[b-hebrew] Mashiach

Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Fri Sep 8 12:02:20 EDT 2006

Dear Yonah,

>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.

HH: But doctors do not heal people supernaturally, so we don't know what 
that might involve for someone who did. And the NT quotes this text of 
Jesus healing people supernaturally:

Matt. 8:16  When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were 
brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all 
the sick.
Matt. 8:17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet 
Isaiah:  “He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases.”

HH: The fact that we cannot explain exactly how someone could carry 
diseases without becoming sick does not matter because we cannot explain 
how a person can heal supernaturally either. One incident indicates that 
power went out of Jesus in a healing:

Luke 8:44 She came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak, and 
immediately her bleeding stopped.
Luke 8:45   “Who touched me?” Jesus asked.  When they all denied it, 
Peter said,  “Master, the people are crowding and pressing against you.”
Luke 8:46  But Jesus said,  “Someone touched me; I know that power has 
gone out from me.”

HH: So perhaps Jesus carried sicknesses in the sense that they drained 
him of some power.

Harold Holmyard

>>[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 isdefinitely 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 Hebrewconcordance) for "land of the living" in the Tanakh.
>"Land of the Living"ארץ חיים [[ )RC XYYM ]]Psalm 27:13; 52:7Isaiah 53:8Jeremiah 11:19Ezekiel 26:20; 32:23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 32
>ארץ החיים [[ )RC HCYYM ]]Job 28:13Psalm 142:5Isaiah 38:11
>ארצות החיים [[ )RCWT HCYYM ]]Psalm 116:9
>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 wasmetaphorical death for the people, in addition to the fact thatmultitudes 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 itwould not be so clear to you -- even though it is in line with whatthe 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 ishighly possibly refering to the goyische kings, since it is refered toin a previous verse:
>The LORD will lay bare his holy armin the sight of all the nations,and all the ends of the earth will seethe salvation of our God.(Isaiah 52:10, NIV)
>In fact, the entire chapter is talking about Israel's captivity. Ithink the message is blatantly clear from the context. Chapter 52talks about Israel's captivity; 53 talks about their treatment andcomportment; and 54 talks about their return from this captivity. (Irealize that the references go back-and-forth within the section, butthis is the basic thrust of the text.)
>I still am puzzled by the confusion that this text causes when iftaken in context it makes perfect sense.
>-- Yonah Mishael ben AvrahamJoplin, MOyonahmishael at gmail.com_______________________________________________b-hebrew mailing listb-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list