The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Two Swords are Enough

#81

Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:12 NRSV)

Why couldn’t Isaiah 53:12 not be fulfilled if Peter hadn’t had a sword? Couldn’t Jesus have been arrested in any other way?
Paidion

Maybe there could have been another way to fulfill the prophecy if Peter didn’t get a sword but Luke applied the prophecy that Jesus quoted here and it appears to summarize and explain this incident.
Of course this prophecy was about Jesus but someone had to be the transgressor (lawbreaker)to fulfill this prophecy that Jesus himself quoted and Luke placed at the end of this incident.
In other words “numbered with the transgressors” i always thought was referring to Jesus hanging on the cross between two criminals but Luke places it here? Why would Luke place it here other then the reason that it applied to this incident?

0 Likes

#82

The Jews see Is 53 as referring to the entire nation of Israel. Historically, this is not inaccurate. How many times has the nation been “numbered among the transgressors”? Don’t you see, even today, people vilifying the Jewish people merely because of their Jewishness? I even noticed a bit of this in one of GMac’s stories where one of the bad guys is a Jewish moneylender who is referred to as something like a “money grubbing Jew” (though he used language more appropriate to his time–which I can’t remember right now.)

Christians typically see the language as referring to the Jewish nation condensed into (what we Christians see as) its ultimate representative; Jesus. Jesus stood in for the entire Jewish nation (in Christian thought) when He died for the people–and not for their sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world. The Jews were supposed to be a blessing and a priestly class interceding for the non-Jewish world, but did not fulfill this task–except in the person of Jesus. Every cruel thing we see done to the Jews was concentrated, purified, consolidated in the sacrifice of Jesus–which He submitted to willingly. Are the Jews mistaken in seeing this passage as referring to their nation? No. It’s just that this is not the entire truth of the passage. It generally does refer to the children of Israel, and it most potently and especially refers to their rejected Messiah, Jesus. It is absolutely not talking about Jesus in part and Peter in part. Peter is included in it only in the sense that Peter is a Jew (and later a Christian as well, of course), but it is not Peter to whom the passage specifically refers.

“Numbered among the transgressors” doesn’t mean that the person being talked about WAS (or wasn’t for that matter) a transgressor. It merely means this person was PRESENTED or SEEN as a transgressor. If I, as a woman, were to credibly accuse some man with whom I had had contact as being a sexual abuser and having victimized me, then that man would absolutely be “numbered among the transgressors” just by virtue of my having accused him in a manner that seemed believable. Does this make him guilty? Yes–but only in the eyes of the world. If I lied and people believed me, would he still be numbered among the transgressors? Sadly, yes he would. It’s not fair, not just, not true, but he would still suffer for it even if I were eventually proven to have fabricated absolutely everything I had accused him of.

That is what it means to be “numbered among the transgressors.” The phrase practically begs to be interpreted as FALSELY numbered among the transgressors–merely by the inclusion of the word “numbered” or “counted” or whatever best translates the original language. Otherwise, why include the word at all? If I say, “Harry has been counted guilty for killing the cat,” I am implying that he may NOT have been guilty–even perhaps that I myself doubt it. You would be waiting for the next shoe to drop: " … but I think it was really Sally who did it and here’s why… " If I were certain that Harry did kill the cat (maybe I witnessed it), I would simply have said, “Harry is guilty of killing the cat,” not “Harry has been COUNTED guilty…” That word introduces doubt. It was included in the prophecy for a reason. Israel is COUNTED among the transgressors. The suffering servant (Jesus for us Christians) is COUNTED among the transgressors. Peter actually WAS a transgressor, so there would be no need to include the word “numbered” or “counted” or etc. It introduces an element of doubt which the writer would not have desired if he had meant Peter to be seen as the subject of this prophecy.

0 Likes

#83

Cindy, I don’t think Isaiah was referring to the entire nation of Israel. He was speaking only of the righteous servants, the ones who were faithful to God and kept his word.

I disagree. Many of the true prophets, including Isaiah, suffered greatly in speaking the truth of God. In fact, if I remember correctly, Isaiah was chopped up in pieces.

0 Likes

#84

ndy Skillman wrote:
The Jews see Is 53 as referring to the entire nation of Israel.

Cindy, I don’t think Isaiah was referring to the entire nation of Israel. He was speaking only of the righteous servants, the ones who were faithful to God and kept his word.

Cindy Skillman wrote:
The Jews were supposed to be a blessing and a priestly class interceding for the non-Jewish world, but did not fulfill this task–except in the person of Jesus

I disagree. Many of the true prophets, including Isaiah, suffered greatly in speaking the truth of God. In fact, if I remember correctly, Isaiah was chopped up in pieces.

But Cindy is right as the Rabbinical explanation usually is that Isa 53 refers to Israel because throughout Isa previously Israel was often referred to symbolically. Also she is right on the second point in that Israel was supposed to be a light to the world and they were not so God sent Jesus.

0 Likes

#85

Steve, the entire literal nation of Israel was not Israel. In looking at this verse again,

The entire nation did not pour out their souls unto death, nor did the entire nation make intercession for the transgressors, as many of them WERE the transgressors. The servants who remained faithful to God were the ones making intercession for the transgressors. Jesus was not the only one God ever sent.

0 Likes

#86

Well, I wouldn’t so much argue with that… but the writers of the NT certainly DID apply such specifically and indisputably to Jesus:

0 Likes

#87

Davo, So we finally agree on something! :laughing:

But here, I must say that Jesus was still one of many suffering servants.

Acts 5:12 says “And through the hands of the apostles, many signs and wonders were done among the people.”
Acts 19:11-12 " Now God worked unusual miracles by the hand of Paul so that even handkerchiefs or aprons were brought from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out of them.

"

Romans 8:36 "As it is written, “For your sake we face death all day long. We are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”
Philippians 2:17 “Yes, and if I am being poured out as a drink offering on the sacrifice and service of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all.”
Acts 16:22-23 concerning Paul and Silas: “Then the multitude rose up together against them; and the magistrates tore off their clothes and commanded them to be beaten with rods. And when they laid many stripes on them, they threw them into prison…”

0 Likes

#88

Steve, the entire literal nation of Israel was not Israel. In looking at this verse again,
LLC wrote:
Isa 53:12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong, because He poured out His soul unto death, and He was numbered with the transgressors, and He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

The entire nation did not pour out their souls unto death, nor did the entire nation make intercession for the transgressors, as many of them WERE the transgressors. The servants who remained faithful to God were the ones making intercession for the transgressors. Jesus was not the only one God ever sent.

I’m only explaining how the Rabbis explained “the suffering servant” not my view. Another popular view they had was that there was a new Messiah hidden in each generation.

0 Likes

#89

Steve, I don’t think Isaiah, in writing this verse, saw all Jewish people as suffering servants. In fact he describes many of them as adulterous harlots, who had forsaken and forgotten the God who begat them.

I can agree with this. I believe the writers of the Bible saw things as cyclic, maybe or maybe not in each generation, but at least in one to come. You can see this as they kept track of the generations. From Adam to Noah was ten generations. From Noah to Abraham was another ten, Abraham to David was fourteen, David to Babylon was fourteen, Babylon to Jesus was fourteen. All this equals sixty two generations plus the seventy years until the end when the nation of Israel came to a complete end. I personally don’t get into the numerology of it all. I think numbers can be fudged to make it all add up. Besides which, Jesus tells us that no one knows the day or hour, nor can any earthly king save. It is when people return to the truth and the ways of God.

0 Likes

#90

Again, no real argument on that score… Jesus was the first OF the firstfruits. The pantelist position understands that… the early apostles/disciples constituted “the firstfruit saints” of Israel, of which Jesus their Master was the FIRST, whom they followed in service/martyrdom/vindication in that 40yr covenant-transition period AD30-70… emulating Israel’s own historical 40yr transition period through trial and tribulation out of Egypt (bondage) into Canaan (freedom) — faithfulness or, “the faith OF Christ” was the key to… “to him who overcomes will I grant…” etc.

It was this body (singular) of believers that constituted the writer of Hebrew’s “the church of the firstborn” — firstborn in the Greek is plural, so is a reference not the Christ, but of His followers, i.e., ‘the Body of Christ’ aka “the Bride of Christ”. Believers POST-parousia are not “the Bride” but rather, the offspring of Christ and His Bride; thus the AD70 Consummation was not the end but the most glorious of beginnings… where the new age, i.e., “the age to come” was fully dawned.

0 Likes

#91

LLC, do the following statement from the writings of Moses support or contradict your statement quoted above?

Joshua also believed that God had instructed Moses to destroy all the inhabitants of “the promised land” and the Israelites continued in this slaughter:

0 Likes

#92

“So what exactly is it Dave are you saying I… “cannot seem to grasp or even understand” that means something?”

I just drove in from a road trip, Oregon to Mesa Az, to purchase a new camper, thence to Sierra Vista Az and back to Oregon, with misadventures a-plenty but also spent time with good friends, good food, big beautiful open skies. Good time to decompress and renew.

On the last leg, from Fresno this morning to home in Medford this evening, I had a little time to reflect on your question, and my motives/reasons for taking the tack I did. As I mentioned to Brad, I was in part poking fun at the way ‘some folks’ ridiculed ‘others’ by saying the ‘others’ could not see, nor understand, or grasp what the ‘some folks’ thought should be obvious. I don’t like being talked down to, or condescended to, and my perception was that I (we) were being lectured to. That was my perception, though I freely admit I may have construed the offending language as ridicule, where it might not have been meant that way. If so, I’m sorry.

As to the ‘exactly’ business: I remember being impressed, during the OJ Simpson trial for murder, at the power of ‘story’. Almost everyone knew that OJ was guilty, but the defense was able to tell an alternate story that accounted for all (or most) of the facts, and was able to sow a seed of doubt with the jury.

Now in our disagreements re: pantelism - noone is guilty or innocent of course; my point just being that there are two stories being told - one is pantelist, the other is not - and each pretty much covers all the evidence, but interprets it differently. And the reason for that difference is probably pre-suppositional; or more to the point, a basic difference in suppositions about what type of book(s) the Bible is; a difference in interpreting the ‘arc’ of the entire Biblical story; a difference in understanding what hermeneutics is; and other things as well.

Those are ‘exactly’ the things that I am talking about - what is very obvious to me as to the answers to the basic differences are NOT at all obvious to you (and perhaps others) - likewise, what you take as a given, and should be obvious, even to muddle-headed David Bagwill, is in fact NOT obvious to me at all.

Overall I think Chad was right when he opined that we will probably never agree on some of those differences, and though we are invested in our ‘take’ on things we consider to be crucial, we just have to live with that and aim for Christian charity.

0 Likes

#93

I can appreciate where you’re coming from Dave and appreciate your broader post. If you haven’t already and have a spare 58min have a look at the presentation at my link HERE that covers a good bit of material to where my position gravitates.

0 Likes

#94

Davo, From what I understand, Jesus was not literally the first of the firstfruits. In other words, He was not the first person ever to be born of the Spirit of God-the first righteous person, the first Son of God.
Genesis 1:27-28 "So God created man in his own image; in the image of God He created him ; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them and God said to them “Be fruitful and multiply…” Adam and Eve then had Cain and Abel. Abel was righteous but unfortunately, he was killed. However, God supplied another “seed” in Seth.

Exodus 22:29 “You shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe fruit and of your liquors: the firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me.” The first born of the sons was not always the one that literally came first. He was the one who followed God, firstfruit meaning of the very best quality.

Romans 11:16 “For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy, and if the root is holy so are the branches.”
Romans 15:12 'And again Isaiah says “There shall be a root of Jesse; and He shall rise to reign over the Gentiles…”
Jesse, king David’s father was said to be sinless.

1 cor. 15:20 "But now Christ is risen from the dead and become the firstfruits of them that slept. Dead does not always mean sinful or “dead in sin”.
Dead also means physically dead, or something that is no longer in practice. The one true God of Israel, whom the forefathers believed in and followed was forgotten and forsaken by many who took up other gods.

0 Likes

#95

Paidion, As Moses says in Deut. 31:29 " For I know that after my death you will become utterly corrupt, and turn aside from the way which I commanded you; and evil will befall you because you will do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands."

He also says in Deut 31:26 "Take this book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be a witness against you.

This “book of the Law”, that being the Law of Christ, was brought forth many times by the prophets during Israel’s trials and tribulations. One of these prophets was Jesus.

As I mentioned before, the Bible is a product of different authors, expressing spiritual truths in different ways. Some of it is literal history, and I would say that some of the authors even had different beliefs. I don’t think what the Bible claims Moses said or wrote was actually written or said by Moses himself. One can tell this by the discrepancies. The Levitical laws in the first five books are a stumbling block for many who believe that the Bible is the infallible word, and I believe this was the case with a lot of the Jewish people as well. I don’t think they all came from Moses, and if so, they were often times misinterpreted or not followed.
As an added note: I believe this is the problem with evolutionist, and those who come from a progressive viewpoint. They think that man was stupid in the beginning, that they were primitive and didn’t have the knowledge that we do today. To me, this is not true at all.

0 Likes

#96

My… “Jesus was the first OF the firstfruits” was in terms of what Yahweh was then doing in bringing to fulfillment Israel’s covenant renewal, as promised (Ezek 36:26-27; 38:1-14; Jer 31:31-34) i.e., Jesus was the FIRST of the firstfruits of this, as per…

It needs to be noted that these texts do NOT say Jesus was raised ‘from death— NO he wasn’t! Jesus was the FIRST to rise up out of “the dead” (Gk. plural) aka old covenant Israel — those “dead in trespasses and sins”. From this was Jesus THE firstfruit in terms of Israel’s covenant renewal. What God was NOW doing in finality He was doing in Christ for Israel’s redemption. This then had the Divinely intended knock-on effect in terms of the wider world’s reconciliation where God is now “all in all”.

0 Likes

#97

Davo wrote: “If you haven’t already and have a spare 58min have a look at the presentation at my link HERE that covers a good bit of material to where my position gravitates.”

That was an interesting presentation. What do you find compelling about that way of thinking?

0 Likes

#98

Well, apart from the obvious eschatological agreement… it makes sense; it’s an outside of Christianity perspective dovetailed onto it explaining how some of that message was/is transmitted and does that respectfully without undermining Christianity; it is an historical and sociological approach; plus it is somewhat fresh… to me at least, or as you say “interesting”.

0 Likes

#99

Jesus wasn’t raised from death? Is your Pantelism/Full Preterism theology here denying the physical death & bodily resurrection of the Lord?

0 Likes

#100

NO of course not. :unamused:

0 Likes