Fulfillments of Bible Prophecy

But does Jesus fulfill all that is written in Isaiah 53?
I would say no.Jesus supposedly had no offspring. Here's the same verse from the New Century Version No matter what translation I read, offspring and a prolonged life is part of the prophecy.

---

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

I've missed nothing.
What's your point concerning my post?

---

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

The author of "The Message" Bible seems to add quite a bit to the text.

quote:

---

Yes, this would be a problem for someone who takes the text so literally that he ignores idioms and figures of speech.

---

Except that the the NT writers who quote Isaiah 53 appear to be using it literally.I agree that Isaiah wrote in a poetic style, and this style of writing is creative and not necessarily literal. If Isaiah's writing is full of idioms and figures of speech of the time, that shows me that the prophecy was not meant for the distant future. Idioms and figures of speech get lost over time and over 700 years is a very long time. Not to mention that OT Hebrew is a dead language. God would know that.Also if we accept that Isaiah uses idioms and figures of speech, then that has to be taken into account for the whole writing, not just the difficult parts.

quote:

---

But I think the explanation in the excellent notes of the NET Bible (net.bible.org) is more likely:

​

The idiomatic and stereotypical language emphasizes the servant’s restoration to divine favor. Having numerous descendants and living a long life are standard signs of divine blessing. See Job 42:13—16.

---

Your quote from the NET Bible doesn't really make the verse we're discussing fit Jesus either. The NT writers did not intimate that Jesus ever fell from God's favor.Also the verse in Job doesn't really show me that Isaiah was using an idiom or figure of speech in verse 10.Unfortunately it is hard for us to determine if our translations have already taken into account the idioms and figures of speech. Seed is already a creative way of referring to children and prolonging days is a creative way of saying living longer. We also have the personification of the soul. Obviously a soul can't make an offering. So our translations may have already taken into account Isaiah's creative use of language. Unfortunately all we have are translations.Are there any other resources that show this verse is a figure of speech and not to be taken at face value, meaning actual children of his loin?ABE: Figuratively, Isaiah could be talking about the nation of Israel.Edited by purpledawn, : Added thought.

---

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

quote:

---

Since you do not believe Jesus fulfilled the prophesy of Isaiah 53 concerning "seeing His descendants and giving them long life," the verses in John declare Jesus gives eternal life to those who are born into the kingdom of God.

---

But those are not children of his loin, his seed. How does the verse concerning the servants seed support the idea of symbolic "birth" into God's kingdom or eternal life after physical death? That's assuming quite a lot. What translation tells you he will give his descendants long life?I think the use of the word seed is very specific, even creatively, and speaks of direct descendants, the passing of sperm, etc. I don't feel it means figuratively just anyone who joins the club.

---

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

Please also read Message 48 and Message 51 before responding.Show that Isaiah meant followers of a messiah as opposed to legal children. Actually God is called father, not Jesus and we are considered God's children, not children of Jesus.

---

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

Show me that the followers of Jesus referred to him as father.
Show me that the majority of Christians refer to Jesus as father.I have never heard Jesus referred to as Eternal Father.Reality does not support your contention.

---

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

Please read Message 58 before responding.

quote:

---

thats not necessarily true...there are many examples where an indirect decedent is called a 'seed' and where a direct decendent is NOT called a seed

---

An indirect descendant is still a descendant. A follower is not an indirect descendant.Your verses are all over 700 years later and not a way to show what Isaiah meant in his time.Paul is trying to reason that even gentiles are heirs to the promises to Abraham through "adoption". It doesn't help us understand what Isaiah meant.The rest of the verses are still talking about biological descendants, not followers.

---

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

quote:

---

The NT writers were native Hebrew speakers (actually Aramaic-- a Hebrew dialect) who were raised in a Hebrew culture. They would have recognized many of the OT idioms.

---

Not necessarily. You would need to show that the author was a Hebrew speaking Jew. The NT was supposedly written in Greek. Supposedly the NT writers had a preference for the Septuagint. At the link go further down the article for the comparison table.

quote:

---

If we REALLY want to understand "what the Bible really means" we need to study the language and culture of the day.

---

So if the NT authors are quoting certain lines of Isaiah as literal, why are those lines to be taken literal and not the others? That's what needs to be shown.

quote:

---

The NT writers say this quite clearly. This is the crux of the gospel message! Jesus "fell from God's favor" at the Cross. Our sins were placed on Him, and He was rejected by God the Father.

---

You'll have to show me those. There is a difference between feeling one is out of favor and actually being out of favor.

quote:

---

That's the standard Jewish interpretation.

---

And who would know their own ancient culture better?

---

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

quote:

---

The NAS which says this:

​

John 10:27-28 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."

---

Would you please make a point when you provide a verse? IOW, explain how the verse supports your position.Again, you're over 700 years away from Isaiah. How does the verse concerning the servants seed support the idea of symbolic "birth" into God's kingdom or that prolonged life is talking about eternal life?A shepherd and sheep relationship is not a parent and child relationship.

---

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

Since the NT writers quoted the Septuagint the most, I'm using an online English translation of the Septuagint.

quote:

---

Re Is 53:1--
John 12:38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? AND TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED?

---

How does this fulfill Isaiah?The author of John said that even after the miraculous signs the people still would not believe in Jesus. I can only go by the English translation. Who has believed our report, not my report, but our report. Both questions are in the present, which would be Isaiah's time, not that of Jesus 700 years later. Believing in Jesus and believing a report are not the same thing.They didn't like verse 2 apparently:

quote:

---

Re Is 53:3--
John 1:10-11 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.

---

I don't see that the author deemed this a fulfillment. How does that verse make the Isaish 3 verse specifically about Jesus? The author of John is talking about believing in Jesus. Isaiah 3 is not describing belief in the servant.

quote:

---

Re Is 53:4--
Matt. 8:17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES.

---

I don't see that this matches at all for what Jesus was doing. I don't see that Isaiah was speaking of the servant as healing others. Again Isaiah still seems to be speaking more for his present time and not a future person.

quote:

---

Re Is 53:5--
Rom. 4:25 He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.

---

Paul doesn't claim this as a prophecy fulfillment of Isaiah. How does this fulfill one verse of Isaiah?

quote:

---

Re Is 53:5-6--
1Pet. 2:24-25 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.

---

The author of 1 Peter also does not claim this as a prophecy fulfillment. Did Jesus claim to be taking all mankind's or believer's sins upon himself as a scapegoat to die with him on the cross? You do realize that sin is not something that can be transferred don't you?

quote:

---

Re Is 53:7--
Acts 8:32 Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this:
HE WAS LED AS A SHEEP TO SLAUGHTER;
AND AS A LAMB BEFORE ITS SHEARER IS SILENT,
SO HE DOES NOT OPEN HIS MOUTH.

---

The others weren't claimed as prophecy fulfillment so I'm not going to address them.You did notice that the author didn't answer the direct question of the eunuch. He just had Philip tell the eunuch the good news about Jesus. The author also didn't quote from the beginning. Due to his affliction he doesn't open his mouth. Does that fit with what has been presented of Jesus?They passed up verse 8:

quote:

---

Re Is 53:9--
1Pet. 2:22 WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH;

---

Again the author is not claiming this as a prophecy fulfillment. He's telling the people to submit to rulers and masters. He was pulling a line from Isaiah to make his point as many clergy do today, not to show prophecy fulfillment. He was telling him this was the example to follow. He didn't specify it was from Isaiah. You would need to show that no one else fit the description the author gave for it to be counted a fulfillment of that one line of prophecy.

quote:

---

Re Is 53:10--
John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

---

Again the author doesn't claim this as a prophesy fulfillment, but I also don't see how the comment is related to what Isaiah said. I guess they didn't like 11.

quote:

---

Re Is 53:12--
Luke 22:37 For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.

---

So do only those words count or was he referencing the whole verse? Doesn't the whole prophecy have to fit for it to be fulfilled? I would say yes.This tidbit is interesting concerning Israel being considered a servant. This is titled Mary's Song. Feel free to read the whole thing. So it isn't unlikely that the suffering servant is the nation of Israel.

quote:

---

The NT writers portray Jesus as fulfilling the prophecies in Is 53

---

It looks like only 4 claims were made concerning fulfillment of the Isaiah 53 prophecy. Does completion of 4 out of 12 count as fulfilled even if they do match? I would say no.Of the 4 what makes it only Jesus who could be the answer?Is it unlikely that the arm of God has been shown to anyone else?
Is it unlikely that anyone else can heal the sick?
Is it unlikely that anyone else would be numbered with transgressors when they shouldn't be?
Is it unlikely that anyone else would be considered not to have sinned or be deceitful?Check reality and let me know.If you disagree with my reading of the scripture, please explain how your own interpretation is more correct.

---

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

quote:

---

What is causing you to reason along those lines?

---

I've shown my line of reasoning in Message 48 and Message 58. Seed is already a creative way of referring to children and prolonging days is a creative way of saying living longer. Even today, probably because of Biblical influence, seed is a creative way to refer to biological offspring, as opposed to adopted children or followers of a leader or teacher.

quote:

---

Are there any other prophecies that say the Messiah will have children?

---

Irrelevant.

quote:

---

I have shown how the word 'seed' is not always used to mean physical offspring, so why do you say it means physical seed in this case?

---

Actually you haven't and I responded to your Message 55 with Message 61.An indirect descendant is still a descendant. A follower is not an indirect descendant.Your verses are all over 700 years later and not a way to show what Isaiah meant in his time. You need something a little more contemporary with Isaiah.Paul uses the phrase "Abraham's seed" to creatively refer to Israel or Jews. (Romans 9:6 and Galatians 3:29) Paul is trying to reason that even gentiles are heirs to the promises to Abraham through "adoption". It doesn't help us understand what Isaiah meant.The rest of the verses don't use the word seed. (Matthew 21:43 and John 8:39)Do you understand?

---

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

quote:

---

But who did apply Isaiahs words to Jesus? The jews of his day who became his disciples and saw the evidence that he really was the Messiah. Under the direction of holy spirit they came to understand that the prophecy applied to the Messiah.

---

Aside from Paul, show me that the quotes are from the disciples of Jesus or Jews for that matter.

quote:

---

But Isaiah wasnt into creative journalism...he was a prophet who wrote under inspiration. 'Seed' was not a 'creative' writing method back then. It was simply a common term that everyone understood to mean decedents. As i said, Jesus was called 'son of david'. This implies that seed and decendency are the one in the same and it shows that a 'seed' does not have to come directly from ones loins.

---

Isaiah is written in poetry and prose. You don't know what Isaiah was "into". Read the text.I agree, seed is not a creative writing method, I didn't say it was. The Hebrew word for seed was used to mean offspring and descendants, as I showed earlier in Message 58 and Message 106. I agree that seed is used to mean descendants, which I have been saying.What is obvious is that you don't understand what descendants are or creative writing. Those calling Jesus the son of David meant Jesus came from David's bloodline, IOW, from David's seed. So the original "seed" came from David's loins. For Jesus to have descendants, he at some point had to produce children from his loins. I really don't want to have to draw pictures.The use of the word "seed" has not been shown to mean followers of a person. Disciples are not descendants, unless the teacher/leader is their biological father or mother.

quote:

---

not at all. Under Gods direction the explanation was given through christs followers. He did this with Moses, he did it with the prophets, and he did it with Christ. God always has representatives on the earth who are given knowledge of spriritual things. And when jesus returned to heaven, those representatives became the christian Apostles. They teachings they imparted, including their explanation of Isaiahs prophecy, were revealed to them by holy spirit.

---

And yet you didn't bother to provide the verses that explain. "They" didn't explain Isaiah's prophecy. Even the four I addressed in Message 93 don't explain anything about the entire prophecy. John 14:15 doesn't say anything about the prophecy. Saying they received the Holy Spirit does not show us what information the apostles received concerning the prophecy.

quote:

---

Of course they will tell you that Isaiah does not refer to the Messiah because the Messiah has not come yet...they are still waiting for him. Do you really believe that they know better then God?

​

You can be misled by them all you want, but the truth is that Isaiah 53 is a messianic prophecy and all its parts were fulfilled by Jesus.

---

Your job is to show me that my reading is incorrect. You haven't yet.Why wouldn't God's chosen people know what he meant? It's their language.
Why would you assume that they would translate the words to fit their current doctrine and belief system?So get back to showing me that the verse in question does not deal with direct offspring and normal life or show me why my reading of it is incorrect.

---

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

quote:

---

You will need to explain how it is that the devil is able to have decedents/seeds/children on the earth? How does the devil produce his children? Whom does he have sex with to do that and what human women ever had sex with the devil to produce his offspring?

---

John 8:44 is not using the term seed and the author isn't talking about literal offspring. The author is being metaphorical. It's a more insulting way to call someone a liar, especially for a religious person. BTW, the devil isn't a living being.This is an example of followers, not descendants. Followers are taught by their leader like children are taught by their parents.This doesn't show me that Isaiah meant followers when he used the word seed and not descendants. The use of the word see is very specific. Do you understand the difference yet?

---

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

I don't appreciate having to do this again with a different translation, but I will use the NET Bible as you wish. Once more with feeling.

quote:

---

I probably should have started with Is 52:13, because v. 14 has a prophecy of Jesus' execution:

---

But it doesn't. God clearly says: he was. That's past tense, not the future. Then God says: "so now he will". We have flashback and then back to the present. The wording doesn't suggest an execution or described what we know of Jesus at his execution even poetically.Verse 1 This rhetorical question is in the present, not future; so it has nothing to do with John 12:38.Per your NET notes, the speaker changes at this point. The Jews would say that the Gentiles are the unidentified group who is acknowledging their sin and recognizing that the servant suffered on their behalf.Notice that the group is acknowledging that the servant suffered, not will suffer. Already done.Also per you NET notes: So this also would not fit with Jesus. He didn't have a military. It does make a case for the Gentiles being the unidentified group though. They apparently hadn't seen Israel show any military might. Remember what is going on in history when Isaiah is speaking.Verse 2

quote:

---

The "twig" (or "root" or "shoot") recalls the choosing of David as King (1 Sam 16:5-13) and was mentioned earlier in the book of Isaiah in a clear reference to the Messiah who was to come: (Isaiah 11:1-4)

---

Please notice verse 53:2 is also past tense. He grew up, not will grow up.Isaiah 11:1 just says the person will come from Jesse's line. They're an agricultural people, so their metaphors are derived from what they know. It isn't the same word used in Isaiah 53:2. The word used here describes a branch growing out of a tree. Family tree.Isaiah 53:2 is saying he grew up just like a young plant grows up. The word used here describes a growing plant, not a tree. Yes, a tree is a plant, but that isn't the image the word is to present.The NET notes suggest that the root out of parched soil is a metaphor that suggests insignificance.I don't think Jesus was ever portrayed as growing up insignificant.Saying the words fit doesn't make them fit. Show me that all the words fit and why.

---

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

quote:

---

John uses the term 'Father'. Are you saying that 'Father' has nothing to do with descendants or seeds.

---

The term father is not exclusive to offspring. Father in the dictionaryPriests are called father. (No offspring there obviously)
There are the Church fathers.
George Washington is called the father of our country (United States). No we are not of his seed. My ancestors got here way before him.
The Devil is called the father of lies. There are no lie seeds.If you don't understand or don't accept creative language or literary devices, I'm not sure how you can learn anything from the Bible writers.

---

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