[b-hebrew] OT: a link about Modern Hebrew
Harold R. Holmyard III
hholmyard at ont.com
Wed Jun 9 13:30:05 EDT 2004
Dear Vadim,
>There is not much left regarding the messiah aside from Isaiah: a doubt
>reference or two, depending how you read it, in Psalms (I'm sure you know
>that other references are mistranslations), Micha, Zahariah, perhaps. These
>opuses weren't taken seriously by Jews before the Pharisees, and even long
>after they invented a new meaning. Sure you cannot base a religion on this
>more than on Beowulf (not sure about the spelling, sorry).
HH: Once you add Micah and Zechariah, you have added something
significant. The Jews themselves find other Messianic texts. How do
you know texts like Micah and Zechariah weren't taken seriously
before the Pharisees? They are God's word. And what is this "new
meaning"? The Jewish Messianic hope is ancient. I believe it is also
found in intertestamental literature like Enoch. There are also
messianic texts in Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel, Haggai, Psalms, and
Malachi. There may be references in Job and Proverbs. We should not
forget the original setting for the Davidic promises in 2 Samuel,
matched by Chronicles, as well as earlier texts in Genesis and
Numbers that have messianic implications.
> >But I believe the Servant is the Messiah, even though the word "anointed"
>is not used of the Servant by Isaiah.<
>
>But on what basis, then?
HH: Isaiah has a lot of Messianic texts in the first part of his
book, and the Davidic promise is not forgotten in the last half of
the book, since 55:3-5 clearly suggests that Israel's glory will
involve a Davidic king. Liz actually thinks that 55:5 addresses the
king in another of the short, unmarked Servant passages. The second
half of Isaiah speaks of a glory for Israel that the return from
Babylon never brought. Thus it is future. The Servant is clearly
associated with that glory (e.g., 42:1-7; 49:6-7; 52:13-15). There is
a switching back and forth between Cyrus and the Servant that
suggests a comparison between the two. Israel's time of glory is
associated with a return of exile (49:8-13; 60:1-9). So it is proper
to think that Cyrus, who allowed the Jews to return from exile in 536
B.C to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple, is a picture of this future
Servant who will be instrumental in returning Israel from yet another
exile in the distant future.
HH: The messianic texts in the first part of Isaiah (e.g., chapters 9
and 11) have never been fulfilled in history and are also
eschatological. There is considerable sharing of imagery from these
early messianic passages with the later part of the book. Compare
11:1-5 with 42:1-3 and 61:1-3; 11:6-9 with 65:25; and 11:10-16 with
40:9-11, 43:5-7, and 49:9-26 (the comparison in 11:10-16 is in the
idea of a Second Exodus). The language of Isaiah 11 does not point to
an historical Davidic king. Rather it matches the setting of the
Servant in Isaiah 40--66 (again, see 11:2-5 with 42:11-4). The
Davidic king has the same esteem among the nations as the Servant
(cf. Isa 11:4, 10 with 49:6). So it is not farfetched to conclude
that the Servant in Isaiah 40-66 corresponds to the eschatological
Davidic king described in Isaiah 1-39.
HH: The New Testament, interpreting the Jesus as the Servant, also
describes Him as the "root of Jesse" (Isa 11:10; Rom 15:12; cf. Rev
22:16). So the early church identified the Servant with the Davidic
Messiah.
Yours,
Harold Holmyard
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list