Isaiah 53 and Human Sin

[Redemptionsong]

You are conflating God and angel again. And who says anyone "dwelled"? The Hebrew word for angel also means "messenger." Angels convey messages and do tasks in the human world on behalf of God. They aren't God.

There are angels, and then there is 'the angel of the LORD'. It is quite evident that the 'angel of the LORD' does not just deliver messages on behalf of God. It is clear from Genesis 18 that he negotiates with the authority of God.

JPS, Genesis 18:22. 'The men went on from there to Sodom, while Abraham remained standing before the LORD'. Now, I may not have a PhD in Mathematics, but when three men turn up at Mamre, and 'the men' proceed to Sodom, but only two arrive [Genesis 19:1] it is not hard to deduce that the one who remained behind was the 'third man'. The third man must, therefore, be the LORD. This was the same LORD (and angel) that negotiated the terms of Sodom's destruction! Does a messenger negotiate with the authority of God?

In support of the unusual authority of 'the angel of the LORD', we have other encounters in scripture with which to compare. In Genesis 16:7, the angel of the Lord found Hagar 'by a fountain of water'. In verse 14, is the fountain not called, 'the well of the Living and Seeing One'? What does this make the angel of the LORD?

Again, in Genesis 31:11, the angel of the LORD speaks to Jacob, and in 31:13 the angel says, I am the God of Bethel'.

In Genesis 32:30, after the wrestling episode between Jacob and the 'man', Jacob asks the angel his name, but it isn't given. So Jacob calls the place Peniel ': for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved'. Did Jacob not wrestle with an angel?

With Moses we have a similar encounter. In Exodus 3, the angel of the LORD appears in the burning bush. Moses turns aside, and we read, 'And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.'
How, following this, can the angel of the LORD call himself 'the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob', and not be God?

In Judges 6:14 the angel of the LORD appears to Gideon. After their encounter, Gideon says, 'Alas, O Lord GOD! for because I have seen an angel of the LORD face to face. And the LORD said unto him, Peace be unto thee; fear not: thou shalt not die. Then Gideon built an altar there unto the LORD, and called it Jehovah-shalom: unto this day it is yet in Ophrah of the Abiezrites.'

In Judges 13, the angel of the LORD appears to Manoah's wife. In verse 18, the angel of the LORD says to Manoah, 'why asketh thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret ('wonderful')'?

To my understanding, this word 'wonderful' (adjective) is found as a noun in Isaiah 9:7, where it refers to 'the Wonderful One'. Why else would Manoah end up by saying, 'We shall surely die, because we have seen God'? [Judges 13:22] Manoah's wife responds by saying, 'If the LORD were pleased to kill us, he would not have received a burnt offering ...'

There is consistency to all these stories. Men meet with God, yet their lives are spared. They all claim to have seen God 'face to face'? What do you think they saw?

 

[Redemptionsong]

*Chuckle!* The genealogies provided for Matthew's Jesus and for Luke's Jesus are as fake as each other, which is very fake indeed, and even if they were not, they only lead to Joseph, and if there's one thing you can say about the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke, it's that out loud and very clearly Joseph was NOT their father.

Have you not read and understood the post I sent? The genealogy in Matthew is Joseph's, and the genealogy in Luke is Mary's (through her father). It's the marriage of Joseph to Mary that legitimises Jesus' claim to be of the royal line of David.

Of course, the combining of two Gospel accounts is going to cause havoc with your sceptical dating of the Gospels, because these two accounts must appear at about the same time to make sense to a Jewish audience!

 

[rosends]

There are angels, and then there is 'the angel of the LORD'.

and you have decided that they are different, as if there are angels that are not of the Lord. Weird.

It is quite evident that the 'angel of the LORD' does not just deliver messages on behalf of God. It is clear from Genesis 18 that he negotiates with the authority of God.

In Gen 18, Abraham negotiates with God (verse 22, the men leave and 23, the negotiation begins and verse 26 confirms that Abraham is talking to God). The phrase "angel of the Lord" doesn't appear in the chapter. Again, if you make things up, that doesn't help your cause. You quote the JPS translation which says explicitly that the men left and Abraham stood chatting with God.

Now, I may not have a PhD in Mathematics, but when three men turn up at Mamre, and 'the men' proceed to Sodom, but only two arrive [Genesis 19:1] it is not hard to deduce that the one who remained behind was the 'third man'.

There is no indication that ANY stayed behind. God was with Abraham before the men arrived and after they leave. The ALL leave. Only 2 go to Lot. That doesn't change that all 3 left.

The third man must, therefore, be the LORD.

Um, no. God isn't a man. See how that works?

This was the same LORD (and angel) that negotiated the terms of Sodom's destruction! Does a messenger negotiate with the authority of God?

Again, no. God isn't an angel (not that the men who visit Abraham are called angels). And the men leave so Abraham negotiates with God, as per what the text actually says. Remember, the words are important.

In support of the unusual authority of 'the angel of the LORD', we have other encounters in scripture with which to compare. In Genesis 16:7, the angel of the Lord found Hagar 'by a fountain of water'. In verse 14, is the fountain not called, 'the well of the Living and Seeing One'? What does this make the angel of the LORD?

In 16:7, an angel of God speaks to Hagar relaying God's message. In verse 14, she thanks God, the source of the message. If the president sends a messenger telling me that he is giving me a new car, my first reaction should be to praise the resident. What did the messenger do?

Again, in Genesis 31:11, the angel of the LORD speaks to Jacob, and in 31:13 the angel says, I am the God of Bethel'.

Again (and I don't know why you are having such trouble with this) -- the angel transmits God's message and God's message is in the first person because it is the words of God. The angel doesn't say that he is God of Bethel. "The Angel said, 'I am God of Bethel...' " WHy would an angel claim to be God?

In Genesis 32:30, after the wrestling episode between Jacob and the 'man', Jacob asks the angel his name, but it isn't given. So Jacob calls the place Peniel ': for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved'. Did Jacob not wrestle with an angel?

The text doesn't say that the man is an angel so any conclusion about angels that you want to make is based either on your own interpretation, or you subscribe to the rabbinic tradition (the one that distinguishes angels from God). Do you imagine that God is on such a schedule that he has to run away from the daybreak? You have a weird idea about God.

With Moses we have a similar encounter. In Exodus 3, the angel of the LORD appears in the burning bush. Moses turns aside, and we read, 'And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.'
How, following this, can the angel of the LORD call himself 'the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob', and not be God?

Wow -- you aren't looking at the verses are you? The angel calls to him and gets his attention and then God speaks in verse 4. Why would Moses' turning his head get God to speak instead of an angel? Why would Moses turn his head FROM an angel? If you want, you can subscribe (since you like to latch on to rabbinic teachings when it suits you) to the teaching that the angel was Micho'el and when he shows up, he is accompanied by the glory of God or you can go read Sh'mot Rabbah 2:5 and see why Moses was spoken to directly by God after the angel spoke. This is really old stuff and yet you act like it doesn't exist. For someone who is adopting rabbinic understandings you really are ignoring the rabbinic understandings.

In Judges 6:14 the angel of the LORD appears to Gideon. After their encounter, Gideon says, 'Alas, O Lord GOD! for because I have seen an angel of the LORD face to face. And the LORD said unto him, Peace be unto thee; fear not: thou shalt not die. Then Gideon built an altar there unto the LORD, and called it Jehovah-shalom: unto this day it is yet in Ophrah of the Abiezrites.'

Actually, the verses make it clear that first the angel spoke and Gid'on responded, and then God answered Gid'on'r response. So Gid'on does speak with God. I don't see what the problem is (as the Malbim writes it עד עתה דבר עמו המלאך, ועתה פנה ה' אליו בדבור נבואיי)

In Judges 13, the angel of the LORD appears to Manoah's wife. In verse 18, the angel of the LORD says to Manoah, 'why asketh thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret ('wonderful')'?

Yes, it was an angel and his "name" is covered and unseen (the root for Peli is the same as the root for Yifleh, in Deut 17:8). No "wonderful" in the verse.

To my understanding, this word 'wonderful' (adjective) is found as a noun in Isaiah 9:7, where it refers to 'the Wonderful One'.

So your understanding is wrong. Check the word root. The Targum has it as "separated" as separate from the humans.

Why else would Manoah end up by saying, 'We shall surely die, because we have seen God'? [Judges 13:22] Manoah's wife responds by saying, 'If the LORD were pleased to kill us, he would not have received a burnt offering ...'

That has to do with Mano'ach (and actually Gid'on's) understanding of when one generally sees angels if one is not a prophet. The vision of angels is associated with dying, especially seeing them in angelic form (check the Malbim "וירא גדעון כי מלאך ה' הוא כי ראהו בעצמותו כמו שהוא מלאך, כי עד עתה נראה לפניו כתבנית איש) ולכן התירא"

You really seem to think that you are stumbling on something new and innovative but it just means you haven't studied the actual material at hand.

There is consistency to all these stories. Men meet with God, yet their lives are spared. They all claim to have seen God 'face to face'? What do you think they saw?

Some saw angels, some spoke with God. The text is really clear and consistent about this but instead of addressing that, you just keep dancing to new quotes that you think mean something different from what they say.

 

[rosends]

Have you not read and understood the post I sent? The genealogy in Matthew is Joseph's, and the genealogy in Luke is Mary's (through her father). It's the marriage of Joseph to Mary that legitimises Jesus' claim to be of the line of David.

Of course, the combining of two Gospel accounts is going to cause havoc with your sceptical dating of the Gospels, because these two accounts must appear at about the same time to make sense to a Jewish audience!

except that there is absolutely nothing in Jewish text or law that changes a child's tribal status to that of a man who (you claim) wasn't his birth father. Please stop making things up.

 

[blü 2]

The genealogy in Matthew is Joseph's

And is both nonsense and irrelevant.

and the genealogy in Luke is Mary's (through her father).

Not. It says no such thing. The "genealogy" is in Luke 3:23-38 and begins:

23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathais, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech the son of Joda, ...​

until in verse 31 we come to David and then rattle on down to Adam. In other words, it's THE genealogy in Luke and it's NOT "Mary's (through her father)" and it indeed purports to be about Jesus.

I don't know where you're getting your information, but it's not from the NT.

It's the marriage of Joseph to Mary that legitimises Jesus' claim to be of the line of David.

No. It doesn't, any more than Matthew's. In Matthew and in Luke there's no blood-line from Joseph to Jesus. And in Mark there is expressly no such bloodline.

 

[Redemptionsong]

except that there is absolutely nothing in Jewish text or law that changes a child's tribal status to that of a man who (you claim) wasn't his birth father. Please stop making things up.

You're missing the point. Jesus' tribal status is not changed, because even through Mary's line he is a descendant of David (through Nathan).

 

[Redemptionsong]

And is both nonsense and irrelevant.
Not. It says no such thing. The "genealogy" is in Luke 3:23-38 and begins:

23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathais, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech the son of Joda, ...​

until in verse 31 we come to David and then rattle on down to Adam. In other words, it's THE genealogy in Luke and it's NOT "Mary's (through her father)" and it indeed purports to be about Jesus.

I don't know where you're getting your information, but it's not from the NT.
No. It doesn't, any more than Matthew's. In Matthew and in Luke there's no blood-line from Joseph to Jesus. And in Mark there is expressly no such bloodline.

I know that there's no blood line from Joseph to Jesus! That is made clear in Luke's account because the text reads 'as was supposed' in relation to the fatherhood of Joseph. But we know from Matthew's account that Jacob was the father of Joseph. It was not Heli! Heli is the father of Mary, and the father-in-law of Joseph. From Heli back to Adam is the genealogy of Mary. Mary, being female, does not appear.

 

[blü 2]

I know that there's no blood line from Joseph to Jesus! That is made clear in Luke's account because the text reads 'as was supposed' in relation to the fatherhood of Joseph. But we know from Matthew's account that Jacob was the father of Joseph. It was not Heli! Heli is the father of Mary, and the father-in-law of Joseph. From Heli back to Adam is the genealogy of Mary. Mary, being female, does not appear.

Then you concede the point that neither Matthew's Jesus nor Luke's Jesus is descended from David? Why didn't you just say so?

 

[Redemptionsong]

In Gen 18, Abraham negotiates with God (verse 22, the men leave and 23, the negotiation begins and verse 26 confirms that Abraham is talking to God). The phrase "angel of the Lord" doesn't appear in the chapter. Again, if you make things up, that doesn't help your cause. You quote the JPS translation which says explicitly that the men left and Abraham stood chatting with God

If 'the men' left Abraham to go to Sodom, you would expect three men to arrive in Sodom. But Genesis 19:1 tells us that two arrive. Where is the third 'man'?

It is not 'making things up' to realise that the Lord was present in this party of men.

You mention 'Michael' ('who is like God') in your response, and this (arch)angel, who is given superiority in Jewish writings over other angels, may actually be a Jewish explanation for 'the angel of the LORD', which to Christian understanding is Christ. According to my friend Edersheim, in Bemidb.R. 2. 'He [Michael] is the Principal or middle Angel of the three who came to announce to Abraham the birth of Isaac, Gabriel being at his right, and Raphael at his left. Michael also saved Lot.'

If your text does not indicate the substitution of 'YHWH' for 'adonai' at key moments in the meeting between Abraham and the LORD, then this too will hide the truth of this encounter.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Then you concede the point that neither Matthew's Jesus nor Luke's Jesus is descended from David? Why didn't you just say so?

Oh, dear! I have just said that Luke's Jesus IS descended from David! He is descended from David through Nathan, not through Solomon!

 

[blü 2]

Oh, dear! I have just said that Luke's Jesus IS descended from David! He is descended from David through Nathan, not through Solomon!

No, that could only be true (within the peculiar fictions of the purported genealogy) if his father were Joseph.

But the text is emphatic that his father is NOT Joseph.

So nor Mark's, nor Matthew's, nor Luke's Jesuses are descended from David. Whereas in a wholly unexplained manner those of Paul and of John are asserted to be. (In a democracy, three would beat two and no Jesus would be allowed to claim descent from David. But of course that doesn't matter because as Mark's Jesus says loud and clear, you DON'T have to be descended from David to be God's instrument.)

Now, how do you say Jesus was born? As an ordinary Jew later adopted by God (Mark)? By divine insemination of a virgin so that they each have God's Y-chromosome (Matthew, Luke)? Or Don't Know (Paul, John)?

 

[rosends]

You're missing the point. Jesus' tribal status is not changed, because even through Mary's line he is a descendant of David (through Nathan).

But since tribal lineage is through the father then Mary's line doesn't matter.

 

[rosends]

If 'the men' left Abraham to go to Sodom, you would expect three men to arrive in Sodom. But Genesis 19:1 tells us that two arrive. Where is the third 'man'?

Actually the text says that the 3 men left and looked (vayashkifu) towards S'dom, not that 3 men "left to go to" S'dom. The words matter.

It is not 'making things up' to realise that the Lord was present in this party of men.

To "realize"? That is your invention.

You mention 'Michael' ('who is like God') in your response, and this (arch)angel, who is given superiority in Jewish writings over other angels, may actually be a Jewish explanation for 'the angel of the LORD', which to Christian understanding is Christ. According to my friend Edersheim, in Bemidb.R. 2. 'He [Michael] is the Principal or middle Angel of the three who came to announce to Abraham the birth of Isaac, Gabriel being at his right, and Raphael at his left. Michael also saved Lot.'

That is one idea, based on rabbinic interpretation. And you just love rabbinic interpretations. Sometimes

If your text does not indicate the substitution of 'YHWH' for 'adonai' at key moments in the meeting between Abraham and the LORD, then this too will hide the truth of this encounter.

If you keep inventing words and ideas and claiming that they are in the text, you will remain blind to the truth.

 

[Redemptionsong]

No, that could only be true (within the peculiar fictions of the purported genealogy) if his father were Joseph.

But the text is emphatic that his father is NOT Joseph.

So nor Mark's, nor Matthew's, nor Luke's Jesuses are descended from David. Whereas in a wholly unexplained manner those of Paul and of John are asserted to be. (In a democracy, three would beat two and no Jesus would be allowed to claim descent from David. But of course that doesn't matter because as Mark's Jesus says loud and clear, you DON'T have to be descended from David to be God's instrument.)

Now, how do you say Jesus was born? As an ordinary Jew later adopted by God (Mark)? By divine insemination of a virgin so that they each have God's Y-chromosome (Matthew, Luke)? Or Don't Know (Paul, John)?

There is no sense to what you have written here. In Genesis 3:15 it states that enmity is placed between the serpent's seed and the seed of the woman. It is not the seed of a man.

The genealogy of Mary is found in Luke. This is Jesus' genealogy in the flesh. The fact that Mary is not listed is simply because women do no appear in genealogies! So, it names her husband Joseph and his relationship to her father, Heli.

Here's an example to clarify: When Diana married Charles Windsor, Diana could claim no lineage to the British royal line. Nevertheless, following her marriage to Charles, their son William became a royal in line to the throne in Great Britain.

Mary was a descendant from David, but not in the royal line. Her marriage to Joseph gives their son royal legitimacy.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Actually the text says that the 3 men left and looked (vayashkifu) towards S'dom, not that 3 men "left to go to" S'dom. The words matte

In 18:22 (JPS) it says, 'The men went on from there to Sodom, while Abraham remained standing before the LORD'. The KJV says, 'And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.'

In the next chapter, the two angels are to be found in Sodom, and in verse 13 the angels say, 'For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.'

The LORD had remained behind with Abraham at a spot from which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah could be seen. This place is again referred to in ch.19:27,28 where it says, 'And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the LORD: And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.'

There is consistency and harmony in the interpretation that the 'third man' was indeed the LORD. This is referred to in 18:1, where it says, 'the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre'.

 

[BilliardsBall]

*Chuckle!* The genealogies provided for Matthew's Jesus and for Luke's Jesus are as fake as each other, which is very fake indeed, and even if they were not, they only lead to Joseph, and if there's one thing you can say about the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke, it's that out loud and very clearly Joseph was NOT their father.

As I've explained before the genealogies dovetail beautifully to perfectly match two prophecies: David's line through Solomon would be cut off from kingship, yet a descendant of David would be an eternal KING (Matthew emphasizes kingship). Confusion arises unless you study historical context, how "in-laws" were called father/mother not "in-laws".

One genealogy, He is of David through Solomon, Mary's line is David through David's son Nathan. The ONLY way to fulfill BOTH prophecies was for a son of David through other than Solomon to be adopted as the eldest of Joseph, the most direct descendant of Solomon. PLEASE LEARN THIS and stop promulgating falsehoods.

The genealogies are lovely AND emphasize the kingship you derided. Stop goal post shifting also, if you would, please.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Isaac asked "where is the sheep" ("seh")
Abraham said "God will show us a sheep" (seh")
The animal they found was a ram. ("ayil")

to understand the distinction, read here.

The best would still be GOD WILL PROVIDE HIMSELF, THE SHEEP.

 

[rosends]

In 18:22 (JPS) it says, 'The men went on from there to Sodom, while Abraham remained standing before the LORD'. The KJV says, 'And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.'

Ah, I see -- I was looking in the wrong verse. Twenty-two says that they went towards S'dom. Sorry about that.

In the next chapter, the two angels are to be found in Sodom, and in verse 13 the angels say, 'For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.'

You mean the men. The text doesn't say angels -- that's a rabbinic commentary. 19:1 calls the people who arrived "angels" (or messenger) and you have decided that because this narrative follows (sort of) the meeting with Abraham, the 2 angels here are ther same as the three men who went off in this direction a bunch of verses earlier. And then you have decided that because 3 men left and two angels arrived, the third angels wasn't an angel or a man but God. You are making a whole lot of interpretation here -- some of it is taken from the rabbinical understanding because you have shown that when it suits you, those understandings are acceptable. But when it doesn't suit you, you ignore it.

There is consistency and harmony in the interpretation that the 'third man' was indeed the LORD. This is referred to in 18:1, where it says, 'the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre'.

No, there is selective misrepresentation and an ignoring of the fact that Abraham was in God's presence before the men arrived and after they left. The text is quite clear about who is who, man, angel, God -- mixing and matching when it suits you is intellectually dishonest.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Exactly my point. But since I have considerably better things to do with my time, I won't look up your old posts and quote the relevant ones.

Why chat with me at all, then? "Here am I to clear your falsehoods but I'm too busy and too disdainful to discuss the best evident candidate for the JEWISH MESSIAH."

 

[rosends]

The best would still be GOD WILL PROVIDE HIMSELF, THE SHEEP.

Well, not exactly. The phrase is "yir'eh lo" which is a tough one to parse. It means something along the lines of "will show for him". The word "provide" isn't in the verse and neither is "himself." It means "God will show which sheep is for him", that is, the animal for a sacrifice to him.

The Aramaic Onkelos might help

קֳדָם יְיָ גְּלֵי לֵיהּ אִימְרָא

in front of God the sheep is discovered

the T"Y has "God will choose a sheep" and the T'Yesh has "God will invite a sheep"