dzim77

In the OT a 'prophet' is one who is called by God to speak the words that God gives him to speak... or to proclaim the vision that God shows him.

Everything the OT prophets have spoken can be fulfilled even though they did not have a full understanding of the exact chronology in which their prophecies would be fulfilled.

For example (for arguments sake) let's say Isa. 53 and Isa. 2 are both messianic prophecies. According my idea, Isaiah may not have known exactly how that would work out (the messiah being both a suffering servant and a peace-bringing king at the same time), nontheless, he faithfully proclaimed the message God had given him. So, the idea of a messiah that comes first to suffer and atone for sins and later returns to reign as king and usher in a time of peace does NOT condradict the words of Isaiah's prophecy in any way. Rather it fulfills both Isa. 2, and Isa. 53 perfectly. Correct?

Diogenes the Cynic

What's the point of speaking it if it's so muddled that no one can understand it?

Also, why did "God" say that the servant was Israel?

Diogenes the Cynic

Isaiah never said he was talking about the Messiah.

dzim77

Who said "it's so muddled that no one can understand"??

The point is to give Israel hope of a coming Messiah, hope that God would have the ultimate victory, hope that their sins would be atoned for, and to encourage them to remain faithful to God.

Obviously Isaiah 53 is a unique passage. Isaiah refers to Israel as his servant in other places in Isaiah, but he also refers to Isaiah, Eliakim, Jacob, David, Cyrus... as his servants.

Are you suggesting that Isaiah was saying that "Israel" would atone for the sins of the gentiles? ..."by 'Israel's' stripes, 'the gentiles' will be healed" ??

dzim77

I qualified...

Diogenes the Cynic

You did. At least you implied it. At any rate, no one before Christianity ever read Isaiah 53 as Messianic. That sounds pretty muddled to me.
But Isaiah 53 doesn't say anything about a Messiah. It just talks about Israel.
He identifies the suffering servant as Israel in chapter 52. There is no ambiguity about it. And please remember that our current chapter divisions were not part of the original text.
In a manner of speaking, yes. Not in the sense of substitutionary atonement (ala Christianity) but because their example would cause the Gentiles to repent on their own.

dzim77

This statement is blantanly false. Please provide the scripture reference in Isa. 52 that refers to Israel as the servant. (You can't).

The beginning of the 'suffering servant' passage is Isa. 52:13 and there is no mention of Israel throughout the entire passage.

First off, substitutionary atonement is not "ala Christianity", it is "ala Leviticus" (the idea is also previously seen in Gen 22 with the ram replacing Isaac and in the Exodus passover). The only atonement mentioned in the OT is "substitutionary atonement"... are you suggesting Isaiah is bringing a completely new idea of atonement to this passage?
because that would be very anti-Jewish tradition.

Diogenes the Cynic

Look at 52:1, 2 and 9. He's talking about "Zion" and "Jerusalem," i.e Israel. If that's not explicit enough for you, look at 49:3. The "servant" in 13 is a direct call back to 49:3 (as well as several other verses) and is clearly a continuation of the dissertation on Israel.

You really don't know anything about Judaism, do you? Have you ever studied it at all or do you only know what you've been told by Christian pastors?

In the OT, God can accept animal sacrifices, along with penitence and obedience to the law in return for forgiveness of sins but sacrifice, in itself, does not atone for sins and no human being (not even the Messiah) can redeem the sins of another. Substitutionary atonement does not exist in Judaism and the idea of a sacrificial redeemer is simply not part of the definition of the Jewish Messiah and is not something that is found anywhere in Hebrew Scripture. The OT Messiah is not a redeemer of sins. Period.

Jack the Bodiless

What is the basis for this statement?

The Bible contains numerous failed prophecies.

BTW, why are you continuing to ignore the fact that Jesus cannot be the Messiah, based on his lineage?

dzim77

I think your use of the terms "unambiguous" and "clearly" are inappropriate. In other places, Isaiah uses the term "My servant, Israel". Or "My servant, Eliakim". Now, those are unambiguous usages. Why doesn't he use it in Isa.53? Where does all the unique atonement language come from? Why the singularly unique idea of Isaiah speaking on behalf of the gentiles as you propose? Since when does God refer to "Israel" as innocent, blameless, having no deceit in her mouth?

The suffering servant is unique and the idea that he is "Israel" makes no sense in the context.


We are discussing the OT aren't we? I am familiar with the OT, yes.

I really appreciate your nuanced and comprehensive view of atonement and repentance... that repentance indeed requires an attitude of sincere penitence and a commitment to obey God, rather than a mechanical sacrifice. Thanks for that.

However, your statement that substitutionary atonement is not found in the OT is not true. Consider the following OT reference for starters... here, atonement requires a blood sacrifce.


Regardless of your views concerning 'traditional Jewish' ideas of atonement... notice the substitutionary language in Isa. 53.

Notice the phrase "bear their iniquities". This same phrase is used in Leviticus 16, concerning the 'scapegoat' who would bear the sins of all the Israelites on the day of atonement. You can see how this phrase clearly connotates substitutionary atonement, NOT your idea of "other nations injuring Israel by their wickedness or abuse".

More substitutionary language (from your preferred JPS)

..the plain meaning is that of substitution. It does not say "his stripes will make us feel bad, so that we will repent and turn to God and be healed." It says "by his stripes we are healed".

Perhaps that's because you misunderstand Isa. 53 and Zech 12-13?