 27:00 to 28:50. Bob – they discuss parallels with Exodus. |
||||||
|
Vic 17:35 But what did Isaiah 53 mean to those first readers in Babylon more than 600 years before the Crucifixion? It must have meant something for them to accept it as genuine prophecy, and even attach it to the book of so respected a prophet as Isaiah. As though Isaiah himself had said it, and not just one of their own contemporaries! And then to continue copying it century after century? I'm trying to tease out what that original Word meant to those Jews in Babylonian captivity. What the Bible teaches and what the text means do not change over time. It still means what it meant to the original writers and readers. Otherwise it becomes meaningless. Only on the basis of the original meaning can any further application or interpretation be valid. So your point that "Isaiah 53 was written as much for first century Jews as Daniel 9:24-27 was written for them" is true. All the Bible was inspired, and is valid for all time; but each component of it grew out of a unique time, place and circumstance. So saying that Isaiah 53 was written for ALL readers is not relevant to working out what it meant to the original readers, for them to recognise its value and preserve it. This is how trained mainstream theologians (and I would hope all competent pastors) approach the Bible. Without an anchor in actual events, it is all too easy to read one's own prejudices back into the text. |
||||||
|
Vic 18:27 I watched the video you linked. All good stuff! Its focus is slightly different from mine, so it takes a slightly different route even though there is much in common. Legitimately so, just different. I think a few of his points were a bit loose. For instance, his insistence on the Servant being an individual because it parallels the Exodus account 's Moses is not secure. Parallels do not have to match detail-for-detail to be valid. I also point out that Isaiah often speaks of Israel as though it is an individual, and even uses both the individual and the collective names alternately in the same sentence (e.g., "Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen: Thus saith the Lord that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.") It's poetry as well as prophecy. He also assumes that the debate about "Who is the Messiah?" is between Israel as a nation or some individual. Not so; the third possibility (and I think springing naturally from the 'Creation language') is that Isaiah has in mind a NEW Israel, or at least a RENEWED Israel. In this sense, Jesus is both an individual and representative of the new Israel as well as embodying that new Israel as Abraham bid the Old Israel. That is a line he never contemplates. As a minor detail, Jeremiah 11:18 onwards is NOT a quote from Isaiah 53. It uses similar language, but it is far from a quote. It was also written before Isaiah 53 if the overwhelming consensus of scholarship is correct. However, it is known that Jeremian was very highly regarded by the Exilic Jewish community and many scholars say that Jeremiah himself is a contributing factor in Deutero-Isaiah's servant songs. So it is more than likely that there is a genuine link between Seth's passages, just the other way around. But these are details. Jesus the individual fulfilled the prophecy, however the original writer and readers might have understood it. |
||||||
|
<<Often called the “Forbidden Chapter,” Isaiah 53 is a significant source of controversy. Not just between Judaism and Christianity, but even within Judaism itself. Up until Christ came, the Jewish sages and rabbis roundly agreed that Isaiah 53 was a prophecy about the Messiah. But once the Christian Gospel started to spread, this chapter in Isaiah began to cause problems within Judaism because of its overt resemblance to the life and work of Yeshua (Jesus) as the Messiah. According to Eitan Bar, a native Jewish-Israeli scholar: The 17th-century Jewish historian, Raphael Levi, admitted that long ago the rabbis used to read Isaiah 53 in synagogues, but after the chapter caused “arguments and great confusion” the rabbis decided that the simplest thing would be to just take that prophecy out of the Haftarah readings in synagogues. That’s why today when we read Isaiah 52, we stop in the middle of the chapter, and the week after, we jump straight to Isaiah 54.2 —Eitan Bar>> rlsolberg.com. I have an aversion to quoting AI but it does present information succinctly and is the first source that appears after a Google search… <<Yes, many rabbis before Jesus interpreted Isaiah 53 as a prophecy about the Messiah. This interpretation was prevalent in Jewish circles before the rise of Christianity and is supported by various Jewish texts and traditions. Here's a more detailed explanation: Messianic Interpretation: The Jewish sages and rabbis before the time of Jesus largely agreed that Isaiah 53 was a prophecy about the Messiah. This view was not unique to a single rabbi but was a widespread understanding within Jewish communities. Evidence from Jewish Texts: The Babylonian Talmud, in Sanhedrin 98b, explicitly links Isaiah 53 to the Messiah, identifying him as "the Leper Scholar". Similarly, the Targum Jonathan, an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible, also applies Isaiah 53 to the Messiah. Prevalence of the Interpretation: Midrashic texts, like Midrash Ruth Rabbah 5:6 and the Zohar, also quote from Isaiah 53 in the context of the Messiah's sufferings. Impact of Christianity: The Messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53 became a point of contention with the rise of Christianity, as it was used by early Christians to support their claim that Jesus was the Messiah. This led to a shift in some Jewish interpretations, with some rabbis later arguing that Isaiah 53 refers to Israel as a whole, rather than an individual Messiah.>> What I can’t square is how Jewish religious leaders in the first century missed that Jesus Christ was the Messiah (though they apparently were unaware of His birth in Bethlehem and that it fulfilled Micah 5:2) and why ordinary Jews back then thought the Messiah would be a conquering hero who liberated them from Roman rule. The latter may be explained by their not knowing or believing that the Messiah would appear twice – first to reconcile man to God and provide salvation to all who believe in Him as the Messiah, and second to judge the world (i.e. unbelievers.) This is an interesting response by Pharisees to the question of whether Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament… “Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? So there was a division among the people because of him. And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him. Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,) Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. And every man went unto his own house.” (John 7:40-53) They apparently were not aware of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem and that His birth there fulfilled a centuries-old prophecy from the book of Micah… “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.” (Micah 5:2) |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
And are you saying the subject in Isaiah 53 is “Old Israel” or “New Israel?” Because while the subject undergoes punishment for others’ transgressions, the same subject is blessed in the latter verses of Isaiah 53. I’m not so much interested in parallels of Isaiah 53 with Exodus and Jeremiah. I’m also not certain the dating of Isaiah 53 to roughly 500 years before Christ (6th century) is more accurate than 700 years before Christ. But it’s really a moot point imo because one of the surviving copies of Isaiah 53 was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and is dated to 125 B.C., which is obviously well before Jesus Christ’s earthly ministry. |
||||||
|
Correction to above… This is from AI… <<Isaiah 53 was likely written between 739 and 681 B.C.E., during the reign of King Hezekiah. The book of Isaiah, including chapter 53, is generally attributed to the prophet Isaiah. However, some scholars believe that chapters 40-55, including Isaiah 53, were written later, possibly in the 6th century B.C.E., after the Babylonian exile. Here's a more detailed explanation: Traditional view: Most scholars believe that the prophet Isaiah wrote the book of Isaiah, which includes chapter 53, during his time in the 8th century B.C.E. Alternative view: Some scholars, particularly those who adhere to a more critical understanding of the Bible, argue that Isaiah 53, along with other sections of the book of Isaiah (chs. 40-55), was written later, possibly during the Babylonian exile in the 6th century B.C.E. Evidence for the traditional view: The book of Isaiah is attributed to the prophet Isaiah in verse 1:1. The style and content of Isaiah 53 fit within the broader context of the book of Isaiah, particularly the other prophetic sections. Evidence for the alternative view: The language and vocabulary in chapters 40-55 differ somewhat from the earlier sections of the book of Isaiah. Some scholars believe that the prophecies in Isaiah 53 are more accurately interpreted in light of the suffering and exile of the Israelites during the Babylonian period.>> I remember posting quite a long time ago why the earlier date was better. If I can find that post (not even sure what club it was posted in) or can find the source, I’ll post it here, but whether Isaiah 53 was written 700 years before Jesus Christ’s crucifixion or 500 years before His crucifixion is immaterial imo because it’s still a prophecy written well before His crucifixion. |
||||||
|
Vic 11:54 & 12:39 The first problem is that we have the text that we have, not an inspired explanation of it. Any answers from outside the text itself are scholarly reconstructions, not 'truth'. The second problem is that these scholarly reconstructions invariably depend on the assumptions the scholars bring to the text. But here goes... 1. <I would need some clarification on what you mean by “New Israel”> Or more correctly, what the prophet means by 'New Israel'. My understanding is that he means precisely that, a NEW Israel, which is to be the completion of the work God began in Abraham, as alluded to in several places. By 'New', it might be a work from scratch, like making Adam out of dust, or it might spring from the Old Israel by a miraculous act, like the dried bones in Ezekiel. Isaiah doesn't explain, except that it will be a "New Thing". 2. <Is it because members of the New Israel are in Christ and have Christ’s righteousness as opposed to attempting to gain righteousness by the law?> This is a question outside the scope of Isaiah. It tries to interpret the book into categories that would have been unknown to the original writer and readers, and therefore invalid when attempting to understand Isa. 53. In passing, this is something that is done too often. Later developments based on earlier texts might be reasonable and even correct in their conclusions; but that doesn't mean that the conclusions reached later were present in the original writing. Good exegesis should try to avoid these anachronisms. But if we are to extend the conversation beyond "What does Isa 53 mean?" and discuss later teachings, you have a very good point. Christ himself IS the 'New Israel' and those in him partake in this new identity. Now might be a good time to discuss a linked point you have discussed previously, the 'Biblical Definition' of a Christian (which apparently you say I fail to satisfy). Your 'Biblical Definition' (if I remember correctly) was along the lines of "If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." But this 'definition' depends on the believer doing something. Is that not a 'work'? I prefer the definition 'Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation.' This is not something the believer does, but what God does. It is entirely by grace. 3. <And are you saying the subject in Isaiah 53 is “Old Israel” or “New Israel?”> Here is where many scholars see memories of Jeremiah influencing Isaiah's prophecy. The subject of ch. 53 is the Servant, the new Israel. 4. <Because while the subject undergoes punishment for others’ transgressions,> This is where you are importing an assumption. You are assuming that the suffering of the Servant is a 'punishment' in the sense of a sacrifice to atone for sin. That is reading the New Testament back into Isaiah. But where does Isaiah say that? Isaiah says that the Servant was 'despised and rejected by men', that he was 'wounded for our transgressions' (which can also be read to mean that he was wounded BECAUSE OF our transgressions, just as an assault victim is wounded because of the transgression of the assailant), that WE ESTEEMED him 'smitten by God' (but we were wrong; he was smitten by men), and so on. Isaiah is saying that this is what happened to God's faithful servant. Note the passage is all in the past tense, supporting the scholarly theory that Isaiah has Jeremiah in mind. Isaiah sees that all who are faithful to God can suffer as Jeremiah did; but by suffering the results of the sins of others, they will contribute to God's Will being done. Isaiah then prophesies that the New Israel (note the change of tense!) will suffer that even more intensely, because he is the Supreme Servant. Verse 10 mentions "When you make his soul an offering for sin', but the cultic aspect is not emphasised in any way; it is a subordinate clause that can be read to imply that accepting the cost of spontaneous fidelity is itself an act pleasing to God as an 'offering'. There is none of the cultic language (e.g., priest, pouring of blood, burning, etc) that would surround the satisfaction of a Mosaic requirement. 5. <the same subject is blessed in the latter verses of Isaiah 53.> God will vindicate him. This is Isaiah speaking to the 'Sitz im Leben' of his readers. He is encouraging them to persevere as faithful servants, because faithful servants will be vindicated. Thus is my reading of the passage, anyway. And Jesus, as the Supreme Servant, satisfied this prophecy like no other could. 6. The discussion of authorship and date is very helpful because it provides context to allow better understanding. Your AI quote will echo the views of the opinions that the AI consults, rather than giving us 'fact'. I note that the principal 'evidence' for Isaiah being a unitary work is that the first verse says it is. That can be done to any book at any time, but it doesn't stop others from adding to it later. If it had been the LAST verse in the book it might be more convincing! But whenever it was written, by whomever, it is genuine prophecy and has been recognised as such for two and a half millennia. I had a quick skim through the Wiki article, and it seems a reasonably good summary. |
||||||
|
The first problem is that we have the text that we have, not an inspired explanation of it. Any answers from outside the text itself are scholarly reconstructions, not 'truth'.>> I disagree with this. I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase, “Let the Bible interpret the Bible.” Because the Bible consists of 66 books written by 40 men over 1,500 years, and because I believe the authors of the Bible were inspired by God, I believe it’s absolutely warranted to interpret books of the Bible based on other books of the Bible. For example, Isaiah writing that the subject of Isaiah was wounded for our transgressions and was an offering for sin aligns with what Jesus said in the Gospels some 700 years later. “Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matthew 26:27-28) (NIV) “I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.” (John 10:11) <<The second problem is that these scholarly reconstructions invariably depend on the assumptions the scholars bring to the text.>> I think the Bible has to be viewed as a cohesive whole, that not only are the books of the Bible divinely inspired but their selection to be in the Bible was divinely guided. <<But here goes...>> Me: <<I would need some clarification on what you mean by “New Israel”>> You: <<Or more correctly, what the prophet means by 'New Israel'.>> I haven’t read/handwrote Isaiah in quite a while, but did the prophet ever use the term “New Israel?” <<My understanding is that he means precisely that, a NEW Israel, which is to be the completion of the work God began in Abraham, as alluded to in several places. By 'New', it might be a work from scratch, like making Adam out of dust, or it might spring from the Old Israel by a miraculous act, like the dried bones in Ezekiel. Isaiah doesn't explain, except that it will be a "New Thing".>> I’m not sure “New Israel” and “New Thing” are synonyms. Me: <<Is it because members of the New Israel are in Christ and have Christ’s righteousness as opposed to attempting to gain righteousness by the law?>> You: <<This is a question outside the scope of Isaiah. It tries to interpret the book into categories that would have been unknown to the original writer and readers, and therefore invalid when attempting to understand Isa. 53.>> I completely disagree with this. A prophet is someone who speaks for God, an omniscient being who (by definition) knows the future. In fact, one way the Old Testament distinguishes between genuine prophets and false prophets is whether what they say comes to pass. “And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.” (Deuteronomy 18:21-22) <<In passing, this is something that is done too often. Later developments based on earlier texts might be reasonable and even correct in their conclusions; but that doesn't mean that the conclusions reached later were present in the original writing. Good exegesis should try to avoid these anachronisms.>> I think this negates the whole idea of prophecy, that a prophet is speaking of a future event based on what God has told him to say. <<But if we are to extend the conversation beyond "What does Isa 53 mean?" and discuss later teachings, you have a very good point. Christ himself IS the 'New Israel' and those in him partake in this new identity.>> Ok, then I would suggest what you term the “New Israel” is comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28) And I think adding the term or concept of “New Israel” is needlessly confusing the issue if the “New Israel” is Jesus Christ. It seems much more clear and straightforward to say “Jesus Christ.” <<Now might be a good time to discuss a linked point you have discussed previously, the 'Biblical Definition' of a Christian (which apparently you say I fail to satisfy). Your 'Biblical Definition' (if I remember correctly) was along the lines of "If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.">> I don’t deny Romans 10:9 is a salvation verse but I prefer John 3:16-18 and Acts 16:30-31… “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (John 3:17-18) “And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” (Acts 16:30-31) In those verses (and in many others) “believe” is key and the only requirement for salvation. <<But this 'definition' depends on the believer doing something. Is that not a 'work'? I prefer the definition 'Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation.' This is not something the believer does, but what God does. It is entirely by grace.>> Are you suggesting you believe in universalism, the idea that everyone goes to Heaven? That a human being has no role to play, no decision to make, no free will in his salvation? If so, I think that goes against Scripture… “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9) Me: <<And are you saying the subject in Isaiah 53 is “Old Israel” or “New Israel?”>> You: <<Here is where many scholars see memories of Jeremiah influencing Isaiah's prophecy. The subject of ch. 53 is the Servant, the new Israel.>> Why is the New Israel being wounded and bruised? And on whose behalf is the New Israel being wounded and bruised? Me: <<Because while the subject undergoes punishment for others’ transgressions>> You: <<This is where you are importing an assumption. You are assuming that the suffering of the Servant is a 'punishment' in the sense of a sacrifice to atone for sin. That is reading the New Testament back into Isaiah. But where does Isaiah say that?>> If Isaiah was a prophet (and he obviously was) he was prophesying about future events so it’s only natural to read his words in relation to the New Testament. The New Testsment is a logical progression and fulfillment of the Old Testament, which contains numerous Messianic prophecies. They may be distinct volumes separated by roughly 500 years, but they are connected. <<Isaiah says that the Servant was 'despised and rejected by men', that he was 'wounded for our transgressions' (which can also be read to mean that he was wounded BECAUSE OF our transgressions, just as an assault victim is wounded because of the transgression of the assailant),>> That is very much of a stretch, imo. <<that WE ESTEEMED him 'smitten by God' (but we were wrong; he was smitten by men), and so on.>> I think “we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God” is similar to what Job’s friends mistakenly thought in the book that bears Job’s name – that Job was being smitten by God because of his own sins. I think this is more than evident in what Jesus’ detractors said while He was on the cross… “Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.” (Matthew 27:41-43) <<Isaiah is saying that this is what happened to God's faithful servant. Note the passage is all in the past tense, supporting the scholarly theory that Isaiah has Jeremiah in mind.>> This assumes Isaiah was written after Jeremiah, which is not the majority view of scholars. From AI… <<No, the book of Isaiah was written before the book of Jeremiah. Isaiah's prophetic ministry began during the reign of King Uzziah and continued through the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, spanning roughly the 8th century BC. Jeremiah's ministry, on the other hand, began during the reign of King Josiah and continued through the reigns of Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah, placing him primarily in the 7th century BC. Elaboration: Isaiah: His ministry is generally dated to around 740-701 BC. Jeremiah: He began prophesying around 627 BC and continued until the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BC. Time Difference: This means Isaiah was active for a significant period before Jeremiah's ministry began. Therefore, while both prophets are considered part of the major prophets in the Old Testament, Isaiah's prophetic ministry predates Jeremiah's.>> From gotquestions.org… <<Again, most reputable Bible scholars reject the “Deutero-Isaiah” theory. Their conclusions include the similarity of writing styles in both sections, the consistent use of the same words throughout, and the familiarity of the author with Israel, but not Babylon. Furthermore, Jewish tradition uniformly ascribes the entire book to Isaiah.>> www.gotquestions.org My understanding is the use of the past tense in prophecies is not at all unusual and is known as the “prophetic perfect tense.” <<The prophetic perfect tense is a literary technique commonly used in religious texts that describes future events that are so certain to happen that they are referred to in the past tense as if they had already happened.>> Other examples from Isaiah… <<"Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge: and their honourable men are famished, and their multitude dried up with thirst." – Isaiah 5:13 "He is come to Aiath, he is passed to Migron; at Michmash he hath laid up his carriages: They are gone over the passage: they have taken up their lodging at Geba; Ramah is afraid; Gibeah of Saul is fled. Lift up thy voice, O daughter of Gallim: cause it to be heard unto Laish, O poor Anathoth. Madmenah is removed; the inhabitants of Gebim gather themselves to flee. As yet shall he remain at Nob that day: he shall shake his hand against the mount of the daughter of Zion, the hill of Jerusalem." – Isaiah 10:28–32>> en.m.wikipedia.org <<Isaiah sees that all who are faithful to God can suffer as Jeremiah did; but by suffering the results of the sins of others, they will contribute to God's Will being done.>> I agree that prophets of God in the Old Testament and followers of Jesus in the New Testament certainly suffered persecution at the hands of unbelievers, and those persecutions could certainly be labeled as “sins.” And I believe such persecutions identify and conform believers with Christ… “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.” (Romans 8:16-18) “For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;” (2 Corinthians 4:16-17) <<Isaiah then prophesies that the New Israel (note the change of tense!) will suffer that even more intensely, because he is the Supreme Servant.>> I’m still not clear on who this “New Israel” is. If it’s Jesus, it seems unnecessary and superfluous to say He also is the “New Israel.” <<Verse 10 mentions "When you make his soul an offering for sin', but the cultic aspect is not emphasised in any way; it is a subordinate clause that can be read to imply that accepting the cost of spontaneous fidelity is itself an act pleasing to God as an 'offering'. There is none of the cultic language (e.g., priest, pouring of blood, burning, etc) that would surround the satisfaction of a Mosaic requirement.>> Are you implying mainstream Christianity is a cult?! But the full verse that includes what you quoted says… “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.” (Isaiah 53:10) Isaiah in verse 10 is imo directly referring to the subject of Isaiah 53 and is not making a blanket or general statement. Me: <<the same subject is blessed in the latter verses of Isaiah 53.>> You: <<God will vindicate him. This is Isaiah speaking to the 'Sitz im Leben' of his readers. He is encouraging them to persevere as faithful servants, because faithful servants will be vindicated.>> But Isaiah is referring to a future event, is referring to the Messiah. I don’t think he’s giving a pep talk to his contemporary readers, though perhaps that could be an intended or unintended consequence. <<Thus is my reading of the passage, anyway. And Jesus, as the Supreme Servant, satisfied this prophecy like no other could.>> We can agree on that. <<The discussion of authorship and date is very helpful because it provides context to allow better understanding. Your AI quote will echo the views of the opinions that the AI consults, rather than giving us 'fact'. I note that the principal 'evidence' for Isaiah being a unitary work is that the first verse says it is. That can be done to any book at any time, but it doesn't stop others from adding to it later. If it had been the LAST verse in the book it might be more convincing!>> There is much more evidence than that which is why the majority view of scholars is that the entire book of Isaiah was written by the prophet Isaiah around 700 B.C. (and consequently before Jeremiah.) <<But whenever it was written, by whomever, it is genuine prophecy and has been recognised as such for two and a half millennia.>> Yes. We can agree on that, though we may disagree on the subject in the prophecy. <<I had a quick skim through the Wiki article, and it seems a reasonably good summary.>> I didn’t see the Wiki article. |
||||||
|
Vic 2. I understand how you view 'Inspiration'. I also accept the Bible is inspired, and the collection/preservation is inspired. But what we mean by that word is different. If you want to go into that, then I can 'Let the Bible interpret the Bible' to show that not even the Bible writers believed in literal inspiration. Each writer addressed the audience of his own time, sometimes building on what went before but not on what was yet to come. The literalist idea of inspiration is in part a borrowing from Islam, which holds the Quran was dictated word-for-word. The Crusaders had to match that level of certainty, so some of them made that same claim for the Bible. And in part by the accuracy of scientific predictions (such as where to find a new planet) after the Enlightenment, so some Christians felt the need to show the Bible could make detailed predictions, too. 3. You don't understand the terms used in theology; instead you import the meaning from contemporary usage. For example, to a theologian 'cult' does NOT mean some wacko fringe element; it means the rituals and practices involved in a belief system. Similarly, 'myth' does not mean some fantasy on a level with Marvel comics; it means a stylised way of explaining rather than a literal, objective narrative. 4. As for the rest; if you want to read Isaiah through a fundamentalist lens instead of in its own right, and disregard anything that doesn't appear through that lens, then I can't help you. |
||||||
|
I’m really not clear on what your disagreement with me is, other than when Isaiah 53 was written. And we both agree it was written many centuries before Jesus Christ’s earthly ministry. I think we’ve exhausted discussion on Isaiah 53 (or perhaps I’ve lost interest) so I’ll move on to another Messianic prophecy in a day or two. Or if you want to post your own, please feel free to. |
||||||
|
I disagree. And not just because of Messianic prophecies and End Times prophecies, but also because of less significant prophecies. Here’s what AI has to say on the subject, which I agree with and have found to be true… <<In essence, Bible prophecy refers to God's communication to humans, often through prophets, outlining future events or divine intentions. These prophecies, found throughout the Bible, can be general statements about humanity's trajectory or more specific foretellings of events like the coming of a Messiah or the end of the world. Here's a more detailed breakdown: God's Communication: Prophecy is a way God communicates with humans, conveying His will and purpose. Through Prophets: God often uses prophets as His messengers to deliver these prophecies. Future Events: Prophecy frequently deals with foretelling future events, though not always in complete detail. Beyond Prediction: Prophecy is not just about predicting the future; it also involves messages of moral guidance, spiritual significance, and divine encouragement. Examples: The Bible contains numerous prophecies, including those about the coming of Jesus Christ, the future of Israel, and the end times. Interpretation: Interpreting prophecies can be challenging due to their symbolic nature, varying degrees of specificity, and the need to understand the historical and cultural context.>> |
||||||
|
<<How much of the Bible is prophecy? Prophecy accounts for a major portion of the entire canon of Scripture. Numerous books in the Old Testament contain prophecy—some include short statements about the future, and others feature entire prophetic visions. In the New Testament, almost every book contains some prophecy, with Revelation being wholly devoted to a prophetic vision. By one count, about 27 percent of the Bible is predictive (Payne, J. B., The Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, Baker Pub. Group, 1980, p. 675). This means that, when written, over one fourth of the Bible—more than one in four verses—was prophetic. Professor and theologian J. Barton Payne lists 1,817 prophecies in the Bible (ibid., p. 674). The consistent relation of prophecy in the Bible is staggering; on top of that is the amazing accuracy of those detailed prophecies. At least one half of all biblical predictions have already been fulfilled precisely as God had declared. Because of God’s faithfulness in fulfilling these prophecies, we can be assured that He will fulfill the rest of the prophecies in Scripture without fault (see Numbers 23:19). Prophecy in the Bible can be divided into two broad groups: fulfilled and not yet fulfilled. Some examples from these generalized groups include the following: Fulfilled Prophecies: • The first coming of Christ (e.g., Deuteronomy 18:15–19; Numbers 24:17; Daniel 9:25–26; Micah 5:2). • Jesus as the Savior of mankind (e.g., Genesis 3:15; Isaiah 53:4–5). • Prophecies regarding individual people, such as the doom of Jezebel (2 Kings 9:10). • Prophecies regarding Israel, such as in the case of Israel’s exile to Babylon (2 Kings 20:18; Jeremiah 34:3). • The destruction of the temple, which occurred in AD 70 (Matthew 24:1–2). • Daniel’s prophecies about the rise and fall of many kingdoms (Daniel 7:2–6, 16). Prophecies Still to Be Fulfilled: • The second coming of Christ (Zechariah 14:3–4; Matthew 24:44; Acts 1:10–11; Revelation 1:7). • The rapture of the church (1 Thessalonians 4:16–17). • The tribulation (Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:15–22). • The resurrections of the saved and the unsaved (Daniel 12:1–3; 1 Corinthians 15:20–23; Revelation 20:11–15). • The millennial reign of Christ (Psalm 72:7–11; Zechariah 2:10–11; Revelation 20:4). • The restoration of Israel (Jeremiah 31:31–37; Romans 11:26–27). • The new heavens and new earth (Isaiah 65:17; 2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:1). Some prophecies have a double fulfillment, one nearer to the time of the prophet and one further in the future. We see this in Isaiah 7:14, for example. The birth of a child served as a sign for King Ahaz, but the prophecy also pointed forward to the virgin birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:22–23). Some interpret Jesus’ explanation of the signs of the end times as having been fulfilled in some sense in AD 70 yet also signaling a future, more complete fulfillment during the end times tribulation. Other prophecies have been fulfilled partially and are awaiting complete fulfillment. An example of this is found in Jesus’ quotation of Isaiah 61:1–2, in which He declares the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy. In the synagogue, Jesus read from the scroll: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:18–19). He then proclaimed Himself as the fulfillment of that prophecy. But He had stopped reading in the middle of Isaiah 61:2. The reason is simple: the first part of that verse was fulfilled by Christ in His first advent, but the second half, concerning “the day of vengeance of our God,” was not. The Day of the Lord is still to be fulfilled in the future. The amount of prophecy in the Bible is one of the things that make it unique among religious books. There is absolutely no emphasis on predictive prophecy in the Qu’ran or the Hindu Vedas, for example. In contrast, the Bible repeatedly points to fulfilled prophecy as direct proof that it is God who speaks (see Deuteronomy 18:22; 1 Kings 22:28; Jeremiah 28:9). Given God’s omniscience, it should come as no surprise that the Bible contains so many clear predictions or that those predictions are literally fulfilled: “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done” (Isaiah 46:9–10, ESV).>> www.gotquestions.org |
||||||
|
Vic 21:00 <If I’m not mistaken, you agreed that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy in Isaiah 53 and that the subject in Isaiah 53 is Jesus (only you said the subject is the “New Israel” and that the “New Israel” is Jesus.)> You are neither mistaken nor correct. Instead, you are committing a category error. That error is that you are taking an answer from one question and applying it to a different question which you assume to be the same. Allow me to explain:- Question 1. "Who is the subject of Isa. ch. 53?" Answer = The New Israel that God will create. Question 2. "Did Jesus fulfil the promise of the New Israel?" Answer = yes, he did. But these questions are made different by their context. The context of the first is "Who is Isaiah talking about?" and the context of the second is "What happened about six centuries later?" To draw a parallel; suppose Harry holds a raffle at a club. He says "The winner will receive a new car!" Harry is absoutely certain that this will happen. George Smith wins the raffle and therefore the car. Did that mean Harry prophesied that George would win the car? The other stumbling block here is that I'm trying to explain to you a totally different way of understanding prophecy. But you keep asking "How does this new way match point-for-point with my old way?" The answer to that question is "It doesn't!" That's not to say your old paradigm is wrong; just that it doesn't fit simultaneously with the new one. Just like a football boot and an army boot will both fit on your foot; but they won't both fit on at the same time. You have to choose which boot is the most appropriate for the job at hand; playing football vs hiking cross-country. Or in this case, working out what Isaiah meant by 'New Israel' vs. talking about how Jesus fulfilled Isaiah's understanding of the 'New Israel'. I can talk about the first, then talk about the second, and then show how the second grew out of the first. But that does not make the second the same as the first. Again, my apologies. I shouldn't have made the assumption that you were following a new paradigm when you were in fact trying (and I accept that you were doing it in good faith) to integrate it into your own existing paradigm. |
||||||
|
Answer = The New Israel that God will create. Question 2. "Did Jesus fulfil the promise of the New Israel?" Answer = yes, he did. But these questions are made different by their context. The context of the first is "Who is Isaiah talking about?" and the context of the second is "What happened about six centuries later?">> I think this is better worded this way… Question 1. “Who is the subject of Isaiah chapter 53?” Answer = The Messiah. Question 2. “Did Jesus fulfill the promise of the Messiah?” Answer = Yes, He did. <<To draw a parallel; suppose Harry holds a raffle at a club. He says "The winner will receive a new car!" Harry is absoutely certain that this will happen. George Smith wins the raffle and therefore the car. Did that mean Harry prophesied that George would win the car?>> I don’t think anyone thinks Isaiah identified the Messiah by name. Like your parallel, Isaiah simply prophesied that a righteous servant would be a substitutionary sacrifice; that is He would be punished for the transgressions and iniquities of others and would be an offering for sin. Isaiah didn’t predict the identity of this servant or even when He would appear. The latter, though, was predicted quite accurately by Daniel. It should be mentioned again that rabbis and Jewish sages prior to Jesus’ earthly ministry thought Isaiah 53 was about the Messiah. www.oneforisrael.org |
||||||
|
Vic 23:58 But as I explained above, (22:30 post), you are missing one step. The chapter is about the Suffering Servant, whom Isaiah considers the New Israel. It is a step further to identify this Servant with the Messiah. Yes, many (but not all) rabbis in Jesus' time made this identification; but it is a definite step, not in Isaiah's words themselves; as shown by the sizeable number who didn't make that step. Even the disciples who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah during his ministry still didn't agree that he must suffer. Remember the 'Get behind me, Satan!' rebuke to Peter. But at that stage we are well past the question "What did Isaiah mean?" and into "What followed?" I also remind you that Isaiah didn't speak of a 'substitutionary sacrifice'; he spoke of a suffering servant who presented his suffering to God. Only later was it understood to mean 'substitutionary sacrifice'. We agree on the end point, so well might you ask "If we agree at the end, what does it matter?" To me it matters because there is great insight in observing the individual steps on the way. Ask yourself; if Lewis and Clark had slept through their entire journey, carried by friendly Indians, woken up to note nothing more than "Yes, we saw the Pacific!", and then slept the whole return journey; would their notes have been as valuable as a daily journal? This is the value of disciplined exegesis; it helps you understand the journey as well as the destination. If all you are interested in is the destination, then that's fine! Lots of people sleep on the train to SanFran today, and they arrive safely! But I find the sights along the way thrilling. And if others wish to enjoy the journey, then I don't want someone else in the carriage saying "You can only look out MY window!" All perspectives are to be welcomed, because they all help to understand the landscape along the way. (Which is why I say "I'm still learning!") |
||||||
|
In my opinion, it’s simply and obviously false that Isaiah did not speak of a substitutionary sacrifice. And I identified the verses that demonstrate the subject in Isaiah 53 is a substitutionary sacrifice in a post at 17:35… <<• I think it’s clear the subject of Isaiah 53 is a substitutionary sacrifice – He’s not being punished for His sins, transgressions or wrongdoing, but for the sins, transgressions and wrongdoing of others. “because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.” (Isaiah 53:9b) “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows:” (Isaiah 53:4a) “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” (Isaiah 53:5) “and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” (Isaiah 53:6b) “for the transgression of my people was he stricken.” (Isaiah 53:8c) “when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin,” (Isaiah 53:10b) “for he shall bear their iniquities.” (Isaiah 53:11c) “and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” (Isaiah 53:12c)>> I think we ought to move on to another Messianic prophecy at this point as we’re repeating points already made. |
||||||
|
Because the “arm of the Lord” is the subject in Isaiah 53. |
||||||
|
“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” (Daniel 9:24-27) My understanding is verse 24 is a summary of the prophecy, while verses 25 and 26 pertain to the arrival (first coming) of the Messiah. And verse 27 refers to the 70th week, which still has yet to take place and which is commonly referred to as the Tribulation. I think this is a good summary of verses 24 and 25 being a Messianic prophecy of Jesus’ first coming. And unlike Isaiah 53, the subject is specifically referred to as the Messiah… <<THE SEVENTY WEEKS OF DANIEL AS UNDERSTOOD BY SIR ROBERT ANDERSON IN “THE COMING PRINCE” Daniel 9:24-25 says that from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem to the coming of the Messiah there will be 483 years. 7 + 62 “weeks” = 69 groups of seven years. 7 x 69 = 483 years Anderson understood a prophetic year as 360 days. This is based both on ancient history and on Revelation 11:2, 13:5, 11:3, and 12:6 which indicate that 42 months – 3 ½ years – are equal to 1,260 days. Therefore, 483 years x 360 days = 173,880 days Artaxerxes started his reign in 465 B.C. The decree to rebuild Jerusalem was given on the first day of Nisan, in the 20th year of Artaxerxes. In our calendar system (the Julian calendar) that date is March 14, 445 B.C. (Nehemiah 2:1) Jesus started His ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius (see Luke 3:1). Tiberius started his reign in A.D. 14, so Jesus’ ministry started in A.D. 29. Anderson believed that Jesus celebrated four Passovers during His ministry, one each in A.D. 29, 30, 31. and His final Passover in A.D. 32. With the help of lunar charts, we can calculate the exact date of ancient Passovers, so it is possible to calculate the exact day of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem as April 6, A.D. 32. From 445 B.C. to A.D. 32. there are 476 years on the Julian calendar (not 477 years, because there is no year zero). 476 years x 365 days = 173,740 days. Adjusting for the difference between March 14 and April 6 adds 24 days. Adjusting for leap years over a period of 476 years adds 116 days. The total number of days from March 14, 445 B.C. to April 6, A.D. 32. 173,740 + 24 + 116 = 173,880 days. According to his calendar, Daniel told us there would be 173,880 days between the decree and the arrival of Messiah the Prince. Jesus said to the Jews of this day: If you had known, even you, especially IN THIS YOUR DAY, the things that make for your peace! (Luke 19:42). David said of this day in Psalm 118:24: THIS IS THE DAY which the LORD has made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.>> enduringword.com This is a commentary on verse 26… <<a. After the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off: The Biblical term cut off is sometimes used to describe execution (see Genesis 9:11 and Exodus 31:14). Gabriel told Daniel that the Messiah will be cut off for the sake of others, not for Himself. i. “Able chronologists have shown that the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ occurred immediately after the expiration of 483 prophetic years, of 360 days each, from the time of Artaxerxes’ order.” (Ironside) ii. Strangely, many able commentators simply ignore these numbers. “The numbers are symbolic and not arithmetical.” (Baldwin) iii. Cut off is a poignant description of Jesus’ earthly life up to and including the cross. “Born in another man’s stable, cradled in another man’s manger with nowhere to lay his head during his life on earth, and buried in another man’s tomb after dying on a cursed cross, the Christ of God and the Friend of the friendless was indeed cut off and had nothing.” (Heslop) b. Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary: After the Messiah was cut off, Jerusalem and her temple would be destroyed again by an overwhelming army (with a flood). Most all Bible scholars and commentators agree that this was fulfilled in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. c. The people of the prince who is to come shall destroy: The destroying army is made up of the people of the prince who is to come. This coming prince is described more in Daniel 9:27>> Verse 27 (the 70th week) is still in the future, and this is a commentary on it… <<5. (27) The events of the seventieth week. Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.” a. He shall confirm a covenant: The “he” Gabriel described is the prince who is to come mentioned in the previous verse. If we know that the prince’s people destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70, then we know this coming prince has his ancestral roots in the soil of the ancient Roman Empire. i. Therefore, the prince who is to come will in some way be an heir to the Romans, even as the final world government is an heir to the Roman Empire (Daniel 7). b. He shall confirm a covenant with many for one week: The coming prince will make a covenant with Israel for the final unit of seven years, completing the seventy weeks prophesied for the Jewish people and Jerusalem. i. Covenant with many: The word many here is a specific reference to Israel, not a general reference to a group. The ancient Hebrew says, “covenant with the many.” ii. With this covenant Israel will embrace the Antichrist as a political messiah, if not the literal Messiah. Jesus predicted this in John 5:43: I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. iii. Taking the description of what would be accomplished in the 70 Weeks from Daniel 9:24, we know that the 70 Weeks are not yet complete. Yet the events promised in the first 69 weeks are fulfilled, indicated that there is a lengthy “pause” in the 70 Weeks, between the 69th week and the 70th week. The 70th week will begin when the coming prince shall confirm a covenant with the Jewish people. These gaps or pauses in prophecy may seem strange to us, but they are common. Comparing Isaiah 9:6 and Luke 1:31-33 shows another significant pause or gap in prophecy regarding the coming of the Messiah. iv. We can think of it in this way: God appointed 490 years of special focus on Israel in His redemptive plan. The years were paused by Israel’s rejection of Jesus. Now there is no special focus on Israel in God’s redemptive plan because this is the time of the church. God’s focus will return to Israel when the church is taken away (at the rapture) and the last seven years of man’s rule on this earth begin. v. “The 70th week will begin when the Jewish people are restored in unbelief to their land and city; and among them will be found a faithful remnant, owning their sin, and seeking Jehovah’s face.” (Henry Ironside writing in 1911) c. In the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering: The coming prince will break the covenant with Israel in the middle of the seven years, the final week (period of seven years). i. The Book of Revelation sees this seven year period with both its halves as yet future (Revelation 12:6, 13-14; 13:5-9, 14-15). The middle of the week and the end of sacrifice had not yet happened in 90 A.D. d. On the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate: The ending of sacrifice will come with abominations, followed by tremendous desolation. i. Abominations translates an ancient Hebrew word (shiqquwts) that is connected to horrific idolatry (Deuteronomy 29:17, 1 Kings 11:5-7, 2 Kings 23:13). The idea is that the coming prince breaks the covenant and brings an end to sacrifice and offering by desecrating the holy place of the temple with a horrific idolatry. ii. Jesus called this the abomination of desolation (Matthew 24:15) and indicated that it would be a pivotal sign in the Great Tribulation. Paul referred to the idolatry of the coming prince in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4. e. Until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate: This breaking of the covenant and abomination of desolation has a promised consummation. Before the 70th week is completed, each of the things described in Daniel 9:24 will be accomplished and everlasting righteousness will reign.>> enduringword.com According to gotquestions.org, the book of Daniel was written between 540 B.C. and 530 B.C. www.gotquestions.org This date is in dispute, with some Biblical scholars saying it was written as late as 164 B.C. But even if that later date is correct, it’s still obviously nearly two centuries before Jesus Christ identifying Himself as the Messiah and being crucified. The four verses of this prophecy cover a lot of ground so if you’re interested in discussing it, maybe it’s best to discuss only the first three verses that pertain to events already fulfilled. |
||||||
|
“Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord. And many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto thee.” (Zechariah 2:10-11) I think these verses also include a reference to the Trinity (Lord being sent by the Lord of hosts and many nations being joined to the Lord.) Some Biblical scholars see these verses as referring to Jesus’ first coming, while others see those verses as referring to both His first and second comings (a dual fulfillment.) From AI… <<Yes, Zechariah 2:10, which states "Sing and rejoice, daughter of Zion! For I am coming, and I will dwell in your midst, says the Lord," is often interpreted as pointing to Jesus' first coming. This passage is part of a broader context within Zechariah that also speaks of Jesus' second coming. Elaboration: Messianic Prophecy: The book of Zechariah is considered a major source of messianic prophecy, and many passages, including Zechariah 2:10, are interpreted as referring to Jesus, both in his first and second coming. "Coming" in Zechariah 2:10: The term "coming" (Hebrew: בא), used in this verse, has a strong connotation of the Messiah, who is to fulfill God's promises to His people. Fulfillment in Jesus: The New Testament often refers to Jesus' first coming (his birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension) as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, including those in Zechariah. Second Coming: While Zechariah 2:10 is often linked to Jesus' first coming, other passages in the book, particularly those in chapters 9-14, are interpreted as referring to his second coming. Dwelling in the Midst: The promise of God "dwelling in their midst" in Zechariah 2:10 is seen by many as a foreshadowing of the incarnation of Jesus, who became a human being and lived among his people.>> Also from AI: <<Zechariah 2:11 states that "many nations will join themselves to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people." This verse signifies God's intention to expand his covenant relationship to include people from all nations, beyond the original nation of Israel. It highlights a global mission where all peoples will eventually come to know and worship God. Elaboration: Global Scope: The verse extends God's promise of blessing and relationship to encompass all nations, not just the Jewish people. Joining the LORD: The phrase "join themselves to the LORD" indicates a voluntary act of faith and commitment to God, becoming part of his people. Becoming "my people": This emphasizes the inclusion of diverse groups into God's family, signifying a transformation from separate nations to a unified people under God's leadership. Context of Rebuilding: The verse is placed within the context of rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem, suggesting that God's blessing and presence will be a powerful draw for nations to come. New Testament Fulfillment: Some interpret this prophecy as being fulfilled in the New Testament through the spread of the Gospel and the formation of the church, which is composed of people from all nations.>> |
||||||
|
Vic 10:00 Yes, we did discuss this in times gone by. I didn't object to it as a 'Messianic Prophecy' at all! I objected to the claim that the timetable drawn from it was accurate 'to the day'. My objection was that this timetable was cobbled together after the fact, using a variety of different measures. Some of these measures were unknown at the time of the prophecy (e.g., the Julian calendar). If you know a) what date you are aiming for, and b) can pick your own start date, and c) your own year duration, and And if you can choose to d) 'interpret' the different parts of the prophecy on the basis of different year durations (e.g., the 'prophetic year' for some, the 'Babylonian year' for others, the solar year when it suits you, the Julian year when convenient, and the lunar year when all else fails), and e) mix, match and fiddle all of the above and announce that the resulting number matches one particular point in Jesus' life (his birth? His baptism" the Nazaret Manifesto? his entry into Jerusalem? his crucifixion? his resurrection?) as the aim of the prophecy, it's not too hard to find a target that you can hit and a way to hit it. I go back to the bedrock of good exegesis. What would this prophecy have meant to the original writer and first readers? That is something that fundamentalist 'prophecy interpretation' never bothers to think about. But without an anchor in the 'Sitz im Leben', in the worshipping community, why would these 'prophecies' have been accepted in the first place, and preserved later? Finding significance only after the event is an admission that this particular interpretation of these prophecies were not in the mind of those first readers. What you have presented is a great job of sticky-taping. But a Word from God? I don't think so! Just one tiny objection, out of many; <Adjusting for leap years over a period of 476 years adds 116 days.> There were no 'leap years until the Julian calendar, in 45 B.C. That's 421 years of leap days (let's say 105 days), an error straight away. Not to mention that one set of calculations uses the 'prophetic year' of 360 days and matches this against the Julian Year (which didn't exist yet!) of 365.25 days... And at the end of that you have to assume the exact length of Jesus' ministry (an assumption which has no calendrical backing), and a host of other apparently arbitrary choices of calendars, target date and durations. The whole scheme is an elaborate exercise in wish fulfilment. If you want to understand what these prophecies mean, then the first step is to read them in context. These fundamentalist re-constructions are a credit to the ingenuity of the designers, but not much else. If I recall correctly, you have previously said 'Let the Bible interpret the Bible'. Good idea! Where in the Bible is this elaborate reconstruction even hinted at? Another good idea is to let the Bible speak for itself instead of stuffing some zealot's imagination into its mouth. Then you will be able to read what the prophet actually teaches. |
||||||
|
Vic - Date and message of Daniel But not in much dispute. It's basically modern scholarship vs. Traditionalists. The events as listed in Daniel match very smoothly with the Hasmonean revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes. But Daniel is not simply a Hasmonean propaganda pamphlet. If anything, it is as much against the Hasmoneans as it is against Epiphanes. These Jewish 'Freedom fighters' are trying to do with the sword what can only be done by God, if only they would trust! The message of Daniel is that the righteous will submit to even pagan overlordship (as Daniel and his friends did in the first half of the book), even to the point of facing virtually certain death (e.g., lions' den, fiery furnace). They must not resist an evil, pagan overlord by violence, but submit even to martyrdom as they wait for God to save them. A bit too pacifist for many people today, as it was during the Hasmonean Revolt; but the Bible is not just an instruction book. It is a record of pious men searching to understand how to live a life honouring to God. The Book of Ruth can also be understood as a protest against Ezra's Reforms that swept away the old idea of a personal dependence upon YHWH and replaced it with a priestly legalism. See how this fits with the 'Sitz im Leben' of an oppressed population? More credible than playing with your calculator to get an answer irrelevant to the readers until some centuries into the future. |
||||||
|
a) what date you are aiming for, and b) can pick your own start date, and c) your own year duration, and…>> Let’s take it one step at a time… Do you accept that the start date of the prophecy is “the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem … the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times” and that the date on the Julian calendar for that commandment is March 14, 445 B.C.? <<i. The Bible presents four possible decrees that might fulfill this description: · Cyrus made a decree giving Ezra and the Babylonian captives the right to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple in 538 B.C. (Ezra 1:1-4 and 5:13-17). · Darius made a decree giving Ezra the right to rebuild the temple in 517 B.C. (Ezra 6:6-12). · Artaxerxes made a decree giving Ezra permission, safe passage, and supplies to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple in 458 B.C. (Ezra 7:11-26). · Artaxerxes made a decree giving Nehemiah permission, safe passage and supplies to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the city and the walls in 445 B.C. (Nehemiah 2:1-8). ii. Only the last of these four decrees was a command to restore and build Jerusalem. The first three each focused on the temple, not on the street or on the wall.>> <<Artaxerxes started his reign in 465 B.C. The decree to rebuild Jerusalem was given on the first day of Nisan, in the 20th year of Artaxerxes. In our calendar system (the Julian calendar) that date is March 14, 445 B.C. (Nehemiah 2:1)>> enduringword.com |
||||||
|
I’d rather focus on Daniel 9:24-27 as a potential (in my view actual) Messianic prophecy than broaden the scope to the entire book of Daniel. Certainly Messianic prophecies within books of the Old Testament do not mean that the entire books are about prophecies of a then-future Messiah. |
||||||
|
But evidence exists that Daniel was written in the sixth century, and “an appeal to authority” for a later date is a weak argument, imo. Certainly people should evaluate the evidence for themselves… From AI… <<Evidence Against a Late Date: Aramaic Language: The Aramaic style in Daniel has been found to align more closely with the early Imperial Aramaic of the 5th century BCE than with the Aramaic of later texts, according to Apologetics Press. Internal Consistency: The book demonstrates internal consistency and unity, with the stories and visions flowing logically, which some argue would be less likely if the book were a collection of disparate writings from different times. Greek Translations: Early Greek translations of Daniel suggest that it was written well before the 2nd century BCE, as the translations point to a time before the Septuagint was compiled. Mention of Daniel in Ezekiel: The Book of Ezekiel mentions Daniel, suggesting that Daniel was known and respected in the 6th century BCE. New Testament References: The New Testament authors treat Daniel as a real person and prophet, implying a date for Daniel before the time of Jesus. Dating of Qumran Scrolls: The earliest fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which include fragments of Daniel, date back to about 125 BCE, further suggesting that Daniel was already well-known and circulated by that time.>> I won’t copy-and-paste this whole article (only its conclusion) but will provide a link to the whole article… Conclusion Regarding the Date and Authorship of Daniel <<While certain scholars have raised historical and linguistic objections to a date for the book of Daniel in the late sixth century b.c., reasonable responses can be given in favor of that date. That is, after all, the way the book portrays itself. More decisive, though, is the near impossibility for a date as late as about 165 b.c. The evidence of language, of the unity of the book, of the early date of the Greek translations, of the mention of Daniel in the book of Ezekiel, and of the Qumran scrolls, the earliest of which dates to within about fifty years of 165 b.c.—all these factors make a late date for the writing of the book nearly impossible. Most decisive of all, however, is the authority of Jesus Christ and the New Testament authors. For them Daniel was a real person and also a true prophet of God.>> www.biola.edu |
||||||
| |||||||
