Mrunal Thakur [3000 x 3750]
2021.11.29 06:27 HornyMaratha Mrunal Thakur [3000 x 3750]
2021.11.29 06:27 starshipandcoffee Black Canary is in 'Batgirl', according to Daniel RPK
2021.11.29 06:27 Undrskore_ Cotton cookie
2021.11.29 06:27 ANKARKRATOM Wanna try?
submitted by ANKARKRATOM to Vendorsofkratom [link] [comments]
2021.11.29 06:27 Jay_S094 Surely this is a mistake?
2021.11.29 06:27 ExpressRestaurant508 Swolen private parts?
I looked into a mirror and saw that my whole private area is huge.. I'm kinda shocked tbh, didn't expect that.
I'm 32 weeks btw
submitted by ExpressRestaurant508 to pregnant [link] [comments]
2021.11.29 06:27 redditta510 Zoie burger discord server
2021.11.29 06:27 ThyLambIsMurder WHAT THE FU
2021.11.29 06:27 JOJO8976 Wild police arc
Does the anime for this arc will be inside the main conan anime? When I saw the announcement I thought it's going to be it's own series.
If it's yes, may I know from which episode and how many episode will this arc has? Because I only read DC manga and I don't watch the anime, becuase it's too much :D.
I've been looking forward for this particular spin off to get animated.
Thank you in advance.
submitted by JOJO8976 to DetectiveConan [link] [comments]
2021.11.29 06:27 Odd_Vacation8222 Quick little rip
2021.11.29 06:27 PHOBOS_Temecula PHOBOS: An Impartial Observer
2021.11.29 06:27 classicsolid If any current members paying hulu for $6.99/month feel RIPPED OFF that only NEW members get the black friday $0.99/month for a year. Here's what I did and you can do right now!
I cancelled my hulu($6.99/month) and used different email for a making a new account for the $0.99/month4year deal. Then tried to use my same credit card but hulu recognized the card any denied me the deal!
So I restarted the sign up process and used that new email again(when hulu denied me I closed the sign up page erasing the new email I put it)
This time I payed with paypal(linked to the card hulu denied) because pay pal BLOCKS Hulu from denying the card!
send this reddit post to everyone you know who has Hulu( deal ends in 20 hours)
submitted by classicsolid to lifehacks [link] [comments]
2021.11.29 06:27 joshpoppedyou I wanted to jump on the bandwagon of chat knowing nothing before they type
2021.11.29 06:27 OpiumForTea All I want for this Christmas is rent
2021.11.29 06:27 No-Expression-2059 My coworkers and I were basically threatened with termination by HR for attempting to ask for a raise
I work at a marketing agency in Utah. In comparison with other agencies in the state, we’re severely underpaid. For our position, we’re all on salary and make $30K a year. Our competitors pay around $44K. Our turnover rate for this position is very high. Everyone in the company knows we’re underpaid but no one makes an effort to actually change this.
For the past couple of months we’ve banded together and prepared a presentation for the executives to show why we should be given a raise. The meeting has been set up and shut down and the work week hasn’t even started yet. We were basically told it’s in our best interest for our positions to go through the “proper channels”. But said channels don’t give a shit about us. They see the work we do, give us a shout out and then move on. We’ve brought up wage disparity and it gets shrugged off. We felt that this meeting was our last hope.
I feel that their threat of termination was a bluff. They can’t afford to fire us all and expect to pump out the content we’ve been making. But it feels extremely backhanded that HR was the one to say this. So much for looking out for us.
We don’t get paid for overtime but there’s no way to do what we do without putting in extra hours. We each spend about $300 on gas for work alone and we were given a laughable $30/month gas stipend. We’re trying to make ends meet but it’s not possible.
What’s more is the founder of our company tweeted recently about TSA having a hard time finding workers at $20/hour and him having to spend extra time in line because of that. But yet has no issue exploiting his own employees for $13-$15/hour.
We all like the job a lot so we don’t want to leave. We just want to be compensated fairly.
submitted by No-Expression-2059 to antiwork [link] [comments]
2021.11.29 06:27 otakudiary1 Atelier Sophie 2 Game Streams Character Trailers for Ramizel, Plachta, Sophie
2021.11.29 06:27 avdolif Just a low effort meme?
2021.11.29 06:27 IAmALizardOverlord I would like everybody to meet little miss Sunni
2021.11.29 06:27 otakudiary1 Light Yagami Encourages Hondurans to Vote In Presidential Election
2021.11.29 06:27 caithamach2021 Nice things for couples to do in Kerry this weekend?
heading to killarney saturday night for kodaline. is there anything nice to do nearby or in Tralee on sunday before heading home? Either nice christmas or couple things to do?
submitted by caithamach2021 to ireland [link] [comments]
2021.11.29 06:27 I_killed_hat Table
2021.11.29 06:27 asdburakdsa i guess it's a good time to take a break from TF32
2021.11.29 06:27 Vinod-5465 Why do candles always go on the top of cakes?
Because it’s hard to light them from the bottom http://developer.localhost:3003/p/why-do-candles-always-go-on-the-top-of-cakes
submitted by Vinod-5465 to DummyThiccMemes [link] [comments]
2021.11.29 06:27 TribeofYHWH Argument for the Christian God From Prophecy
I'm really sorry for frequently deleting my posts. This has to do with personal insecurities from my Autism (with BPD tendencies) when my post is down-voted. I know that sounds lame, but it's the truth. It brings out fears of rejections and abandonment. Also, I'm a perfectionist. This is my last post. I'm wondering what sophisticated atheists have to say against this case, truthfully.
Thesis: Jesus' life (and the impact of his followers) is predicted in the Messianic oracles within the book of Isaiah, which dates over 550 years before Jesus' life. Thus, the prophecies are good evidence for the Christian God. I will list the prophecies here from most to least weighty.
The Messiah in Isaiah will:
- Be pierced, killed, and buried for the sins of the world (Isa. 53:5-12). The “many nations” of 52:13-15 is included in "the many” of 53:11-12 where the Servant makes them righteous and will bear and פָגַע (“intervene/intercede”) for their sins. James P. Ware writes that: "through literary recurrence the Song thus links both the illumination of the “many nations” in 52:13-15, and the first-person confession of Israel in 53:1-9, with the description of the Servant’s redemption of the “many” in the closing divine oracle in 53:10-12 . . . by the close of the poem, the reader comprehends that the “many” of the climactic final oracle (53:10-12) includes both Israel and the gentiles" (Ware, Paul and the Mission of the Church, Philippians in Ancient Jewish Context, pp. 77). Thus, the Servant truly does bear the sins of the world in Deutero-Isaiah's original context.
- Be rejected by the Jewish people and others (Isa. 53:2-4). As noted below, the speaker in Isaiah 53 has to be the Jewish people as per the original intent of the author, whether one likes it or not. Here, Israel's people who says that the Servant "had no form or majesty that we should look at him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him," and that "we held him of no account." Many Jewish people are expecting and have always expected a warrior like Messiah (though obviously not all, as ancient and modern Judaism isn't a monolith). Jesus wasn't and isn't this to them. That's why ancient Messianic interpretations of the Servant turned the Servant into a warrior Messiah (see e.g., the Parables of Enoch; Isaiah Targum). This is thus an amazing prophecy fulfilled.
- Be associated with Nazareth in Galilee - "Jesus of Nazareth." The Messiah in Isa. 11:1 is associated with "branch" imagery. The Hebrew word for "branch" or "scion" in Isa. 11:1 is neṣer. As Christophe Rico points out in The Mother of the Infant King, there is a striking connection between the word neṣer and the ancient historical town of Nazareth, where they have the same root letters - נצר.
- Be called YHWH (God) Himself (Isa. 9:6) and be YHWH (God) Himself (Isa. 7:14; 11:10; 52:13);
- Be physically abused (Isa. 50:6; 53:5);
- Have followers after him (whom he "sees" post-mortem). The "offspring" in 53:10 do not refer to literal children, according to most scholars, but rather those redeemed by the Servant. They are called the “servants" of the Servant; cf. Isa 54:17; 56:6; 65:8, 9, 13-15; 66:14. They are also called the “offspring" of the Servant; cf. Isa 59:21; 61:8-9; 65:9, 23; 66:22. A community that follows the servant can be seen as early as Isa. 50:4-11. James P. Ware writes: "the offspring of the Servant . . . not only follows him but also imitates him, in some mysterious fashion taking up his vocation of suffering, participating in his redemptive mission, and sharing in his victory (Isa 57:1–13; 59:9–21; 65:8–16; 66:1–5). The Servant’s role as a “light to the nations” (42:6; 49:6) is thus taken up and extended by the servants of the Servant (Isa 63:1–3, 19–22; 62:1–3)" (Ware, "The Servants of the Servant in Isaiah and Philippians," in Isaiah's Servants in Early Judaism and Christianity: The Isaian Servant and the Exegetical Formation of Community Identity, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2021, pp. 261). As made evident by Isaiah 56:6-8 (and elsewhere), the "servants" include gentiles (cf. Isa. 56:1-8). They are also given an "everlasting," "new," and "different" name (cf. Isa. 56:6; 62:2; 65:15);
- Be brought back to life from the dead (Isa. 53:10-11). James P. Ware writes: "that the Servant is portrayed in the fourth Song as restored from death to life is recognized by the majority of interpreters. The text is explicit that following his demise the Servant “will prolong days” (53:10) and “will see light” (53:11)." (James P. Ware, Paul and the Mission of the Church, Philippians in Ancient Jewish Context, 2011, pp. 75);
- Will be known for the miraculous (Isa. 9:6). The "Son" here is called "wonderful counselor" in most translations. Wonderful is descriptive of "counselor." The English word "wonderful" is watered down though. Regarding the Hebrew word for "wonderful," H.G.M. Williamson says "we need to understand it here in its fuller sense, which may certainly include, but is not narrowly limited to, the miraculous" (Isaiah 6-12 [ICC, 2018], pp. 399);
- Be a light to the gentiles and the nations (Isa. 9:1-2; 11:10, 12; 42:4, 6; 49:1, 6; 52:13; 53:11-12) so that God's "salvation may reach to the end of the earth." (Isa. 49:6). Thus, "the coastlands wait for his teaching" (Isa. 42:4; cf. 49:1);
- Initiate a new covenant (Isa. 42:6; cf. Jer. 31:31-34);
- Be recognized by the kings and princes of the nations after initially being ignored by them (Isa. 49:7; 52:15);
- Initially fail in his mission to preach to Israel (Isa. 49:4);
- Be born of a young virgin (Isa. 7:14). For recent groundbreaking evidence of the virginity of the mother of Immanuel in Isa. 7:14, see Christophe Rico here and (briefly) below;
- Be born during a time of want and adversity in the land of Israel due to destruction and invasion (Isa. 7:15-16);
- Be just, righteous, and without deceit (Isa. 7:15; 9:6-7; 11:2-5; 42:2-4; 53:9, 11);
Etcetera. Everything below this will be to support the contentions above (aside from those which can be easily verified by a quick google search).
The Existence of Isaiah son of Amoz
There are many good argument to think that there was a historical Isaiah of Jerusalem. One can ascertain this just from the writings from book of Isaiah itself. See for example Jaap Dekker (Leiden: Brill, 2009
) to see how this can be done. But aside from the Bible itself, the strongest and most direct evidence for Isaiah the prophet comes from archaeology
, and it is the (likely) seal of Isaiah himself, something that was found just ten feet away from the bulla of King Hezekiah.
Manuscripts of 'Isaiah'
The famous Isaiah scroll (1QIsaa
), which encompasses the entirety of the book of Isaiah (minus a few damaged portions) has been dated hundreds of years before Jesus ever lived by both paleography and science (radiocarbon dating). See also 1QIsab
and other manuscripts as well that date before 70 CE (e.g., 4QIsad
Typological Fulfillment Vs. Direct Prophecy In the Eyes of the NT Authors
For the Gospel authors, there was a difference between "typological fulfillment" (events or people that the they think serve as a model/pattern for what will happen in a greater event or person at a later time), and a fulfillment of a direct prophecy. The authors in the NT never clarify whether they think a given text is a 'direct prediction' or a 'typological prediction.' While this does make things less straightforward, the author applying texts like Hosea 11:1 (and others) out of their original context was not deceptive (it was common in ancient Jewish interpretation too), and it doesn't preclude genuine prophetic fulfillment.
The Credibility of the NT
The only good counter to these prophecies IMO is that the authors of the NT were far removed from eyewitnesses and invented events to make Jesus' life fit these prophecies. But there simply is just too much independent and eyewitness literary evidence for the life and actions of Jesus to ignore. It is generally agreed that there are five main accounts of Jesus that are completely independent from each other literary speaking (that is, the author of X document didn't have knowledge that Y document existed). These documents are:
- Paul's letters (48-65 C.E.)
- Quelle (30-70 C.E.). Most scholars think this document existed, in spite of it's lack of manuscript evidence (as is the case with lots of ancient works).
- The Gospel of Mark (60-75 C.E.).
- The first edition to the Gospel of John (55-70 C.E.). Space precludes a discussion of this early date for the first draft of John, but more scholars are viewing this as likely (e.g., James H. Charlesworth, Urban C. Von Wahlde).
- Josephus' Ant. 18.3.3. Most scholars think that Josephus has a core report about Jesus of Nazareth in this passage (see the assertion for "most scholars" in Paula Fredriksen, When Christians Were Jews: The First Generation, Yale Univiersity Press, 2018, pp. 80).
One should be aware that most scholars think that, while the Gospels were not first hand directly, used eyewitnesses directly as sources. Colleen Conway for example writes:
Today most scholars think that Johannine traditions stem from an unidentified follower of Jesus, not one of the twelve disciples. This anonymous disciple developed a group of followers, the "Johannine school," who were responsible for writing down his witness.
(Colleen Conway, "John," in The New Oxford Annotated Bible
, Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 2777)
The pre-Pauline confession of 1 Cor. 15:3-7 also says that Jesus died "for our sins according to the scriptures
." The pre-Pauline apostolic confession, which was at least inspired and OKAY'D by eyewitnesses, such as Peter (see here
for more on that), coheres with the Gospel testimony, which affirms that Jesus died "according to the scriptures" through constant scriptural citations. \
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________) The Immanuel Oracle (Isaiah 7)
When Assyria continued to march westward in the year 734 B.C.E., Ephraim and Syria wanted Judah to form an alliance with them to defend against the Assyrian swarm. When Judah refused, Ephraim and Syria (known as "Aram") teamed up against Judah so they could lay a siege against it and install a puppet King, "the son of Tabeel." While Ahaz and his people fear (Isa. 7:2), Isaiah and his son is sent to Ahaz to encourage him to have complete trust in YHWH (v. 3-6), with v. 6-9 announcing the failure of Judah's enemies. Isaiah 7:10-13
In v. 10-11 Isaiah is clearly speaking to Ahaz, as the imperative verbs are all second person masculine singular in form, as well as two pronouns. V. 13 than switches to the second person plural, indicating that the sign is for the ENTIRE Davidic house, not just for Ahaz in particular (v. 13 thus alludes to v. 9b, which also uses the plural). This switch from the referent being Ahaz in v. 12 to the entire dynasty of the House of David in v. 13 after Ahaz refused the sign
(cf. v. 12) is key. Peter J. Gentry explains verse 13:
The two verbs, “hear” (וּעמשׁ) and “you must weary” (וּאלתּ) are second person plural in form. The one pronoun employed with the infinitive “to weary” is also second person plural. Yahweh/Isaiah is no longer addressing Ahaz directly or specifically; he is addressing the entire dynasty of David: past, present, and future—the whole House of David. The pronoun in verse 14 is also second masculine plural in form. The sign in verse 11 was offered specifically to Ahaz. Ahaz declined. In spite of Ahaz’s response, Yahweh gave a sign. The sign he gave was for the entire family line of David and is therefore not at all tied to the time of Ahaz.
(Peter J. Gentry, "Isaiah 7:12-16—A Direct Prediction of a Distant Future Relative to Isaiah’s Time?," in The Mother of the Infant King
[Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2020], pp. 188).
So Isa. 7's sign spans the entire history of the remaining Davidic family tree, something that will be clarified in Isa. 11:1. Verses 15-16a continue to speak in the third person masculine singular about the promised boy. Then, suddenly, v. 16b switches to second masculine singular in form, once again addressing specifically Ahaz and his days again, including what follows (v. 17-25).
Isaiah 7:14: The Virginity of Immanuel's Mother Christophe Rico
in a recent monograph argues that ‘almāh
means "young virgin," distinct from betûlāh
, which refers to a virgin of any age. This overcomes, by far, the most weighty and frequent objection made to the meaning of ‘almāh
denoting virginity, which is: what would distinguish ‘almāh
meant "virgin"? The key is that ‘almāh
virgin." Many different languages from all different types of family languages have a distinction between ‘girl,' ‘virgin’ and ‘young virgin' (e.g., Arabic [fatâ’ah
]; Catalan [noia
]; Russian [devuška
]), so it isn't hard to believe that the same set of distinctions existed in ancient Hebrew before ‘almāh
eventually became a technical musical term later on (as Rico argues). For the full case for "young virgin," see Rico's full book. Rico claims to make arguments regarding ‘almāh
purely as a linguist.
A key point though is that the birth of Immanuel is a "sign" (’ôt
). While it is true that ’ôt
doesn't necessarily denote anything miraculous, the context and use of ’ôt
- The verb ’nissâ ("to test") occurs in the context of Isa. 7:14 (cf. v. 12). As Rico points out, when used in the context of a sign request, the verb nissâ occurs in only one other place in the Bible. That occurrence is found in the Midian episode with Gideon (see the use in Judg. 6:39), where the sign is miraculous. The use of the verb nissâ in the context of Isa. 7:14 thus suggests that the sign is meant to be miraculous as well. There are striking parallels to this story in Judges with the oracles of Isaiah 7-11, which strengthen this link with Isa. 7 and the Gideon episodes. See my this post for the parallels.
- Mark D. Schutzius (II) argues in The Hebrew Word for 'sign' and Its Impact on Isaiah 7:14 (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2015) that every miraculous use of the word ’ôt has YHWH specifically provide the sign. Instructive is Isa. 38:7 ("This is the sign to you from the LORD . . ."), where the sign is miraculous. Contrary to verses like this, uses of the word ’ôt that aren't miraculous do not come directly from YHWH. Rather, they describe God designating ordinary people, things, or events as "signs" (e.g., Gen. 1:14; 9:11-17; 17:11; Exod. 3:11-12; 12:7-13; Num. 2:2; 16:38; Ezek. 14:8). If ’ôt in 7:14 did not denote a miracle, it would be far out of step with the typical usage of ’ôt where YHWH says he provided it.
"Immanuel" in Isaiah 7:14
"Immanuel" isn't the actual historical name that the Son will be given (just like actual historical name of the "Son" of Isaiah 9 that is to be born isn't 'Peleʾ yōʿēṣ ʾēl gībbōr ʾáḇī-ʿaḏ śar-šālōm
,' "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace"). Saying this is a failed prophecy because Jesus wasn't named 'Immanuel' is to miss the point of the name in Isaiah's original context.
Peter J. Gentry summarizes the child “eating curds and honey" (Isa. 7:15):
The fact that the child will eat curds and honey means that the land will be dominated by pastoralists and not farmers. This is an indication of the devastation and destruction resulting in exile and the conquest by the Assyrians and Babylonians.
(Gentry, "Isaiah 7:12-16," pp. 215)
The negative use of this same terminology in used 7:21-22 suggests that this analysis of the curds and honey is correct. The Immanuel boy within Isa. 7 is to be born beyond
the immediate future during the aftermath of destruction
, for Isa. 7:15's curds and honey "signifies the aftermath of catastrophe and the disruption of a thriving agricultural society" (Etan Levine, “The Land of Milk and Honey,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 2000
, pp. 57). So construed, Immanuel eating curds and honey means that he will be born during a time of want and adversity in Israel. This fits Jesus' time and place.
Many point to Isa. 7:16 for the imminence of the Immanuel boy. But this v. is hard to render. It is thus immature to speak about the imminence of the birth of Immanuel from this alone. Peter J. Gentry correctly argues
The pronoun on the suffixed noun, “her kings” must refer to “land” since the pronoun is feminine singular . . . The two kings cannot be the King of Israel and the King of Aram . . . because one could not say of them, that “the land had two kings."
Gentry interprets the two kings as that of Northern Israel and
Judah, which would expand the horizon of the oracle. One doesn't have to agree with Gentry's translation of v. 16 to recognize that the NRSV contradicts Hebrew grammar though.
H.G.M. Williamson has "before whose two kings you are in dread
but thinks that it is an interpolation. One of Williamson's arguments for this relates to Gentry's point:
It is incongruous to have one land mentioned with two kings . . . (ibid., 168).
Thus, in ibid.
, 167 Williamson translates the earliest text behind the current oracle in v. 16 as:
For before the lad knows to reject the bad and choose the good, the land will be abandoned.
This also may imply that Judah will be deserted (with no decisive temporal indictor).
Christophe Rico, in his book The Mother of the Infant King
(Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2020), pp. 144-147 argues that the v. should be translated as:
Before [Immanuel] knows to reject evil and to choose good the land which disgusts you because of its two kings will be abandoned.
Rico's translation is most supported by the versions and I agree with it. "The text implies that the country would be emptied of its inhabitants" (ibid.
, 147). This broadens the horizon of this prophecy, for "the abandonment of the land can refer either to the campaign of Tiglath-Pileser in 732 or to the successive deportations which occurred in Samaria (722-21) and in Judah (597 and 586)" (ibid.
, 147). So Rico interprets this v. as speaking about one country 'the land (Judah) whose two kings you hate, that land will be abandoned.' \
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________) The 'El-Gibbôr Oracle (Isaiah 9) Isaiah 9:1-2
The word כִּ֣י in 9:1 continues the thought of Isa. 8:19-22. "Galilee of the Nations"
is a phrase that is unique in the Hebrew Bible. No one else who mentions Galilee in the Hebrew Bible "found it necessary to call attention to Gentiles" (J. Motyer Alec, The Prophecy of Isaiah
, kindle loc. 3002). But the authors of the Hebrew Bible conceived of a Messiah for the entire world, not just Israel (see below//Isa. 11:4, 10)! "The people"
include gentiles and is alluded to in Isaiah 11:10 ("the peoples"), which no doubt refers to gentiles. Isaiah 9:2 also picks up on an important theme from Isaiah 2:2-5 by picking up the imagery of light: "let us walk in the light of the Lord" (Isa. 2:5). The numerous literary echoes picked up from Isa. 2:2-4 makes Isa. 2:5 function as an "exhortation to the house of Jacob to imitate the nations in their conversion from idols to the true God. This has the literary effect of associating the imagery of light in 2:5 with the revelation of God to the nations in 2:2-4" (James P. Ware, Paul and the Mission of the Church
, pp. 57). Since Isaiah 2 envisioned gentiles walking in the light of the LORD, so too does Isa. 9.
As Isaiah 9 picks up on themes from Isaiah 2, Isaiah 11:9-10 does the same thing with both Isaiah 9 and 2. All "these intertextual connections link the dawning of the light upon the mixed gentile populace of northern Israel (“Galilee of the nations”) in Isaiah 9 . . . with the conversion of the gentiles envisioned in 11:9-10" (ibid.
Many interpret these verses as referring to an end to war (or a victory from a battle with the Assyrians) and a return of the exiles from northern Israel in connection with the advent of the Davidide. But neither options are being communicated literally. Christopher Seitz writes: "the cause for joy is not so much pending military victory but the “birth” of a new ruler" (Seitz, Isaiah 1-3
9, pp. 147). Supporting this interpretation is the "for" construction (starting in Isa. 9:3) leading up to the birth of the "Son." So the joy experienced from "the people" due to the coming of the "Son" is like
or is compared
to the joy over a return from exile or the conquering of Israel's enemies.
Many dispute seeing Jesus in this passage because of the detail of the "Son" having the "authority" on his shoulders. I guess the question for one would have to be: what 'authority' do the authors of the New Testament have for you? The writers of the NT affirm that the ascension of Jesus to the right hand of God's throne is the assumption of the government/authority upon his shoulders. In fact, Psalm 110 is the most quoted Psalm in the NT. I will now go into the titles given to the "Son." Here, an unspecified group of people call the "Son" God. "Wonderful Counselor"
The root פלא , "wonder" (whether in the form of a noun or verb) strictly relates to the realm of divine action in Isaiah (Isa. 25:1; 28:29; 29:14). Interesting also is Psalm 72:18, which says: “Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, who alone
works wonders.” H.G.M. Williamson adds:
The root יָעָ֖ץ, whether as verb or noun, is also used in relation to God at 14.24, 27; 19.12, 17; 23.9
(Williamson, Isaiah 6-12
, pp. 399)
The same exact words, 'ēl gibbôr,
is applied for YHWH Himself in 10:20-21 - the very next chapter that follows Isaiah 9. Outside of the verse in question, 'ēl gibbôr
is a "divine designation which is never used elsewhere for a human being" (Williamson, Isaiah 6-12
[ICC, 2018], pp. 399). See Deut. 10:17; Isa. 10:21; Jer. 32:18 for example.
The use of "Father" for the Israelite king is unattested (the king was rather usually designated as YHWH's son). See also the use of "Father" for YHWH in Isa. 63:16 and 64:7. Interesting is Isaiah 1:2-3, where "the fatherhood of God underlies the opening metaphor of the book" (Williamson, Isaiah 6-12
, pp. 400). The notion of eternity further supports the divinity of the "Son." \
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________) The Stump of Jesse Oracle (Isaiah 11)
Space precludes in-depth analysis of this oracle. Here you have an outstanding and deep Christian-like understanding of how the Spirit is resting upon Messiah (Isa. 11:2), as it does with Jesus in the NT. The text also clearly speaks of a person who obeys YHWH in righteousness who will be sought after by the gentiles/nations (Isa. 11:10, 12) in a new spiritual exodus (Isa. 11:11-16), and this surely fits Jesus. \
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________) The Servant of the LORD
While the Servant is identified as Jacob-Israel as a collective outside of the Songs (Isaiah 41:8, 9; 43:10; 44:1, 2, 21; 45:4; 48:20), the nation of Israel is revealed within the dynamic movement of the Servant Songs
as being embodied and reduced down to one suffering Messianic individual figure. In other words, the Servant never departs from being Israel, but "Israel" undergoes an extreme reduction within the Songs, and it seems to me that it's reduced to one person - "a faithful embodiment of the nation Israel who has not performed its chosen role (48:1–2)" (Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah
, pp. 541 [kindle version]). To see how Isaiah 49:3 is not in contradiction with an individual interpretation of the Servant, see Jaap Dekker's 2012 article here
(pp. 38-39). Joseph Blenkinsopp also writes:
Ever since Christopher R. North surveyed the range of opinion on the identity of the Servant in 1948 (2d ed., 1956), no significant new options have emerged. While there was then and still is a strong critical preference for an individual rather than a collective interpretation, none of the fifteen individuals named as candidates by one commentator or another and listed by North has survived scrutiny (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40-55, pp. 355).
There are many reasons to think that the nation of Israel has been reduced down to one person within the Servant Songs themselves, one of them being Isaiah 49:5-6, where the Servant has a mission to
- The Speaker: An "objection to an identification of the Servant in the songs with corporate Israel is the observation that throughout Isaiah whenever the pronouns ‘we,’ ‘our,’ or ‘us’ are introduced abruptly, as in 53:1ff. (that is, without an explicit identification of the speakers, as in 2:3; 3:6; 4:1; etc.), it is always the prophet speaking on behalf of the people of Israel with whom he identifies (1:9f.; 16:6; 24:26; 33:2, 20; 42:24; 59:9-12; 63:15-19; 64:3-11; etc.)" (G.P. Hugenberger, “The Servant of the Lord in the ‘Servant Songs’ of Isaiah: A Second Moses Figure,” pp. 6-7). While there are verbal and conceptual links between 52:15 and 53:1, causing some scholars to think that the nations and kings of Isaiah 52:15 speak here, there is an important point of contrast, as J.L. Koole writes: “Those referred to in [52:15] have not ‘heard’, while the speakers of 53:1 have” (J.L. Koole, Isaiah 49-55, pp. 275). Lastly, Brevard S. Childs observes that: "the confessing ‘we’ of the Old Testament is always Israel and not the nations (Hos. 6:1ff.; Jer. 3:21ff.; Dan. 9:4ff.)" (Childs, Isaiah, pp. 581). This last point by Childs is decisive. The “we” refers to the prophet on behalf of Israel elsewhere in Isaiah (e.g., Isa. 16:6; 24:16; 42:24; 64:4–5)
- "My people": My people" (or "his people") in Isaiah 53:8 refer to Jewish people, since "my people" (minus one instance regarding Egypt in Isaiah 19:25) is always applied to the Jewish people in the book of Isaiah, and always is in Second Isaiah (e.g., 1:3; 3:12, 15; 5:13; 10:2, 24; 14:25; 21:10; 22:4; 26:20; 32:13, 18; 40:1; 43:20; 47:6; 51:4; 52:4, 5, 6). Likewise, "his people" always refers to Israel or it's people in the context of the entire book of Isaiah (e.g., 3:14 5:25; 7:2; 11:11, 16; 14:32; 25:8; 28:5; 30:26; 49:13; 51:22; 52:9). In 53:8, "he" (the Servant") is thus distinguished from "my people" or "his people" - Israel.
- The Righteous Servant: The description of the Servant as being untainted with violence or being without deceit is impossible to reconcile with the OT's or even Second Isaiah's description of Israel as a nation or a people. As noted by G.P. Hugenberger, “Deutero-Isaiah repeatedly stresses that contemporary Israel is a sinful people who suffer on account of their own transgressions (42:18-25; 43:22-28; 47:7; 48:18f.; 50:1; 54:7; 57:17; 59:2ff.)" (Hugenberger, “The Servant of the Lord in the ‘Servant Songs’ of Isaiah,” pp. 4).
If one can show that the Servant is an individual, than Messianic interpretations are easy to make given the intertextuality shared between the Servant in Second Isaiah and the Messiah in First Isaiah (and other Messianic texts in the Hebrew Bible), even with Isaiah 55:3-5 considered. Fine scholars have made and still make strong arguments for some sort of messianic interpretation of the Servant Songs within Isaiah.
The Deity of the Servant
Wilcox and Paton Williams observe: "throughout Isaiah 1–66, the adjectives “exalted”, “lifted up” and “very high” are virtually technical terms, applied almost exclusively to Yahweh" (Peter Wilcox and David Paton-Williams, ‘The Servant Songs in Deutero-Isaiah’, JSOT
], pp. 95). Isaiah 52:13 and 57:15 also can be shown to be dependent on Isaiah 6:1, which depicts YHWH. Thus, the Servant shares the glory of YHWH which however only belonged to God in Second Isaiah (Isaiah 42:8; 48:11). ‘I will give my glory to no other." Yet in Isaiah 52:13, Mark Gignilliat writes that: "the Servant is narratively depicted as one who is sharing in what belongs to YHWH alone, that is, his glory" (Mark Gignilliat "Who is Isaiah's Servant? Narrative identity and theological potentiality," Scottish Journal of Theology
, pp. 132). See Jaap Dekker, “The High and Lofty One Dwelling in the Heights and with his Servants,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
for more arguments here.
The Servant of God's Law and Covenant: Isaiah 42:4, 6 and 49:1, 8
These texts reveal that the Servant will give teachings to the world (Isa. 42:4; 49:1) and be a covenant for the people. Actually, Isaiah 42:4 is better rendered as "law," since the Hebrew word used (tôrātô) means "his Torah." Thus, the Servant brings a new
law, discontinuities with the Mosaic law. In Isaiah 42:6, it is also revealed that the Servant will be "given . . . as a covenant to the people." This parallels Jeremiah 31:31-34, where there is a new law and a new covenant, a covenant with a clear discontuity with the old Law of Moses in such a way as to render the law of Moses as merely a foreshowing of this new work of YHWH to come
. Jeremiah 31:32 says:
"It [the new covenant] will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt . . ."
"Not be like" is an absolute negation. Thus, "the phrase . . . does not suggest a renewal of the Mosaic covenant here" (Fẹmi Adeyẹmi, The New Covenant Torah in Jeremiah and the Law of Christ in Paul
, Peter Lang, 2006, pp. 51). Notice also a forgiveness of sins at the end of the oracle in Jeremiah 31:34, which comes just by merely "know[ing] the LORD"! Keep in mind that Jer. 31 is placed in-between three different Messianic oracles (Jer. 23:5-8; 30:7-10; 33:14-22) and is related to them, confirming the role of the Messiah in this new covenant and new law. This is well into Christian territory.
Reading the Servant Songs Too Rigidly
Many point to Isaiah 42:2 as contradicting Jesus. But a literal rendering of the Hebrew would make the verse say this:
He will not cry out nor lift, and he will not cause his voice to be heard out of the door.
The sense of the text is merely that he will not seek attention for himself during his ministry. It would make no sense to take the English translations in a sense of the Servant not teachings in the streets and towns, because the Servant is a teacher who has teachings that the coastlands wait for (Isa. 42:4). One has to bear in mind that the Servant Songs are poems
Another good example of a text that is typically read too rigidly would be:
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth . . . (Isa. 53:7).
The prophet here is just describing the Servant taking on a vocation similar to that of the Psalter. "To open the mouth" to speak is a common phrase, and the expression occurs most commonly in the Psalms where it is used for those who accept their sufferings as deserved and see a purpose in it (Ps. 38:4f., 19; 39:12). Thus, they don't curse or taunt those who persecute them. Servant is put on par with these figures in the Psalms. \
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________) Appendix: Is The "Son" in Isaiah 7 and 9 Hezekiah?
Many think that the child of Isaiah 7 and 9 is Ahaz's son, Hezekiah. However, the equation of Hezekiah with the "Son" in Isa. 7 and 9 is specious:
- Hezekiah is not mentioned anywhere in the immediate literary context.
- Hezekiah was already born according to the historical context. J.J. Collins writes: "According to 2 Kgs 18.10, the fall of Samaria (722/721 BCE) was in the sixth year of Hezekiah, but according to v. 13 in the same chapter, the campaign of Sennacherib in 701 BCE was in his 14th year . . . Accordingly, his date of accession is variously given as 728/27 or 715 BCE. In 2 Kgs 18.1 we are told that he was 25 years old when he came to the throne, and if this is correct he would have been born too early on either date of accession" (J.J. Collins, "The Sign of Immanuel," in Prophecy and Prophets in Ancient Israel, 2010, pp. 232). See also Antti Laato, "Isaiah in Ancient, Medieval, and Modern Jewish Traditions," in The Oxford Handbook of Isaiah, 2020, pp. 511: "Hezekiah cannot be identified with Immanuel."
- It would be awkward if Isaiah saw Hezekiah as Immanuel or the "Son" of Isaiah 9. As Antti Laato points out, "Hezekiah rebelled against Assyria. This political decision was, according to Isaiah, nothing but filth in the eyes of the Lord (Isa 30,1-5; 31,1-3)" - Antti Laato, "History and ideology in the old testament prophetic books," Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, 1994, pp. 294. Isa. 22:1-14; 32:9-14 also show that Isaiah son of Amoz was very critical with Judah's foreign policy under Hezekiah (see Antti Laato, "Understanding Zion Theology in the Book of Isaiah," in Studies in Isaiah, History, Theology, and Reception, Bloomsbury, 2017, pp. 31, 42-43).
- Details within Isaiah 7-11 reveal the boy to be the future Messiah, not Hezekiah. Isaiah 9 itself says that "there will be no end" to the reign of this Son "from this time forth and forevermore." How does this apply to Hezekiah or any of the pre-exilic kings in Judah? The "Son" of Isaiah 7 is the same "Son" in Isaiah 9, since both passages speak about a Davidic "בֵּ֚ן" ("Son") given lofty titles/names to be born as a sign of hope for the Davidic dynasty. By Isaiah expanding his prophecy in Isa. 7:14 to include the oracles of 9:1-7 and 11, Isaiah has left nothing ambiguous regarding the Messianic identity of Immanuel. The cumulative evidence also links the three sections revolving around Isa. 7; 9 and 11 as portraying a coming King using quite variegated imagery and symbolism. One of these connections is the son Isaiah has, named Shear Jashub (which literally means 'a remnant will return') - Isa. 7:3. But the thought of a remnant returning is communicated by Isa. 10:20-21 (which says that 'a remnant will return'). Isa. 10:20-21 lands in a section (Isaiah 10:5-34) which Christophe Rico and Jacob Stromberg (in his essay "Hezekiah and the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah") have shown revolve around the Messianic stump of Jesse oracle in Isaiah 11, and thus inaugurates it. This link with Isaiah's son in Isa. 7:3, Shear Jashub (“A-Remnant-Shall-Return”), and the words “a remnant shall return” in Isa. 10:20-21, is thus developed in the Messianic oracle of Isaiah 11. Both Isa. 11:11 and Isa. 11:16 have two uses of the word שׁאר, and this word is present in 7:3 and 10:21. The Hebrew word מסלה, "highway," is also seen in Isa. 11:16, as in 7:3.
- There is no evidence of Isaiah viewing Hezekiah as deity, as the "Son" is (see above).
(6) The author of Isaiah 36-39 thought Hezekiah was not the fulfillment of the oracles in Isaiah 7-11. Jacob Stromberg writes for example:
Hezekiah, having been told that “days” (ימים) are coming when his kingdom will be dismantled by the Babylonians, responds by noting that “there will be peace [שלום] and security in my days" (39:8 → 38:3) . . . This, the last line of the story, seems carefully calculated to tell the reader that, although Hezekiah had earlier looked like the fulfillment of the days anticipated by 9:1–7, in the end, he was not: the scope of peace (שלום) in those days would be “without end” (9:7).
(Stromberg, "The Book of Isaiah: Its Final Structure," in The Oxford Handbook of Isaiah
, 2020, pp. 25-26).
Isaiah 39 overall has a very negative view of Hezekiah as well (e.g., Hezekiah trusts in his gold rather than YHWH). It is thus most important to note that Isaiah 38 and 39 are not in chronological order. Given this, it is striking that in Isaiah 38, Hezekiah at last puts his trust in YHWH alone, unlike Ahaz. But in Isaiah 39, we are presented with 'bad Hezekiah" who trusts in his wealth. As Sehoon Jang points out, by purposely switching the chronology of the story by ending with a negative portrayal of Hezekiah, the author of Isaiah 36-39 is implying that Hezekiah was not the coming king prophesied in the royal oracles of Isaiah 6-12.
This is because, as noted above, the author of Isaiah 36-39 at first leads on the reader to think that Hezekiah was the fulfillment of the royal oracles. For more, see:
- Sehoon Jang, "Is Hezekiah a Success or a Failure?," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 2017, pp. 132-133.
While Hezekiah was thought of as a better king, he wasn't good enough (and not as good as Josiah; cf. 2 Kgs 23:25).
submitted by TribeofYHWH
to DebateReligion [link] [comments]
2021.11.29 06:27 otakudiary1 Wit Studio Animates Promise of Wizard Mobile Game's 2nd Anniversary Ad