Skeptic: Reexamining Isaiah and Other Biblical Texts
by Terry Wane Benton
Quote:
"Likewise, Isaiah is not a solitary author crafting messianic predictions. It is a composite work, consisting of First Isaiah (8th century BCE), Deutero-Isaiah (6th century BCE), and Trito-Isaiah (5th century BCE), each shaped by the political landscape of Assyrian and Babylonian influence. The “Suffering Servant” passages in Isaiah 52–53 are frequently interpreted by Jewish scholars and some secular experts as a poetic representation of Israel as a nation undergoing distress and ultimate redemption, rather than as a veiled reference to Jesus."
Reply:
Liberal “scholarship” is based on unbelief toward Jesus, and the unbelief toward Him was misguided due to hoping the Messiah would be a political/military leader to drive out the Romans from the land of Israel. Since Jesus would not be made that kind of king (See John 6:15), some Jews refused to believe He was the Messiah. The problem was not really with Jesus, but with the misunderstanding of what kind of kingdom the Messiah would establish.
The connection to David, their greatest king, sparked their desire for the Son of David to rule a kingdom of the same kind as David had before. However, they forget that Isaiah 2:1-4 had indicated that it would be much different. David “learned war” and the skill of military swordsmanship, but Isaiah said that God’s house would involve “all nations” flowing to “learn” God’s ways, and turning “swords to plowshares” and “learning war no more.” That is a peaceful house of a different nature.
Further, David’s Son, who turned out to be Jesus, was to be a “priest forever” after the order of Melchizedek (Psalms 110). So, the priesthood of the Levites that David knew would be “changed” (Hebrews 7:11-12) to a new priest of a different order, and “My people shall be volunteers in the day of power.” In other words, even the nature of Israel would be changed. No longer having the Levitical priesthood and no longer having a military, the very nature of Israel would be much different.
The “Prince of Peace” would be governing with an increase of peace (Isaiah 9:6-7). It would still be “upon the throne of David” and “over His (Messiah’s) kingdom." But the nature of it was qualitatively different. David had a throne of respect for God, and that is the throne Jesus took. The throne of respect for God was the throne David and Jesus shared. One was earthly and became centered in earthly Jerusalem, and the other would “go forth from Jerusalem” and encompass all nations. Therefore, the effort to remove Jesus from Isaiah drives the determined outlook and interpretation.
Isaiah still wrote about future things that did not happen in his lifetime, and he wrote about Jesus in remarkable ways that confirm Jesus' existence and affirm that Isaiah could only have been aided by God. No matter how hard liberal “scholars” try to get Jesus’ picture out of Isaiah, the more obvious it is that they are twisting the scriptures to their own destruction. A Child would be born, and He would be called Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6). Jesus was that Child. He would be called “Prince of peace.” Jesus was the Child who increased and still increases his “government and peace” (Isaiah 9:7). No other child came to match the description Isaiah set down in scripture. Jesus is still increasing, while any candidate for this description someone wishes to substitute in Jesus’ place has long been forgotten.
Trying to twist the description of the “Servant” of Isaiah 52-53 “as a poetic representation of Israel as a nation undergoing distress and ultimate redemption, rather than as a veiled reference to Jesus,” shows a desperation to distract from the obvious connection to Jesus. Isaiah, in the text, says “We (group from the Jewish nation) hid as it were our faces from him (person, not nation)." Who did a bulk of the nation turn their faces from? They turned from God’s Servant (Jesus).
If this passage were ever to be so interpreted, it was only after they did the wrong thing in rejecting Jesus. In other words, Isaiah 52-53 was never interpreted as “a nation undergoing distress and ultimate redemption” until after they had rejected Jesus and needed a way to reinterpret Isaiah 52-53 so they could cover up their colossal error in rejecting Jesus. The Ethiopian Eunuch did not know it was about national distress. He knew it had to be about a man (Isaiah? Or “some other man?” -Acts 8:32-34). He became convinced it was indeed talking about Jesus, and he converted from blinded Judaism to be a servant of Jesus Christ. It was only in later years that Jews who rejected Jesus needed a handy way to reinterpret the passage.
Peter was correct in confronting the Jews in Jerusalem. He referenced Psalms 118:22 and told them they fulfilled it by their rejection of Jesus. The Psalmist anticipated that a stone “rejected by you builders, has become the chief cornerstone” to others. Peter said that Jesus is the rejected stone, and the teachers in Israel were the builders who rejected Him. Even though they rejected Him, He still became the chief cornerstone for many others. The rejection of Jesus was foretold by Isaiah, who said, “We hid as it were our faces from Him.”
Some think that Matthew misused Isaiah 7:14 and misapplied it to a “virgin” who would have a son. The “sign” would be a “young maiden” having a son and calling his name “Immanuel, which is interpreted to mean 'God with us'.” The word young maiden does not forbid a virgin to be such a young maiden. What needs to be observed is that the nature of some prophecies is directly about one thing, but the similarity serves as a type or shadow of the greater thing in Christ. Typology is the study of shadows, dark forms that outline the image of the Messiah.
A son born to a young maiden and people thinking God was with them may be an immediate sign, but it was given to illustrate the greater sign. Hence, the virgin Mary giving birth was a greater sign, and the thought of “God with us” became even more pronounced in Jesus than in any character in the past. The past character that was the immediate sign in Israel was only a dark form of the greater sign God would show in Jesus.
This is not an unusual use of prophecy, nor is it a misuse of prophecy. One immediate thing merely foreshadows the greater thing. This is the way of some prophecy. A short-term prophecy often foreshadows a greater thing that will unfold further down the road. Now, not all prophecy is like that, but some prophecies are. Hosea 11:1 is like that. It is immediately about Israel coming out of Egypt, but since Jesus too came out of Egypt when the time was right, then “out of Egypt have I called my son” becomes secondarily fulfilled by a greater event. So, Jesus fulfills indirect prophecies (prophecies that were not specifically about Him, but he fulfills in a secondary way of similarity) and Jesus fulfills direct prophecies (prophecies that were directly about Him). Genesis 22:14 is directly about Jesus. The “seed of the woman” that would bruise Satan’s head (Genesis 3:15) was directly about Jesus. The Servant that would be “wounded for our transgressions” and “after his soul was made an offering for sin His days would be prolonged” is directly about Jesus. The offering of Abraham’s only son was a foreshadowing, an image of God's ultimate offering of His only Son. Genesis 22 contains some typology, foreshadowing of Jesus, and direct prophecy of Jesus. When you begin to see the nature of prophecy, that it is not always direct, sometimes is typology fulfilled in Jesus, and other prophecies are directly about Jesus, you begin to realize that God put Jesus’ shadow all through the Old Scriptures so the shadow can be followed right up the image (Jesus) that cast the shadow all over the Old Testament (Tanakh). When you combine all the indirect prophecies with the direct ones, you see that Jesus was absolutely correct when He said, “If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me, for Moses wrote about Me” (John 5:44).
Likewise, Isaiah and all the prophets and psalmists “wrote about Jesus” (Luke 24:25-27,45-48). The embedded shadows of Jesus show the wisdom of God, and the direct prophecies combine to let us know that these scriptures were not the product of mere human wisdom. “Open our eyes that we may see wondrous things from Your law” (Psalms 119:18).
