We are saved from WHAT?

[steve7150]

The historic Jewish position is that the suffering servant is Israel. How do you suppose they come to that conclusion? It's not too hard to see why. Israel is indeed called Yahweh's servant in many contexts. Indeed, Israel is even called God's son. The following passage is the first instance which I found of the latter:





Paidion,
Isa 53 is referenced in Matt 8.17 as specifically to Jesus and a dozen other places in the NT attributed to Jesus. My understanding is up to Jesus the Jewish scholars thought this to be one of two different messiahs and the Israel interpretation came after Jesus died so as to completely eradicate any thought he could possibly be a messiah.

[dwilkins]

hello Doug, if incoherent quibbling seems a fair summary of this thread to you, maybe you might want to start a thread on national redemption and new perspectivism. it seemed to me that the thrust of this thread was much more narrowly focused than a broader theme of national redemption. if you think passages are being cited ignoring a broader context, then please explain.

grace and peace to you.

I'd considered starting another topic. But, I don't think they are two different conversations. I've already explained that the use of righteousness vs. justification to translate dikaiosune is near the root of this problem. The following link is to a short video that covers some thoughts on the topic. Part of it will probably sound familiar but part of it won't. I doubt that they will be able to coherently integrate the Reformed version, but this short piece is a place to start for people who've never thought of it any other way than as personal moral righteousness.

http://vimeo.com/21009306

[Paidion]

Isa 53 is referenced in Matt 8.17 as specifically to Jesus and a dozen other places in the NT attributed to Jesus. My understanding is up to Jesus the Jewish scholars thought this to be one of two different messiahs and the Israel interpretation came after Jesus died so as to completely eradicate any thought he could possibly be a messiah.

Steve, as I said in the rest of my post, I accept the NT interpretation. However, I think the Jewish explanation of the suffering servant being Israel was the case LONG before Jesus died. Indeed, I think Isaiah himself understood it to be Israel. The Jews were expecting the Messiah, but I don't think they saw him in Isaiah 53. They weren't expecting a suffering Messiah who would die a horrible death, but a conquering king who would defeat the Romans and establish his own rule in Israel.

[jriccitelli]

Paidion I cant imagine why you would suggest the Hebrew reinterpretation of this is somehow correct when ‘they’ (Israel) were the ones who pierced Him (?). The text speaks of two persons, one suffers for the others sins. If the person talking is Israel how could Israel die ‘for’ the person talking, if they are the same person? The logical structure, if it were Israel, is to say ‘we are suffering for our own sins’, yet here someone is suffering ‘for’ Israel, like a lamb, and lamb would presume they were innocent, and Israel was not innocent ‘especially’ in the context of Isaiah.

‘Nor do I accept the horrendous belief that God forsook His Son on the cross, and that He took pleasure in seeing Him suffer’

Jesus was willing, and Jesus is not a little boy; He was an adult making a decision that could save mankind. Jesus was more than a Son; He is YHWH. Paidion you don’t see the amazing point because you have a problem with His Godhood. Jesus was YHWH, YHWH made the world, YHWH made the Law, and YHWH Himself took the penalties of the Law that He himself imposed on mankind, He did it by preparing Himself a body for sacrifice; the Lamb of YHWH.
‘Every’ man who has ever died to save someone, has been someone’s son. If my son died to save someone I would be proud of him, I would rather have a son who died doing something right than being selfish, or worse a coward. The Father was pleased by the obedience of the Son, His selflessness.
God wasn’t ‘happy’ Jesus had to die, but something had to be done, nothing else could justify a price great enough to balance the sins of the world. The Father was proud and in this sense pleased that the purpose and result was salvation for all who would believe.
It was prophesied that; it was better that one die for the whole nation (or world). And Jesus said the greatest love was to lay down your life for another.

It seems that much of modern evangelical and fundamentalist teaching implicitly, though not explicitly, portrays God as as ogre, and that Christ died on the cross to save us from God and His wrath. Jesus on the other hand, taught His disciples that the Father was good, causing his sun to shine and his rain to fall on both the righteous and the unrighteous, and that the Father is kind to ungrateful and evil people (Luke 6:35)

We are to forgive because we have been forgiven, that is completely different Paidion. Just like the 'unjust' servant in Matt.18. The King can forgive and punish, not the slave. When a crime is committed and goes unpunished we trust God will fulfill true justice knowing all things, our position is to forgive and show grace, wisely, but we don’t just allow anyone to 'get away' with crime. And neither will God, this has never changed. God is the ultimate Judge, not us. Jesus is the Lord, we are not. We Trust God will Judge and fulfill Justice.

That is why Jesus will punish and destroy post-mortem. We can forgive, but God will not forgive anyone unless they repent and believe; “For there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood” Paidion do you believe this?
Jesus revealed that He and the Father are One, and both, being One will Judge all sin; "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." (John 8:24) "But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven. (Matt 10:33)
For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. 28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on [the testimony of] two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10)

Like I said before, unless you believe Christ died for you, you have no covering for sin, and nothing between you and Gods wrath. The Father did not hold the sin of killing the Son against mankind, but we will be held guilty for unbelief and sin.

[jriccitelli]

‘He hath made him sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”

Jeremiah, this can relate to Isaiah 53:12 and 53:7, as a lamb, or even as the scapegoat in the Law.
I think 2Corin. really has Gal.3:13 in mind; Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us-- for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"--.
Christ knew no sin, it was in fact humans who put Him on the tree, and it was us who sinned. It was just assumed that the Judgment concerning a person hung would be correct verdict, but not in this case. Humans put him on a cross, so Christ fell under shame of the being made to look as if he was guilty (the letter of the Law), but closer examination reveals that those who hung Him there were the actual guilty party as it was not Lawful to put to death an innocent man.

Doug, I think National sins are relevant to the issue and intertwined, I think each person is responsible for his own sins, as well as guilty by nature, or birth (nationality, or human). Where as previously Israel was called, yet then they were called to come out from Jerusalem and flee. Israel was stricken by God, as were Gentile nations, so the biblical narrative urges us to ‘come out of’ all our national, tribal, and human associations, for there is no longer Jew nor Greek, etc.
And also; "But everyone will die for his own iniquity; (Jer.31:30)

[Paidion]

Paidion I cant imagine why you would suggest the Hebrew reinterpretation of this is somehow correct...

Tell me, do you think that the primary meaning of the statement, "Out of Egypt I called my son" (Hosea 11:1) is Jesus returning from Egypt after his parents fled to Egypt to protect Him from Pharoah?
Do you think the Hebrew understanding that this is Israel being called out of Egypt is a reinterpretation?

The verse itself clearly indicates that the referent is the nation of Israel:

"When Israel was a child, I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son." (Hosea 11:1)

Yet Matthew writes that this was a prophecy which was fulfilled by Jesus when He returned from Egypt:

Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, "Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him." When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt I called My Son." (Matthew 2:13-15)

How do you explain this? Was Hosea's quote of God's words wrong? And thus is the Jewish explanation wrong? Or was Matthew's application of the words to Jesus' returning from Egypt wrong? Or were both understandings correct? And if so, how?

If both understandings are correct, then how can you be so sure that the Hebrew interpretation of Isaiah 53 is not "somehow correct"?

[jriccitelli]

I did not imply that all Jewish interpretation was incorrect, I am just speaking of this one at the present.

Do you think the Hebrew understanding that this is Israel being called out of Egypt is a reinterpretation?

Kind of weird you would think so, since the Bible is full of ‘types’ and that is precisely what I have been saying all along with regards to Judgment – they are all types – examples, of what will be done future, as it says; “so that you may know it is I that do these things”.

The servant of scripture could be Israel, Isaiah, David, Eliakim, or even another person, but the chapter in question is speaking of salvation, and has been understood as Messianic by Jews prior to AD 1. And the exegesis would begin a process of elimination, he bears their sins, murdered, he dies, he is back from the dead, buried with wicked and the rich, he is ‘innocent’, he was an offering for sin, yet he will live to see his offspring and have long days, he will be satisfied, he will justify the many and make intercession for transgressors, not to mention the salvation of His Arm will be revealed to ‘all’ nations and the kings of the earth shall shut their mouth at him, that is quite a list of things for any mortal, or even a nation to accomplish, and none have.
Israel cannot make an offering, justify, or redeem himself, nor could Israel fulfill half of these identifications.

Anyways this is evasive, you don’t really believe it is referring to Israel anyways so why are you even going there??
I made the point that Jesus is the Lamb of God, and various other principles that deal with the necessity of having an atonement made for sins (past, future and present), it is Gods Law, command, prerequisite and mandate.
So why is Jesus called the Lamb of God?

[Paidion]

...but the chapter in question is speaking of salvation, and has been understood as Messianic by Jews prior to AD 1.

Could you provide evidence of this?

My understanding is that the Jews prior to AD 1 as well as post AD 1 were looking for a conquering Messiah who would overthrow the Romans and liberate the Jews.

[steve7150]

If both understandings are correct, then how can you be so sure that the Hebrew interpretation of Isaiah 53 is not "somehow correct"?
Paidion









I think the Rabbinical understanding was that there was a conquering Messiah who would bring peace on earth and a second one a suffering Messiah. The NT writers obviously see it as the same person at two different advents or possibly the peace he brings is a peace between man and God. The "Israel" interpretation i believe came well after Jesus.

[dseusy]

Jeremiah and Paidion,

What do you think it means to die to sin? Sin is lawlessness so if we start with this definition of sin we can agree that any violation of God's law is a sin. Therefore, if you claim that you can be ACTUALLY righteous, you must accept that you claim you adhere to all of God's law. Is this your claim?