The way Gospels quoted Isaiah 53 puzzled me

[scotter]

The way Matthew and Luke quoted Isaiah 53 puzzled me.

 

[something that poked me when I was pondering on posting this thread, is the possible dilemma: since you as a Christian already believes NT is God’s Word, so the way Matthew and Luke quoted it must be right. I go ahead and post this thread anyway.]

 

Matt 8:17 This was to fulfil what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah, "He took our infirmities and bore our diseases." Isa 53:4

Luke 22:37 For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, `And he was reckoned with transgressors'; for what is written about me has its fulfilment." Isa 53:12

 

Isaiah 53 whole chapter - for members’ convenient reference

1: Who has believed what we have heard? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2: For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or comeliness that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.

3: He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4: Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.

5: But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed.

6: All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7: He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.

8: By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?

9: And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.

10: Yet it was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand;

11: he shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities.

12: Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

 

So I sincerely ask you, if you can, to jump out from the Christian zone, try to read as a third party what would you read what the ‘offspring’ is. Isaiah 53: 10 ‘he shall see his offspring….’

 

And, jumping back to the Christian zone, if you believe Isaiah 53 is a divinely guided quote and prophecy fulfilled in Jesus, please share with us what/who Jesus’s offspring is.

 

This ‘offspring’ question is not my original “discovery”. I have seen debates on other verses, I have seen some individual Christian writings, but I have yet seen a touch of debate on ‘offspring’. I would just like to post here and I appreciate responses from Christian and non-Christian members.

 

Thank you all.

[thomas]

The way Matthew and Luke quoted Isaiah 53 puzzled me.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I think that this article Biblical Evidence beyond Doctrine: Dealing with the Content of Scripture may put some light on it.

 

The article is written by a Christian, but nevertheless the author seems honest enoguh to tell that:

 

The early church already had the Old Testament, which by the Christian Era had for the most part already achieved authoritative status. Yet Christianity did not come to an understanding of Jesus, his death, and the resurrection and what that meant for the Kingdom of God in the world by a careful study of Scripture, which at that time was only the Old Testament. Even when we read something in the New Testament that sounds like it is developing Christology or Christian Doctrine from Old Testament Scripture, we have to remind ourselves that the early church was not using Scripture in this way (see, for example, Nazareth and the Branch: Matthew 2:23 and Interpretation of the Old Testament). Rather, the early church had already discerned a meaning for those events (most Christians would speak of inspiration here) and was using the Old Testament to establish continuity between the work of God throughout the Old Testament and this new revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

 

In other words, the NT, for example in the "fulfillment" formulas of Matthew or in the four-chapter introduction of Luke, most often uses the Old Testament to reinforce and illustrate the truths that the early church was already expressing about Jesus. That certainly does not invalidate the Old Testament, or in a any sense render the Old Testament subservient to the New Testament, nor does it imply any supercessionist view of the New Testament. But it does suggest that the early church was not exegeting the Old Testament for its own meaning. Instead, they were working from already established doctrine developed mostly quite apart from the Old Testament Scriptures (the Gospels themselves present a little different situation).

 

To put it very simplistically, the early church could use the Old Testament in this way because of an overarching belief in the unity of truth and God’s revelation. They believed that the faith and practice of the community were identical to what was taught in Scripture. Since God had ordained this Faith community through the revelation of God in Christ, and since God was directing the community in its faith and practice, what the community believed and did was God’s will and therefore true. Since the Bible, Old Testament Scriptures at that point, were also believed to be given by God to reveal truth, therefore what the community did and believed must be the same as that taught in Scripture.

[Loren]

scotter, have you taken a look at the Jews For Judaism site? It's a response (specifically) to the disgusting and deceitful Jews For Jesus site and, by extension, the larger Christian missionary movement that targets those "blind, stubborn, ignorant" Jews who "rejected" the Christ.

 

Jews For Judaism on Isaiah 53

 

There is a lot of good reading on that site. Enjoy.

[scotter]

Thanks Thomas, Loren.

 

But a bit disappointed that there were no Christian members' responses to the question.

[Guest pcjr]

Howdi,

 

My understanding is that offspring is referring to the children of God (Romans 8:16)

 

(btw - his is considered to be implied, not explicitly, in the Hebrew) so it is not unreasonable to read it "he will see offspring" (offspring/descendants - again, a matter of translator's choice)

 

 

scotter, Could you share your original “discovery”.

[Amanda]

Isaiah 53 

10: Yet it was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand;

11: he shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities.

12: Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

 

So I sincerely ask you, if you can, to jump out from the Christian zone, try to read as a third party what would you read what the ‘offspring’ is. Isaiah 53: 10 ‘he shall see his offspring….’

 

And, jumping back to the Christian zone, if you believe Isaiah 53 is a divinely guided quote and prophecy fulfilled in Jesus, please share with us what/who Jesus’s offspring is. 

 

This ‘offspring’ question is not my original “discovery”. I have seen debates on other verses, I have seen some individual Christian writings, but I have yet seen a touch of debate on ‘offspring’. I would just like to post here and I appreciate responses from Christian and non-Christian members.

 

Thank you all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Scotter, you really touched on a deep subject that is difficult to extend to the depth it deserves. I read one reply to this forum that said something to the effect they noticed that not many Christians responded to this... and I couldn't resist... plus it's early in the morning and I don't have anything to do...

 

Jesus' offspring? Perhaps it could be His new creation, one providing humanity to a new higher level by the principles and gift of His sacrifice? Perhaps it could be that He mediated and modeled for our benefit, demonstrated for those that are supposedly condemned and believe this lie... are pardoned by the principle of grace.

 

Maybe, indulge me if you will, that the grace he is offering us is in the grief, pain, torture he endured (from folks like many of us that have condemned or persecuted another), that in the midst of this gross inhumanity unto him, he proferred on our behalf that it is because we do the best we know how, in the situation we are in, with the coping skills available to us at this time that we act the way we do (grace).

 

His death was due to darkness and fear prolific in humanity because of condemnation unto us in our own lives. We, who killed Him, do not know better, or we would not of done it and done what was better! EVERYONE makes the best decision available to themselves at the time, aka grace. How can any one of us be condemned or thrown away for not doing better than our best? Hey, c'mon... our best is all we can do!

 

Have some compassion and mercy here my friend! Can ANYONE with mercy and compassion condemn someone for not doing better than their best? No? No! Then those who killed Him need not be sent to spiritual death forever.

 

Further... and I know you all are going to have to groan over this one, but I'm going to go ahead anyway... Once He died, He gave up his Spirit and then we've ALL been sealed with His Spirit until the day of redemption... hence he has His new creation in "ALL" of us, hence 'offspring'. Oh boy... I can see you all now... ...but I love you all anyway.

 

That is different than holding people accountable and responsible for their actions! Accountability and responsibility still remains and is necessary! Accountability avoids enabling someone to continue in disrespect of any magnitude. One can be held accountable and responsible for their actions without throwing them away. Throw no one away, and keep us all!

 

Ohhhhh boy... I know I will see the sparks fly for this one from you all (if you read this far)! I can see the squad now... ready, aim, fire... at me! Hey, I think I'm ready and can catch the bullets with my teeth! (yeah, right ) Hey, I may be wounded in an exchange... but I think I will survive. C'mon!!!

[scotter]

Pcjr,

 

Thank you for the answers. Your take is that since Jesus is God (a doctrine in Christianity), then Jesus’s offspring is God’s children.

 

I extend to you my welcome. I was welcomed warmly when I first joined. I pass on the welcome to you. Let’s pass it on.

 

If you come here looking for a fair treatment to your knowledge from both sides, people here are good listeners who would give their hearts to help you out and share with you.

 

As for ‘original discovery’, do you mean my original discovery in Isaiah 53? Not that I know.

Or my original discovery in anything about the Bible / Christianity? I do have certain questions about the Bible and Christianity, but I would not say those questions are original discoveries. They are just questions.

 

I added the wordings ‘not my original discovery’ in the original question in that once I read about a Christian asking a Judaism Jew’s viewpoint about Isaiah 53, the Jew raised the question of ‘offspring’, the Christian did not go on the question further. Then I was trying to do some more readings on this.

 

.

[scotter]

Amanda,

 

Good to hear from you. Are you a weekend morning person? (Well I assume you are living in North America, you logged your answers like around 5 am if you are from the East Coast.) This is something we share in common.

 

Nay, I am not going to pierce back on you. You responded to my 2nd post ‘no Christian responded?’ and you came to respond, you took the time to write. I have my principles.

 

Your interpretation is indeed refreshing and insightful. Your theology, if I may call it, breaks away from the evangelical theology, and also the common perception, about the exclusiveness

of Christianity - Jesus, or else eternal hell fire.

 

I had exposures to Christianity, but I don’t believe the exclusiveness in salvation of Christianity, I refuse to believe the narrowness of God.

 

Amanda, instead of saying ‘I shall be in Heaven laughing you atheists frying in Hell’ (which we exC.net members have actually seen one post here from a Christian), you are saying it is ok to be atheist, it is ok to be a non-Christian.

 

I have always seen fundi-Christian apologetic defense about Christianity’s exclusiveness over other religions, they quote Jesus, “I am the way, truth, life, no one goes to the Father except through me.”

 

For people who live a righteous life, live by their conscience, anyone, whether they are Christians or not, you can say Jesus is in their hearts. So it does not contradict with Jesus’s claim that ‘nobody goes to the Father except through me’, if those believe the Gospels is God’s Word.

(Atheist Ex-C.net members, don’t shoot me on this one either.)

 

Amanda I begin to suspect your outside package wrapping is an innocent and pure Christian, with well-hidden spiritual sparks ready to share with the kindred spirits.

 

Come more often, I definitely like to see the spiritual gems of treasure gracefully preserved inside your castle…..but in asking you to do this, that means you may continue to go through arrow shoots from members.

 

Scotter’s humble appeal to Ex-C.net members: spare Amanda, for goodness’s sake.

 

.

[shy1680]

10: Yet it was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand;

 

I found a really good response to this scripture from a Rabbi off this page called OutreachJudaism.org. This is just part of the response from the Rabbi to a Christian questioning him about this scripture.

 

And now we come to your question.  In an effort to support their christological position, missionaries often try to argue that Isaiah 53 is speaking about Jesus.  In fact, Isaiah 53 stands out as the biblical text most used by missionaries.  There are, however, countless ways to prove from this chapter and the chapters that surround it that Isaiah 53 is referring to the faithful remnant of Israel and not to the Christian messiah.

 

In Isaiah 53:10, the verse about which you were asking, the servant is promised long life and seed.  Let’s read Isaiah 53:10.

 

And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see seed, He shall prolong his days, and God’s purpose shall prosper in his hand.

 

For the church, this verse presents numerous problems.  To begin with, Jesus did not have any biological children.  The Hebrew word zerah (seed) used in Isaiah 53:10 can only refer to biological offspring when used in connection with a person’s children, never metaphoric children, such as disciples.  The Hebrew word that can refer to metaphoric children is ben.  Moreover, according to church teachings, Jesus died when he was approximately 30-40 years old, only about half the lifespan of a man as declared by King David in Psalm 90:10.  Obviously, neither the blessing of seed, nor the blessing of long life has been fulfilled in Jesus’ case.

 

Missionaries attempt to ameliorate this serious problem by explaining that Jesus had long life in the resurrection where he lives forever.  Therefore, they would argue, as you have pointed out, that Jesus indeed lived a very long life.

 

This response, however, does little to relieve their problem.  To begin with, the Hebrew words ya’arich yamim (long life) in this

verse do not mean or refer to an eternal life which has no end, but rather a lengthening of days which eventually come to an end.  These Hebrew words are therefore never applied in Tanach to anyone who is to live forever.  In fact, the words ya’arich yamim appear in a number of places throughout Jewish scriptures, including Deuteronomy 17:20, Deuteronomy 25:15, Proverbs 28:16, and Ecclesiastes 8:13.  In each and every verse where this phrase appears, these words refer to an extended mortal life, not an eternal one.  When the Jewish scriptures speak of an eternal resurrected life, as in Daniel 12:2, the Hebrew words used are l’chayai olam.

 

There are other serious problems with which missionaries have to contend regarding this verse.  Bear in mind that virtually all

missionaries zealously defend and espouse the doctrine of the Trinity.  This tenet holds that Jesus was not just a man, but actually God manifested in the flesh and the second person in the triune godhead.  This is no small matter in Christian theology.  I have met many Hebrew-Christians who were asked to leave a Messianic conference or denied membership in a Messianic congregation

because they called into question this fervently held Christian teaching.

 

In order to have a better understanding of this doctrine, we need to go back to the Council of Nicea where it all began.  This council, put together by the Emperor Constantine in 325 C.E., was the most important one in church history with regard to both its scope and focus.  Luther called it “the most sacred of all councils.”3 At the Council of Nicea it was declared that Jesus was of the same substance (Greek: homousios) as the Father.  In essence, according to this Christian belief, Jesus shared one being with the Father and in full deity.  This doctrine does not hold that Jesus was half God and half man.  Rather, in the original language of this foundational Christian creed, he is “God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God . . . .”

 

Bearing all this in mind, how can God be promised long life?  Even if missionaries would argue that this blessing in Isaiah 53:10 is referring to that time after Jesus’ supposed resurrection, how can God promise Himself, or give Himself anything for that matter?  Moreover, how can God be promised longevity when He is eternal?  The promise of long life is never bestowed on a divine being anywhere in the Jewish scriptures, only on a mortal.  Furthermore, why is God talking to Himself?

 

Finally, it is essential for those interested in possessing a clear understanding of Isaiah 53 to carefully read the surrounding

chapters.  The context of Isaiah 53 immediately reveals that the prophet is speaking of the nation of Israel in the singular.  It is

unfortunate that few missionaries are as familiar with the 52nd and 54th chapters of Isaiah as they are with the 53rd.  The consequences of this sort of unbalanced knowledge are great.

 

source

[scotter]

Good one Shy. Thank you.

 

I like your screen name – as Jesus said, “Blessed are the meek….”

 

After I marked the URLs, I was doing some reading. The 3 URLs suggested by Loren, Thomas, Shy, tackle this one from their perspectives.

 

They are all excellent and resourceful.

 

[- AUB -]

Loren, shy1680

 

Thanks, you saved me a post, that's bang on.

 

Bottom line these parallels are due to the fact that the Jesus story is derived from the OT, (or are you suggesting they weren’t aware of these passages) creating events to contrive a correlation.

[Guest Joseph]

{Edited to decrease length only...}

The way Matthew and Luke quoted Isaiah 53 puzzled me.

 

Matt 8:17 This was to fulfil what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah, "He took our infirmities and bore our diseases." Isa 53:4

 

Actually, this is a misquote. Should have read...

 

4 Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

{Hebrew Bible in English}

 

This entire passage's use by Christianity is due to a misapplication of the pronouns and a misunderstanding of who/m is talking in the passage.

 

Luke 22:37 For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, `And he was reckoned with transgressors'; for what is written about me has its fulfilment." Isa 53:12

 

12 Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because he bared his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

 

(Snip)

So I sincerely ask you, if you can, to jump out from the Christian zone, try to read as a third party what would you read what the ‘offspring’ is. Isaiah 53: 10 ‘he shall see his offspring….’

 

Christian "trinity" mystery comes into play here. They translated this to mean that Jesus (who is the Son of God and God) saw His offspring (himself, the Son and God also). So it is God shall see God's offspring. This can be done thusly in their mindset:

 

God shall see God's offspring (Jesus).

Jesus(God) shall see Jesus' offspring (himself).

Holy Spirit (God) shall see Holy Spirit's offspring (Jesus).

 

Thus the "trinity" comes into play with perhaps the idea of...

"The Father (God) shall see "the Father's" offspring (denoting Jesus)"

...as being the most accepted idea in Christendom.

 

This of course is wrong in totality, but that would mean much more involvement to go into greater detail.

 

And, jumping back to the Christian zone, if you believe Isaiah 53 is a divinely guided quote and prophecy fulfilled in Jesus, please share with us what/who Jesus’s offspring is. 

 

I kid you not, they will say, "Jesus is Jesus' offspring" with a freaking straight face. Some others would say "Father God" sees "God the Son" and thus SOUND more sane, but go figure...same entity talking about seeing itself in another encantation of some sort is just...screwy. (And doesn't fly with the text either, but I digress).

 

This ‘offspring’ question is not my original “discovery”. I have seen debates on other verses, I have seen some individual Christian writings, but I have yet seen a touch of debate on ‘offspring’. I would just like to post here and I appreciate responses from Christian and non-Christian members.

 

Thank you all.

 

One of the better answers to the Christian idea of Isaiah 53 is done by Rabbi Singer on his "outreach judaism" site. I'll look for link....................

 

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/isaiah2.html

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/isaiah1.html

 

And for fun here is some REAL interesting info that might interest some even if slightly off topic:

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/king.html