rlogan

Seems that the subject changes. That is, I don't think we have "a" servant throughout these songs.

Why would there be such studious avoidance of an unequivocal collective connotation in this last song?


I would have to agree that using 53 as a Jesus prophesy is out of the question. Past tense seems to rule that out.

But boy, did they ever "mine" this for the Jesus material anyway. I just realized that 53:9 explains Joseph of Arimathaea - the rich man's grave.

spin

Ch 49 is also to me clearly not Israel, while ch 44:1-2 and 45:4 make the servant Israel. I would connect ch 49 with 52:13-53:12.

But I don't understand your "unequivocal collective connotation". Is it that you see the "he" which is used throughout the passage as collective or are you intermingling the "he" and the "we"?


spin

rlogan

What I mean is this, Spin: There are authors arguing for Isaiah 53 as a song with Israel as the "he".

The most basic argument is that other songs are about Israel and so this one must be too.

If that is the case, then why is there not one place one can point to where Israel is without question "he"? (A preceding line with Israel in it would clinch that, for example)

There is no place where the "he" refers to a collection of people unambiguosly. We speak of a nation's people as "her people", for example. "Her rivers". "Her lying murdering president"

The way it is written makes it difficult to completely rule out "he" being Israel. But on the other hand we can't put forth a single example where "he" is undoubtedly referring to nation.

spin

I think if you try to identify the we/us in 53, you'll have to rule out that he is Israel. He can't be us... "and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all." (6c)

The servant in 49 is not Israel either, as I pointed out above with the references.


spin

rlogan

Quite right.

duh. I had a lobotomy last week.

redzrx

Original that is.. As jews(jewish sites) will say that it applies to Israel(and or its people)./

The jews imply that the christian changed the he/we/them translation to fit their agenda.


Check out www.Jewsforjudaism.com

Mario

spin

The JPS translation for 53:5 starts "But he was wounded because of our transgressions . . ." which reflects the Hebrew. I have pointed out that my reading does not favour xian interpretation, which simply takes little notice of what the original says. The servant's task in ch 53 as it is in ch 49 is to do something to bring people back to the Lord and ch 49 clearly identifies those people as Jacob/Israel. The "we" in ch 53 should be the prophet and his co-nationals. The only candidate who has credibly been put forward is Onias III. He at least fulfils the starting criteria.


spin

redzrx

I believe the "we" you mention is actually the gentile nations which caused the torment to Israel.


Mario

spin

You may believe it, but it is not based on the text, so it would appear to merely be apologetic.

Whose message is it in 53:1? Can you really find a connection with 52:15a? How? Does the "they" become "we" in 53? Does the sudden "my people" in 53:8 refer to some specific nation other than Israel? Is the speaker of 53:1 & 6 a gentile who believes in the Lord?? Why should the speaker, if gentile, believe that he "was stricken by God"?

I think the only logical conclusion is that the speaker was Jewish.


spin

redzrx

Ok .. I may be a little rusty at this.. but

ISa 52 13-15 is basically god talking thru the prophet(Servant being Israel).

ISa 53 1-3 is the gentile nations(Representative there of) view,disbelief and wonderment(if thats a word) of Israels redemption and final vindication.

Also if you look at ISa 49 7 the him is Israel. The jews tended in thier writings it seems to use the word "him or he" as Israel especially when mentioning how other nations view them.

Balls in your court.

Mario