• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Isaiah 61: The question of fulfilment.

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
In Luke 4, Jesus reads from Isaiah 61 in the synagogue in Nazareth, and ignites the anger of the locals. This could not have occurred unless the passage was assumed to refer to the coming Messiah, Yet, on this site, most Jews seem to consider the reference in verse 1 of Ch.61 'The spirit of the LORD GOD is upon me' to be to the prophet whose name is attached to the book - Isaiah himself.
Is this a reasonable conclusion?
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
In Luke 4, Jesus reads from Isaiah 61 in the synagogue in Nazareth, and ignites the anger of the locals. This could not have occurred unless the passage was assumed to refer to the coming Messiah
That isn't logical. If you go back to Isaiah 60:21 Isaiah says "Then all your people will be righteous and they will possess the land forever. They are the shoot I have planted, the work of my hands, for the display of my splendor." In the first place, Isaiah is calling them the branch. By referring to Isaiah 61 as fulfilled Jesus (In Luke 4) is assenting to this idea, and no one gets angry with him at this point. They like what Isaiah says and like the idea that its fulfilled. Returning to Luke 4 they only get angry later when Jesus insults them. He points out that during a famine (during the reign of Jezebel) Elijah is afraid to trust his own people but instead stays with strangers in a neighboring country. He's saying that they're backstabbers and that the fulfillment they want isn't going to happen for them but only in their hearing, as if it were next door for someone else. Its like how the 'Rich man' in one of Jesus parables sees Lazarus comforted but gets not comfort himself. Basically he's saying its going to rain for other people but not for them. They get angry with him, but it doesn't imply what you are suggesting.

Yet, on this site, most Jews seem to consider the reference in verse 1 of Ch.61 'The spirit of the LORD GOD is upon me' to be to the prophet whose name is attached to the book - Isaiah himself.
I do not know what they think about it, but it does appear that way.
Is this a reasonable conclusion?
It seems reasonable.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
That isn't logical. If you go back to Isaiah 60:21 Isaiah says "Then all your people will be righteous and they will possess the land forever. They are the shoot I have planted, the work of my hands, for the display of my splendor." In the first place, Isaiah is calling them the branch. By referring to Isaiah 61 as fulfilled Jesus (In Luke 4) is assenting to this idea, and no one gets angry with him at this point. They like what Isaiah says and like the idea that its fulfilled. Returning to Luke 4 they only get angry later when Jesus insults them. He points out that during a famine (during the reign of Jezebel) Elijah is afraid to trust his own people but instead stays with strangers in a neighboring country. He's saying that they're backstabbers and that the fulfillment they want isn't going to happen for them but only in their hearing, as if it were next door for someone else. Its like how the 'Rich man' in one of Jesus parables sees Lazarus comforted but gets not comfort himself. Basically he's saying its going to rain for other people but not for them. They get angry with him, but it doesn't imply what you are suggesting.

I can accept that the reference made to Elijah will have caused the anger, because Jesus was telling them that only the widows and lepers of Israel receive the one sent by God. This does not, however, invalidate the puzzlement caused by Jesus cutting short the reading and sitting down. It says, 'the eyes of all of them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him'. They were surprised for good reason. He had chosen to stop before the words, 'and the day of vengeance of our God;' Why would he do this if he were not making his mission absolutely clear? He had come to save and not to judge.
Isaiah 60:20 says,'Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for the LORD shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended.'
How is this, and the following verse which you quote above, directly connected to the passage that Jesus read in the synagogue? The passage you refer to in Isaiah 60 is still future to us now. It's about the millennial reign of the Messiah, not the advent of a Saviour whose true status was not recognised by many in Judah.
 
Last edited:

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
I can accept that the reference made to Elijah will have caused the anger, because Jesus was telling them that only the widows and lepers of Israel receive the one sent by God. This does not, however, invalidate the puzzlement caused by Jesus cutting short the reading and sitting down. It says, 'the eyes of all of them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him'. They were surprised for good reason. He had chosen to stop before the words, 'and the day of vengeance of our God;' Why would he do this if he were not making his mission absolutely clear? He had come to save and not to judge.
Isaiah 60:20 says,'Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for the LORD shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended.'
How is this, and the following verse which you quote above, directly connected to the passage that Jesus read in the synagogue? The passage you refer to in Isaiah 60 is still future to us now. It's about the millennial reign of the Messiah, not the advent of a Saviour whose true status was not recognised by many in Judah.
The millenialism you are putting forward presumes Isaiah is speaking about a millennial reign; however the people Jesus is speaking to 2000 years ago do not see it that way. I also do not, so let us rest the conversation.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
The reason that I believe the words of Isaiah 61:1-2 must be words that refer to the Lord (Jesus Christ as Saviour), and not Isaiah, is because the phrases used all have parallels elsewhere in scripture that provide a clear explanation of their intended application.
Take first the expression 'The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me;' If we look back to Isaiah 42:1-4, it says ' Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgement to the Gentiles.[2] He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. [3] A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. [4] he shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.'

This should make you think seriously about applying Isaiah 61 to Isaiah. Verse 4 of Isaiah 42 makes it absolutely clear that only the Messiah is here intended. Only he can 'set judgment in the earth'. Only he can give law to the isles. So it's the same Messiah to whom the Spirit comes.

Look also at the expression 'mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth'. What did the Father say to Jesus at his baptism, 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' [Matt:3:17]

Now look at the other expressions used. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY!
'to preach good tidings' - in Isaiah 52:7 it says,'How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, thy God reigneth!'
Is this not the Saviour?

'to bind up the brokenhearted' - It says in Psalm 147:3 'He [the Lord] healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth up their wounds'.
Is this not the same Lord?

'to proclaim liberty to the captives' - Isaiah 42:6,7. 'I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; [7] To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.'

'the opening of prison to them that are bound' - as above.

Are these both not references to the coming Messiah? Was Isaiah ever given 'for a covenant'?

'To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD' - 'the year of acceptance'.Isaiah 49:8 'Thus saith the LORD, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages;'

Only the Messiah has the authority to claim 'in a day of salvation have I helped thee.'

Psalm 85:1,2: 'LORD, thou hast been favourable unto thy land: thou hast brought back the captivity of Jacob. [2] Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of thy people, thou hast covered all their sin. Selah.'
 
Last edited:

Tumah

Veteran Member
The reason that I believe the words of Isaiah 61:1-2 must be words that refer to the Lord (Jesus Christ as Saviour), and not Isaiah, is because the phrases used all have parallels elsewhere in scripture that provide a clear explanation of their intended application.
Take first the expression 'The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me;' If we look back to Isaiah 42:1-4, it says ' Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgement to the Gentiles.[2] He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. [3] A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. [4] he shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.'
Not everyone who G-d rests His spirit on, is the messiah. In fact, Isaiah 42, is not talking about the messiah, but the nation of Israel.
But your actually totally missing what the verse is saying. Its not saying that Isaiah will do these things. Its saying that he was appointed to let people know about these things. Look at Isaiah 61:1. He isn't saying that he will do something. He is saying that he is bringing news that will make people feel better. The Jews are in exile. Isaiah is not coming to free them, he is coming to give them news that will lift their hearts. That's what the verse is talking about, Isaiah is getting a prophecy (the spirit of G-d is on me), to let people know about what's in store (because I was anointed to bring news to the destitute, etc.). The chapter itself is a fulfillment of the job he was dedicated to do.

This should make you think seriously about applying Isaiah 61 to Isaiah. Verse 4 of Isaiah 42 it makes it absolutely clear that only the Messiah is here intended. Only he can 'set judgment in the earth'. Only he can give law to the isles. So it's the same Messiah to whom the Spirit comes.
Isaiah 42 is talking about Israel. Although it is obviously G-d who sets the judgments, He does so through the Jews as in Isa. 2:3, 60:3, Mic. 4:2, Zech 8:23, etc. That's what 42:4 is saying.

Look also at the expression 'mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth'. What did the Father say to Jesus at his baptism, 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' [Matt:3:17]
That's just wrong. Isa. 41:8 uses almost the exact same terminology and clearly says that its Israel.

Now look at the other expressions used. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY!
'to preach good tidings' - in Isaiah 52:7 it says,'How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, thy God reigneth!'
Is this not the Saviour?
I'm not sure that you really have an argument here. Isaiah 40:9 speaks of the harbinger in feminine terminology. Is there meant to be a male and female savior?

'to bind up the brokenhearted'
- It says in Psalm 147:3 'He [the Lord] healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth up their wounds'.
Is this not the same Lord?

'to proclaim liberty to the captives'
- Isaiah 42:6,7. 'I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; [7] To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.'

'the opening of prison to them that are bound' - as above.

Are these both not references to the coming Messiah? Was Isaiah ever given 'for a covenant'?
No, you totally missed the point. He is prophesying the coming of the messiah, that much is true. Isaiah is saying the people that are broken hearted, that they will be bound up, for the captured, that they will be freed, and for the bound, that they will be released. He's not saying that he's going to do these things, he's telling people that they will be saved from their suffering.

'To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD' - 'the year of acceptance'.Isaiah 49:8 'Thus saith the LORD, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to eastablish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages;'

Only the Messiah has the authority to claim 'in a day of salvation have I helped thee.'
No, only G-d can say that not a messiah. But anyway Isaiah is only saying that it will come. He's not saying that he's the one that going to do it.
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
In Luke 4, Jesus reads from Isaiah 61 in the synagogue in Nazareth, and ignites the anger of the locals. This could not have occurred unless the passage was assumed to refer to the coming Messiah, Yet, on this site, most Jews seem to consider the reference in verse 1 of Ch.61 'The spirit of the LORD GOD is upon me' to be to the prophet whose name is attached to the book - Isaiah himself.
Is this a reasonable conclusion?


4:18-21 - By proclaiming to fulfill this prophecy, Jesus is saying in the clearest way possible that He is the Messiah.

These verses are a Messianic prophecy but what is missing from verse 19 that is included in Isa 61:2?

--the day of vengeance of our God. --to comfort all who mourn.

Why omit those phrases? What He quoted refers to His first coming. He will finish this sermon at His second coming.

What is the favorable year of the Lord? I believe the favorable year of the Lord is when salvation is still available.

What is the day of vengeance? The day of vengeance is when salvation is no longer available. It would not come during His incarnation. I believe it refers to the 7 bowls of the wrath of God in Revelation 16.

All who mourn will be comforted before the day of vengeance. Another comforting thought.

He, God, anointed Me to preach the good news. The word used here is confined to the sacred instead of the word used for anointing in general.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
4:18-21 - By proclaiming to fulfill this prophecy, Jesus is saying in the clearest way possible that He is the Messiah.

These verses are a Messianic prophecy but what is missing from verse 19 that is included in Isa 61:2?

--the day of vengeance of our God. --to comfort all who mourn.

Why omit those phrases? What He quoted refers to His first coming. He will finish this sermon at His second coming.

What is the favorable year of the Lord? I believe the favorable year of the Lord is when salvation is still available.

What is the day of vengeance? The day of vengeance is when salvation is no longer available. It would not come during His incarnation. I believe it refers to the 7 bowls of the wrath of God in Revelation 16.

All who mourn will be comforted before the day of vengeance. Another comforting thought.

He, God, anointed Me to preach the good news. The word used here is confined to the sacred instead of the word used for anointing in general.

That's exactly the point I'm making. A comma in the KJV separates salvation from judgment!
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Isaiah 42 is talking about Israel. Although it is obviously G-d who sets the judgments, He does so through the Jews as in Isa. 2:3, 60:3, Mic. 4:2, Zech 8:23, etc. That's what 42:4 is saying.

Ok, Tumah. Like ben Avraham, you have stated that you believe Israel to be the anointed of God. I agree with this, but I would go further and say that Israel is the body, whilst the Messiah is the head. It's possible to find scriptural references to BOTH being the anointed of God.
You wouldn't suggest, surely, that the sheep are also the shepherd? Do the blind lead the blind? The Shepherd, as you stated earlier, is the LORD. There is also only one shepherd. So the shepherd can be either the Lord in heaven, or his chosen Messiah on earth - who is also the Lord of his people. And the reason that the Messiah can be the Lord on earth is because he is also the son of God ie the Spirit of God dwelling within a sinless man.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
Ok, Tumah. Like ben Avraham, you have stated that you believe Israel to be the anointed of God. I agree with this,
Anyone who is not Christian can see this clearly. The surprise is that you as a Christian can see this.
but I would go further and say that Israel is the body, whilst the Messiah is the head. It's possible to find scriptural references to BOTH being the anointed of God.
That's not a step further. That's a completely different direction.
And no you can't find Scriptural references to that. You can only reinterpret Scriptures to fit your theological beliefs.
You wouldn't suggest, surely, that the sheep are also the shepherd? Do the blind lead the blind? The Shepherd, as you stated earlier, is the LORD. There is also only one shepherd. So the shepherd can be either the Lord in heaven, or his chosen Messiah on earth - who is also the Lord of his people. And the reason that the Messiah can be the Lord on earth is because he is also the son of God ie the Spirit of God dwelling within a sinless man.
That explanation is unnecessary. Eze. 34:2 already expresses the concept of the leaders of the Jewish nation being called shepherds at the same time the nation is called sheep. There's no need to turn to Christian theology to remedy Jewish Scriptures.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
That explanation is unnecessary. Eze. 34:2 already expresses the concept of the leaders of the Jewish nation being called shepherds at the same time the nation is called sheep. There's no need to turn to Christian theology to remedy Jewish Scriptures.

All you have done, Tumah, is show a careless attention to the words. There's a big difference betwen 'shepherds' who are shown to lead the flock astray, and the one true shepherd who leads his sheep.
 
Last edited:

Tumah

Veteran Member
All you have doine, Tumah, is show a careless attention to the words. There's a big difference betwen 'shepherds' who are shown to lead the flock astray, and the one true shepherd who leads his sheep.
There is a difference. One is right and the other is wrong. That's all. If you have something more substantial than "nu uh" then bring it. Otherwise, why bother responding?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
That's not a step further. That's a completely different direction.
And no you can't find Scriptural references to that. You can only reinterpret Scriptures to fit your theological beliefs.

As I've said before, scripture is self-interpreting.
Ezekiel 34 is a reproof of Israel's shepherds. This is not a subjective or unsubstantiated interpretation; it's an acceptance of the Word of God.

'Thus saith the LORD GOD unto the shepherds: Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks?' [These are the words contained in Ezekiel 34:2. The chapter can be read by anyone wanting to see it for themselves.]

Ezekiel 34:23 also clearly states: 'And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd.' [This must be the Messiah; king David had been dead for 400 years!]

It also fits perfectly with the New Testament, where Jesus says, 'I am the good shepherd'. [John 10:11 and John 10:14]
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
As I've said before, scripture is self-interpreting.
Ezekiel 34 is a reproof of Israel's shepherds. This is not a subjective or unsubstantiated interpretation; it's an acceptance of the Word of God.

'Thus saith the LORD GOD unto the shepherds: Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks?' These are the words contained in Ezekiel 34:2. The chapter can be read by anyone wanting to see it for themselves.

Ezekiel 34:23 also clearly states: 'And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd.' This must be the Messiah; king David had been dead for 400 years.

It also fits perfectly with the New Testament, where Jesus says, 'I am the good shepherd'.[John 10:11 and John 10:14]
You're quoting verses that prove my point. Even though G-d calls the Jews 'His flock', He still calls the leaders of the flock who are of the flock themselves, "shepherds". Clearly then, there is no contradiction between being part of the flock and also being the leader of the flock. Therefore there is no contradiction between the messiah being a regular human Jewish descendant of David and also leading the Jews.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
You're quoting verses that prove my point. Even though G-d calls the Jews 'His flock', He still calls the leaders of the flock who are of the flock themselves, "shepherds". Clearly then, there is no contradiction between being part of the flock and also being the leader of the flock. Therefore there is no contradiction between the messiah being a regular human Jewish descendant of David and also leading the Jews.

Yes, God calls the leaders of the flock 'shepherds', but he rejects these 'shepherds'. God doesn't want the 'shepherds' to lead the flock. He wants only the SHEPHERD to lead the flock.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Tumah, you told me not long ago that you believed that the LORD was your SHEPHERD (Psalm 23). Are you now saying that the Lord is no longer your shepherd? Have the shepherds replaced the shepherd?
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
Yes, God calls the leaders of the flock 'shepherds', but he rejects these 'shepherds'. God doesn't want the 'shepherds' to lead the flock. He wants only the SHEPHERD to lead the flock.
Ok. So you've come around from your original argument that the sheep can't be the shepherd.
Next. It doesn't say that G-d doesn't want the shepherds to lead the flock. It says that He has a problem with the shepherds not doing their job the way they're supposed to. That's how the chapter starts off. G-d complaining about how the shepherds are doing their job. Presumably, if they had been doing their job well, or for those who are doing their job well, this complaint wouldn't apply.
Regardless, G-d explains that He will eventually collect the sheep and set them up well. They'll get a good pasture and a good shepherd.

There's no where in the verse that indicates that G-d doesn't want other shepherds to lead the flock. The chapter explicitly states that there is a problem with certain shepherds. That's the reason G-d doesn't want them. Not because they are not shepherds of the Davidic line or something.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
There's no where in the verse that indicates that G-d doesn't want other shepherds to lead the flock. The chapter explicitly states that there is a problem with certain shepherds. That's the reason G-d doesn't want them. Not because they are not shepherds of the Davidic line or something.

So you think God wants more shepherds? Why then does he explicitly say that he will 'set up one shepherd' over the flock? Why does he say that the shepherd will be 'my servant David'?
 
Top