Fulfillments of Bible Prophecy

Verse 3

quote:

---

PurpleDawn writes:

​

I don't see that the author deemed this a fulfillment. How does that verse make the Isaish 3 verse specifically about Jesus?

​

It seems like a pretty good match to me. This prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus.

Jn 1:10-11 He was in the world, and the world was created by him, but the world did not recognize him.
He came to what was his own, but his own people did not receive him.

---

You didn't explain anything. Thanks!If all you're going to say is, "It looks like a match to me." ; then you're wasting my time.So really explain how John's comment in John 1:10-11 is deemed a prophecy let alone a match for Isaiah. Notice it is again past tense, not aimed at the future.Verse 4-9These are all past tense. At the time Isaiah was speaking all this had supposedly already taken place. How can Isaiah 53 be about Jesus???Verse 10 This one still presents a problem. Descendants and long life. God is saying he will bless him with descendants and long life to show people the servant is back in God's favor once restitution is made. If those things don't really happen, he won't be consider by the people to be blessed by God or in God's favor which will make it difficult for him to accomplish God's purpose.So now in verses 11 and 12 God is proclaiming the servant’s vindication and exaltation as the NET notes put it.If you read the entire poem, you will see that whatever happened to the servant; already happened at the time Isaiah was speaking. This throws Jesus out of the picture.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

purpledawn writes:

​

The term father is not exclusive to offspring. Father in the dictionary

​

exactly right, just as the scriptures show that the term 'seed' is not exclusive to offspring. The term has a variety of meanings in scripture. An example is in the case of Luke 8:11 "Now the illustration means this: The seed is the word of God" Here Jesus applies 'seed' to Gods word...it has nothing to do with offspring here.

​

So why, in the instance of Isaiah 53, do you reject a figurative use of the word 'seed'?

---

In the parable itself the seeds are plant seeds. The people of the time understood agriculture and understood the problems of planting seeds in good and bad soil. So Jesus explains to his disciples that in the story the seeds represent the word of God etc., etc.I don't reject a figurative use. The use of the word seed in Isaiah is a figurative use. The way it is used by Isaiah means children/descendants, seed being figurative for sperm!You haven't shown me that the word seed in Isaiah's time was used to describe followers.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

please quantify the statement with the reasoning behind it.

---

Been there, done that. Message 48 and Message 106I've shown plenty of support for my position and reasoning. You haven't shown me that Isaiah doesn't mean real children or that he means spiritual children/followers. Stop stalling and show some real support for what you claim.You yourself said in Message 107: So why are you trying to tell me it doesn't mean descendant?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Sorry! You're free to use your Septuagint translation if you wish, or you might like the NIV (I think it leans more heavily toward the Septuagint?) I prefer NET or NASB.

​

It is best to work from the Hebrew, of course. Second best is to study a number of English translations. We are trying to get at the original meaning and message, and don't want to get misled by the wording of any particular translation.

---

The point is to be discussing from the same translation. I've already pointed out that translations vary and I don't want to spend time quibbling over translations. We don't have the original Hebrew and I don't read ancient Hebrew, do you?

quote:

---

Don't be so concerned about the English tenses. Here's where it is necessary to know a bit about biblical Hebrew. Hebrew verbs do not have past, present, and future tenses. They only have two "tenses", perfect and imperfect, which function differently than western tenses. Hebrew tenses do not designate time so much as certainty. Past events are generally (but not always) in the perfect. Future events are generally (but not always) in the imperfect. Divine prophecy, being certain, is usually in the perfect rather than the imperfect, and this is often translated to English as a past tense even though it was a future event at the time of writing.

---

So what you're telling me is that Isaiah just wasted his audiences times by telling them things that have nothing to do with them. How do we know that the prophets spoke of the future as though it had happened already? When did scholars figure that out? For the sake of argument I will go with the idea that this happens in some future.

quote:

---

Sorry, my wording was probably not precise. Is 52:14-15 describes the events of Christ's passion, immediately before the cricifixion itself. There was scourging, beating, etc. as Mel Gibson showed in his movie "The Passion of the Christ".

---

well good for Mel. No it does not describe the crucifixion. There's nothing in the text that says Jesus didn't look human. There is nothing in the text to suggest beating as the cause of disfigurement. I don't care what Mel's take on it is. The text is the issue here, not Hollywood. Have you read what the Gospels actually say? Nothing in the Gospels suggest excessive beating to the point of disfigurement. If you disagree, show me the words, not Mel.

quote:

---

This confused the Jews of the first century, too. This is suggested in Is 53:1--Messiah was not what they expected. Messiah was prophecied (and awaited) to be a king who would rule and set things right. Jesus was celebrated as this king only a week before His cricifixion, on what we call "Palm Sunday."

---

You said look at the Hebrew and according to your NET Bible notes, the Hebrew says "arm of the Lord" which is a metaphor for military power. Jesus had no military power, so he did not show them the arm of the Lord. At the end of the poem (verse 12), per NET notes, the servant is compared here to a warrior who will be richly rewarded for his effort and success in battle. This keeps with the military theme of the question.Celebrating him as King really counters verse 3. The text gives the idea of a long period of time as in over a lifetime, not just a week or a few days.

quote:

---

This detail DOES fit with Jesus, its just that this part of the prophecy is yet future (see, e.g., the last few chapters of Zechariah, the books of 1 and 2 Thessalonians). He will return as the conquering King and will set things right.

---

You're adding to the text. Where does Isaiah 53 imply that events will be spaced out? (Really spaced out!)It didn't fit Jesus at the time he was supposedly fulfilling the prophecy.

quote:

---

Yes he was. He was born in a stable and raised in a hick town, a backwater (see Jn 1:46).

​

This prophecy was very unexpected for the future King of Israel (which is what Messiah was prophecied to be). Messiah would have a humble beginning, not a regal one. Jesus fulfilled this prophecy.

---

Three wise men brought him valuable gifts. How insignificant is that? From the NET notes: The Gospels do not present Jesus as someone who lacked company in his early life or his ministry.You haven't convinced me that the words of Isaiah describe Jesus as he is depicted in the Gospels.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

You havnt shown how the bible supports your position though.
and as I said, the source you use is an anti messiah site so of course they deny that it is a messianic prophecy.

---

You and I are discussing the use of the word seed. It isn't an anti-messiah site. Be precise, it's a Jewish site. Just because they don't accept Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, doesn't mean they are anti-messiah.

quote:

---

But there is evidence that Jews of the 1st century did believe Isaiah 53 was a messianic prophecy. In one rendering of Isaiah 52:13, the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel (1CE), as translated by J. F. Stenning, states: "Behold, my servant, the Anointed One (the Messiah), shall prosper."
Another one, the Babylonian Talmud (c.3 CE) says: "The Messiahwhat is his name?..." (Sanhedrin 98b)

---

According to this article the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel was written in the 2nd Century (101-200). I'm not necessarily arguing that Isaiah 53 is or isn't a messianic prophecy. I'm arguing that if it is a messianic prophecy, Jesus didn't fit the prophecy. IOW, this prophecy wasn't fulfilled through what we supposedly know of Jesus.Realistically, we don't have the original Hebrew manuscript. The original language is a dead language. The writing has had changes made by both sides and translated by many on both sides to suit religious beliefs. We don't have a totally unadulterated version, so we can only speculate about what Isaiah was saying to his audience.

quote:

---

The disciples of Jesus, who were Jews themselves, also believed it to be a Messianic prophecy and applied it to Jesus.

​

In Acts 8:28 is the account about Philip teaching an Ethiopian man about the identity of the 'servant' of Isaiah 53 at Gods direction. If God believes that Isaiah 53 is a messianic prophecy, then i think we can trust it it really is seeing he is the author.

---

Actually this story is a bit fishy. Notice after the eunuch was baptized Philip literally disappeared! As I stated in another post, the author didn't have Philip answer the question directly. The author of Acts wasn't a disciple, wasn't an eyewitness by his own admission and was supposedly written after the destruction of the Temple (80-130). Philip was supposedly crucified about 54CE. The author isn't really in a position to know what the original disciples believed personally.

quote:

---

Im saying its a 'spiritual' offspring as opposed to 'physical' offspring, which is what you are trying to apply.

---

I understand that you are saying it is spiritual offspring or followers. But there doesn't seem to be any support for that idea at the time of Isaiah.

quote:

---

The servant was put to death according to Isaiah. So the fact that he is able to 'see his offspring' and 'live prolonged days' must be not in a physical sense but in a spiritual sense. And if you consider what happened to Jesus, it is easy to apply it to him.

---

Isaiah understand resurrection as a physical resurrection or rebirth. also read Ezekiel 37. If you take the suffering servant as a prophecy, the servant dies and is physically resurrected. This means he is alive again and fully human and able to marry, have children, reflect on his work, and divide the spoils of his victory.The poem does not lead one to believe that the "messiah" is to die, come back to life and then ascend.

quote:

---

Shortly after gathering a small group of disciples, Jesus was put to death, but he was resurrected by God and given eternal life in Gods Kingdom. Today he is seeing his descendants in the form of the millions of Christian disciples who have put faith in him. Thats how one can have 'seed' or 'descendants' in a spiritual sense. Its as Paul said in Galatians 3:26
"29 Moreover, if YOU belong to Christ, YOU are really Abraham’s seed, heirs with reference to a promise"
The 'seed' in this verse is not speaking of literal offspring, but spiritual offspring...those with faith in Jesus are considered Jesus spiritual offspring.

---

I already addressed that in Message 106. The author of John uses it the same way. The transliterated Greek word for descendants is sperma or seed. I'm not typing the whole thing because I'm sure you have a Bible and can read all of it.Paul's use of the phrase Abraham's seed cannot be used to support Isaiah's use of the word seed 700 years earlier. Paul is not using the word seed by itself.Today the English word grass is used to refer to marijuana. The first use was in 1938. We can't use that meaning to help interpret writings done before 1938. Otherwise we could have some interesting script.Genesis 1:11
And God said, Let the earth bring forth marijuana (grass), ...Job 6:25
Doth the wild ass bray when he hath marijuana (grass)?To show me that the Hebrew word used for seed is not used by Isaiah to mean physical offspring, you would need to show that other authors of the OT or authors contemporary to Isaiah have used it otherwise. Uses of the word seed in the NT cannot tell us that Isaiah meant something other than physical children/descendants.You said it yourself. Seed is used to mean descendants.Descendants are physical not spiritual.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Again here is another figurative expression. Isaiah's words refer to the humiliation that Jesus experienced. When he exposed the religious leaders of his day as hypocrites, liars, and murderers; and they responded by reviling him and accusing him of being a lawbreaker, a blasphemer, a deceiver and a seditionist against Rome. Their false accusations painted a distorted picture of who Jesus was and what he stood for.

---

Isaiah can be figurative but not creative, is that it? Show me that Isaiah meant the words as figurative in the way that you are interpreting the words. The plain reading of the NT texts do not support what you're saying. You're creating a picture, not looking at the real picture.ABE: I think 52:14-15 is just a way to say he was ugly. I am curious though, if all this is in the future who is Isaiah talking to when he states: Whose the You? kbertsche and I are using the NETBible

quote:

---

JOhn 16:33 "I have said these things to YOU that by means of me YOU may have peace. In the world YOU are having tribulation, but take courage! I have conquered the world" John 14:30 " I shall not speak much with YOU anymore, for the ruler of the world (the devil) is coming. And he has no hold on me"

​

By his integrity he completely defeated Satan the devil who attempted to get Jesus to be disloyal to God. This was Gods strong arm in action...the fact that Jesus stood firm against all that the devil threw at him, even in the reality of death. So Jesus was able to say he conquered the world.

---

Sorry, Isaiah again doesn't seem to be speaking of a spiritual battle, but a physical one. Show me that his words depict a spiritual battle and not physical. What makes it spiritual aside from you.Edited by purpledawn, : Added sentence. Clarified statements.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Show that the words used by Isaiah clearly describe a spiritual battle.Your own creative interpretation doesn't make it so for Isaiah's words.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Have you compared Isaiah 53 to the Gospels?

---

That's what kbertsche and I have been discussing. Message 93, Message 116, Message 119, Message 131Show that what the Gospel authors claimed as fulfillment actually matches the plain text reading of what Isaiah said. Without your added backstory the prophecy, as it is translated, doesn't fit Jesus.The entire prophecy is not included in the claim of fulfillment.
The words used as they are understood in the time of Isaiah are not reflected in the Gospel recounts of Jesus' life.IOW, all the prophecy is not accounted for and without embellishment, the parts claimed as fulfillment don't match either.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

But if He is DEAD how can He? He must be resurrected, made to live again in order to see the fruit of His death and be satisfied.

---

I addressed that in Message 138.

quote:

---

If so then how can Israel be called in the prophecy "the righteous One, My Servant"? Which is it? Did the nation go astray from God or is the nation the righeous One?

---

Discerning the suffering servant would take some time to read all the suffering servants songs without predetermined ideas and taking into account poetic license. I doubt if you're up for that.

quote:

---

There Jesus Christ makes Himself an offering for sin. Is someone else expected to come along who will be more noted for doing this?

---

Matt. 26:27,28 is not a preparation for a sin offering and humans were not accepted by God as literal sin offerings. The verse speaks of a covenant not an offering.

quote:

---

The New Testament confirms it.

---

The NT writers apply the prophecy as creatively as Isaiah did. Anything can be speculated and nothing can be proven 100%.Ultimately the prophets provided hope for a group of people that God would rescue them from their plight of the time. The NT writers used the same imagery to provide hope for the people of their time.Bottom line: Times got worse after Jesus died. The Jews remained under the rule of other nations. No victory dance. Gentiles picked up the mantle of the Jewish Messiah and made him Christ and became Christians. The Jews continued to practice their religion even after the destruction of the temple and are still practicing their religion and still waiting for a messiah.Whether our sins are forgiven after we die is another speculation. Nothing can be proven in reality. Verbally, as I've been told before, a sign of forgiveness from God is being in God's favor which means the good times are rolled out in the physical life and the bad times go away. If we use that to discern if sins were forgiven upon the death of Jesus, I would say no. The good times didn't roll.What you and Peg haven't shown is that the results of the servants efforts according to Isaiah are spiritual or after death as opposed to being experienced in physical life.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Read Message 138,not just the quote which you misunderstood.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

If so then how can Israel be called in the prophecy "the righteous One, My Servant"? Which is it? Did the nation go astray from God or is the nation the righeous One?

---

Righteous doesn't mean one has never sinned. The servant is called righteous after repentance. (Ezekiel 18)
Jesus still needed the baptism of repentance, so he probably did sin whether intentional or not. (Mark 1)Removed from the "land of the living" could also mean removed from the land of Israel. Exile! Hard to tell in a poem over 2,000 years old in a dead language.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Your first point is right, but your second point is nothing more than a wild conjecture and even goes against what scripture teaches concerning the sinless nature of Jesus.

---

Read Mark 1 and your previous thread on sin. John preached a baptism of repentance and Jesus insisted on being baptized. Make your case as it relates to the topic. Show it, don't just say it.

quote:

---

Purpledawn is at it again giving interpretation her own unique twist.
These scriptures she presents as support for whatever she believes by no means call Israel the land of the living. The phrase "land of the living" is a general phrase and not a specific one, which is used only to distinguish the world were the dead reside and the world were the living reside, it is not a specific phrase only referring to Israel as has been suggested by purpldawn.

---

As are you. The difference is that the excerpt I provided isn't my twist. It's another alternative to discuss. The implication isn't that the phrase only refers to the land of Israel, but the phrase has been used to refer to the land of Israel. God threatened to destroy those who terrorized the land of Israel. Being cut off from the land doesn't automatically mean physical death.As far as being a poem, that has been established and not by me. That's why we look at the three previous songs to get clues.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Now this is curious. Wasn't it you saying that the seed had to not be taken metaphorically or spiritually? Now you metaphorically interpret what you wish, all in order to make the chapter refer to something else besides Christ.

---

Nope, I said the word seed was a creative way to refer to children. Message 106 and Message 110.
I asked Peg to show me that the word seed had been used in Isaiah's time to refer to followers as she claims.

quote:

---

Do you see how you apply a double standard? I see you simply using what you complain against when it suits your purpose to point Isaiah's prophesy away from Jesus Christ.

---

I guess you can eat those words.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

The baptism of Jesus does not signify that He sinned and needed His sins washed away. It does signify that in His incarnation He came in the form of the fallen Adamic nature which needed to be denied, terminated, and buried because it is self bound and so independent.

---

You're adding to the text. Jesus was baptized by John, who preached repentance and baptism. If there was no sin, then there was no need to be baptized. The fallen nature idea is a later teaching, not what Jesus preached.

quote:

---

He all His life denied Himself and lived by the Father. With the fall of man an independent soul life came into existence. Jesus came in the form of this independent self yet without sin. The baptism of a righteoues man here signifies the burial of that independent self in order to deny the self and live out the Father who indwelt Him.

---

You have no support that "all his life" he denied himself. We don't have that information. You're adding to the text again.Jesus preached repentance. He came for the "lost" not the righteous. The idea you present concerning baptism is a later teaching.

quote:

---

In the goodness of His own human life He could say and judge with goodness and righteousness, because He was sinless. But even this goodness He denied in order to live out the Father's life and speak what He heard from the Father.

​

Therefore Jesus denied Himself even though He was sinless. And baptism He insisted upon to demonstrate that even He was living not by Himself alone, but by His Father.

​

Jesus did not come in the form of the unfallen Adam (before Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). Jesus was incarnated in the form of the fallen man, yet without sin.

---

The verses you provided from John 8:26 and 5:30, don't support the concept that Jesus never sinned in his life. We don't know what he did between 13 and 30. Paul's personification of sin isn't really applicable here.Righteous doesn't mean never sinned. Good doesn't mean never sinned.

quote:

---

My main point is Christ's requested baptism did not signiy the washing away of Christ's sins. It signifed His intention to deny Himself, even the sinless self, and live out the Father's life and will.

---

You're adding. The text does not support the idea that the baptism had anything to do with denying himself. Denying one's self does not mean one is without sin. John's ministry was specific. Repentance. Jesus went to John. Jesus preached repentance. He lead by example.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Isaiah says " ... He poured out His soul unto death" (v.12). So physical death is more likely the meaning.

---

Could be, but then that casts out the offspring verse. As I said before, if we go with the idea that he physically died and came back from the dead; then the point of the song is that he lived physically on Earth and had children and enjoyed the spoils of victory. The ascension doesn't go with the song. All the parts have to come together.If the righteous servant is removed from the land of Israel and then returned in victory, the servant is able to have children and enjoy the spoils of the victory. You've got to explain the kids, unless you want to say restitution has not been made and the Lord's purpose has not been accomplished.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz