Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Steve Miller" <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net>]

> From: Yonah Mishael Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 8:43 PM
> 
> 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] Yonah, sorry for continuing this thread after you said you
were tired of it. Isa 53 says that the righteous servant was familiar with
sickness, bore our sicknesses, and that by his wounds we are healed. The 3
metaphors explain each other. In what way was he familiar with sickness? By
bearing our sicknesses. How did he bear our sickness? By his wounds, we are
healed. To bear someone's sickness, you would have to suffer on their
behalf, but not necessarily get sick. When I took care of my Mom when she
was dying of cancer, I helped bear her sickness, but I did not get sick. 
> 
> > [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] OK. Then you are offering 2 alternative interpretations. Do
you agree that they both cannot be true?

> >  [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
> Isaiah 53:8
> Jeremiah 11:19
> Ezekiel 26:20; 32:23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 32
> 
> ארץ החיים [[ )RC HCYYM ]]
> Job 28:13
> Psalm 142:5
> Isaiah 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 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] It should not be that clear to you either, since not a single
use of "land of the living" in the Bible refers to the land of Israel. The
1st principle of interpreting the Bible is that the Bible interprets the
Bible. Is there any place in the Tanach where the Babylonian captivity is
spoken of as a metaphorical death for Israel? For many people of a nation to
die is not a death of the nation. i.e. After the exodus, the whole
generation of Israel died in the wilderness except for Joshua and Caleb.

> 
> > [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)

[Steve Miller] Ok, good point. But in the whole Tanach, since Balaam, have
gentiles ever said anything intelligent about God, even remotely close in
understanding (or even just in length) to what is spoken here? 

> 
> 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.)

[Steve Miller] Isa 52:1-12 is without controversy announcing the good news
of Israel's return from captivity (vv.1-3 & 7-12).  Just vv. 4-5 express the
condition under captivity from which they are being released.
Isa 54 is clearly on the millennium. i.e. vv 3-5,9-15 cannot refer to the
return from captivity in Ezra & Nehemiah. i.e v5. The Lord is called the God
of the whole earth. Even the verses I did not list match better to the
millennium. There is no mention of a return from captivity here. Just
compare chapter 54 to 52.
So there is the return from captivity in ch 52, to which returned captivity
the righteous suffering servant came in ch 53, which produces the blessings
of the millennium in ch 54. 
The gap in time from the suffering servant to the millennium is present in
all Tanach prophesies. The Tanach skips over the time from the destruction
of the temple in 70 AD until a short time (1 generation, I think) before the
Millenium. 
> 
> I still am puzzled by the confusion that this text causes when if
> taken in context it makes perfect sense.
> 
> שלום
> Yonah
>