[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