yonahmishael at gmail.com
Thu Sep 7 20:43:08 EDT 2006
On 9/5/06, Steve Miller <smille10 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> [Steve Miller] As Peter already pointed out, Jesus knew sickness because He spent time with the sick and bore their sicknesses. Also, the word for sickness can refer to physical wounds from beating (Prov23:35;2Kg 1:2;8:29).
YM: If he bore their sickness, then he would have become sick himself.
This is simply more metaphorical language added to the mix of what we
are already trying to clarify with normal language. I do not know how
adding metaphor to metaphor helps us understand the text. Jesus did
not "bear" sickness of any kind, even if he (supposedly) healed any
sickness. There is a difference between bearing a sickness, which
means that you suffer through it, and healing a sickness. Doctors do
not "bear" the sickness of their patients.
> [Steve Miller] If so, then the nations are the ones speaking. (Some problems with that.) But then you say later that Isaiah is the one speaking.
YM: I say that both interpretations have been offered, and this is
definitely the case.
> [Steve Miller] "clear indicator" & "clear ref"???? "land of the living" is used many times in Tanach, and it means just what it says. It never means the land of Israel. To be cut off from the land of the living is to die.
YM: Here are the references that I find (not having a proper Hebrew
concordance) for "land of the living" in the Tanakh.
"Land of the Living"
ארץ חיים [[ )RC XYYM ]]
Psalm 27:13; 52:7
Ezekiel 26:20; 32:23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 32
ארץ החיים [[ )RC HCYYM ]]
ארצות החיים [[ )RCWT HCYYM ]]
Reading through the references, I would have to agree with you that
"land of the living" refers to this world (as opposed to the grave).
However, the exile of the people of Israel from the land was
metaphorical death for the people, in addition to the fact that
multitudes were killed during the battles that led up to exile. To me,
this is a clear metaphor for Israel's exile, but I can see why it
would not be so clear to you -- even though it is in line with what
the prophets said.
> [Steve Miller] I agree that the speaker is Isaiah in 53:1-10, mostly speaking on behalf of Israel in general, but in 53:1 on behalf of the prophets. This is the straightforward way to understand it, and I don't know of any problem with it. But you can't have it both ways. If you say that this chapter is the gentile nations' remorse over Israel, then you must have the speaker be the gentile nations and not Isaiah.
> The gentile kings cannot be the speaker. In the whole Tanach, since Israel became a nation, have the gentiles ever said anything intelligent about God? And here they know the "arm of the Lord"? They know that it "pleased Jehovah to bruise him."?
It says that the arm of HaShem was revealed to them, and this is
highly possibly refering to the goyische kings, since it is refered to
in a previous verse:
The LORD will lay bare his holy arm
in the sight of all the nations,
and all the ends of the earth will see
the salvation of our God.
(Isaiah 52:10, NIV)
In fact, the entire chapter is talking about Israel's captivity. I
think the message is blatantly clear from the context. Chapter 52
talks about Israel's captivity; 53 talks about their treatment and
comportment; and 54 talks about their return from this captivity. (I
realize that the references go back-and-forth within the section, but
this is the basic thrust of the text.)
I still am puzzled by the confusion that this text causes when if
taken in context it makes perfect sense.
Yonah Mishael ben Avraham
yonahmishael at gmail.com
More information about the b-hebrew