Iskander Robertson said
Its the same word as Isa 53:4 “he took up our pain and bore our suffering”. It can only mean took the suffering and the sins from us and upon himself.
end quote
where are you getting “it can only mean” ? there is no idea of a TRANSFERENCE of sins .
the hebrew WORD does not even mention the word “sin”
ills and pains does not mean he carried sins.
the speaker is not even god here, it is realization of the people that their mistreatment of the object was wrong.
ills and pains does not mean “transference of sins”
you are christianizing the text.
you turning the victim of abuse, hate and insult into a “sin sacrifice” is abusing the text.
The question was does the “bore the sins” of Isa 53:12 mean “slain for sins” or does it mean the recipient/victim of a sinful act.
Isa 53:4 “he took up our pain and bore our suffering” can only mean took upon himself our pain and suffering. If we are to understand 53:12 in the same way we must get he took upon himself our sins – ie he took upon himself the punishment due for sins.
Isa 53:5 “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed”
This is clearly atoning sacrifice.
the list maker has reversed Isaiah completely — as if it speaks of a person who “bears the sins” of others when in reality it is the gentile nations speaking of one who they had thought was rejected by G-d. The gentile nations despised the one they had thought to be subhuman and sickly (think lepers who were isolated from others in a quarantine) — but now realize that the perception was tainted and that the servant was mistreated badly by THEM.
“Isa 53:10 “it was to Lords will to crush him and cause him to suffer and make his life an offering for sin”.”
there is no mention of sin sacrifice in isaiah 53:10. the persecuted (wronged one) is not an animal sacrifice for sins.
“God desired to oppress him and He afflicted him; if his soul would acknowledge guilt he would see offspring and live long days and the desire or HaShem would succeed in his hand.” Isaiah 53:10
the person has to ACKNOWLEDGE his own guilt. if he does x he will get reward y and z. this is clearly not talking about human life being shed for sins. luke didn’t see this and neither did isaiah .
its strange that christians like to use “asham” as “asham sacrifice” when in reality “asham” can be bloodless and have absolutely nothing to do with sacrifice. why make prophecy out of such ambiguous texts?
but in the context of Isaiah 53 the asham is pierced and crushed and wounded, led like a lamb to slaughter, cut off from the land of the living.
53:10 is interpreted in different ways but the only way consistent with isaiah 53:12 is if its taken to mean his soul/life is the asham.
53:10 ” … makes his soul/life an offering for sin” 53:12 “… he poured out his soul/life unto death”
“The question is not whether Isaiah 53 refers to someone or something bearing the sins of others and being made a sacrifice for sin, the question is ‘does Luke believe it refers to Jesus’.”
he clearly doesn’t
“Luke says “all” things written about Jesus would be fulfilled. Luke 22:37 is just a pointer of where to look.”
luke did not see jesus as a sin sacrifice. there were enough places he could have made that connection, but what he does is to show jesus was martyred because of the wrongs of his killers , not that sins were poured into him and then he was sacrificed for them .
“Luke’s Jesus is numbered with the transgressors and Luke’s Jesus will bear the sins of many and make intercession for their transgressions.”
quote :
7 For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted among the lawless’; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled.”
there is no “bear the sins” and “sacrificed for sins” in luke. luke did not INTERPRET isaiah 53 like you are doing.
Isaiah 53 is about somebody or someone being numbered with the transgressors who bears the sins of many and pours out his life as an offering for sin. This person or thing is pierced for our transgressions, wounded, led like a lamb to slaughter and cut off from the land of the living. Yahweh has laid on this person/thing the iniquities of us all. The punishment that brings us peace is on him/it.
The connection to what Luke claims happened to Jesus is so obvious that Luke merely has Jesus is the one who is numbered with the transgressors – everything else Luke wants to say has already been said by Isaiah in ch 53.
Yes, but Jesus wasn’t cut off from the land of the living very long, as Luke tells the story. He rose from the dead, and could, had he chosen, gone on living as a man on earth (whereas we never actually see Jesus risen in Mark’s original gospel).
Luke’s Jesus doesn’t even seem to suffer that much. He tells the weeping women to worry about themselves and their unborn children (this part is a bit creepy, and not something Jesus would have said). He doesn’t cry out to God in anguish, as Mark’s Jesus does.
As Jesus becomes increasingly divine in each successive gospel, it becomes harder to show him as vulnerable–as human. He seems mildly annoyed by the experience, at best. (John’s Jesus is even more untouched, above it all).
Bren, could you give us some idea of the point you’re trying to make here? It seems this conversation started elsewhere, and you’re continuing it on this thread. Are you rebutting Bart’s asssertion that Luke doesn’t think Jesus’ death was about atonement for the sins of humankind?
“but in the context of Isaiah 53 the asham is pierced and crushed and wounded, led like a lamb to slaughter, cut off from the land of the living.”
|
** you do not have permission to see this link **But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed.
|
you will see that in luke , jesus is not pierced. this persecuted and diseased suffering servant is “pained BECAUSE of…..”
“led like a lamb” means that the object was easily manhandled, this had absolutely nothing to do with “lamb being slaughtered for sins”
the individual is diseased, sick, weak and persecuted and is abused and insulted and easily manhandled.
“cut off from land of the living” could be interpreted differently and it does not have to mean death, but it definitely does not mean “sacrifice for sins”
“
53:10 is interpreted in different ways but the only way consistent with isaiah 53:12 is if its taken to mean his soul/life is the asham.”
quote:
אשם can mean guilt or can refer to a guilt offering. It does not refer to making an offering of a person and very importantly does not have a connector between אשם and נפשו.
The sentence is, in effect, calling for repentance which, by extension, heals the suffering servant – granting him long life and children – rather than him continuing to be in pain due to the problems of society.
end quote
“Isaiah 53 is about somebody or someone being numbered with the transgressors who bears the sins of many and pours out his life as an offering for sin.”
so you are repeating yourself ? bearing sins BECAUSE of what people are doing to it, bearing sins does not mean dying for sins. pouring out life as offering for sins is simply christianizing the text .
luke doesn’t even employ your christinizing language of isaiah 53
“This person or thing is pierced for our transgressions, wounded, led like a lamb to slaughter and cut off from the land of the living. Yahweh has laid on this person/thing the iniquities of us all. The punishment that brings us peace is on him/it.”
keep on repeating yourself
“The connection to what Luke claims happened to Jesus is so obvious that Luke merely has Jesus is the one who is numbered with the transgressors – everything else Luke wants to say has already been said by Isaiah in ch 53.”
yet he NEVER employs your christianized version of isaiah 53, don’t you think that is strange?
Luke’s Jesus doesn’t even seem to suffer that much. He tells the weeping women to worry about themselves and their unborn children (this part is a bit creepy, and not something Jesus would have said). He doesn’t cry out to God in anguish, as Mark’s Jesus does.
if you look at the post resurrection accounts, one can make an argument that luke does not show that jesus was PIERCED.
“touch me and see for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see me having”
all he is doing is distinguishing between physical and non-physical and most importantly he does not have one hint that jesus had a pierced side.
hands and feet (something you use every day) would be the most obvious parts to show that you are not a ghost.
luke does not say that jesus died for sins in the sense that animal is slaughtered in temple for sins, bremcy is saying that according to luke, jesus died as a levitical sacrifice for sins.
that makes no sense to me, luke had many chances to make that connection, but he doesn’t
godspell said
Yes, but Jesus wasn’t cut off from the land of the living very long, as Luke tells the story. He rose from the dead, and could, had he chosen, gone on living as a man on earth (whereas we never actually see Jesus risen in Mark’s original gospel).Luke’s Jesus doesn’t even seem to suffer that much. He tells the weeping women to worry about themselves and their unborn children (this part is a bit creepy, and not something Jesus would have said). He doesn’t cry out to God in anguish, as Mark’s Jesus does.
As Jesus becomes increasingly divine in each successive gospel, it becomes harder to show him as vulnerable–as human. He seems mildly annoyed by the experience, at best. (John’s Jesus is even more untouched, above it all).
Bren, could you give us some idea of the point you’re trying to make here? It seems this conversation started elsewhere, and you’re continuing it on this thread. Are you rebutting Bart’s asssertion that Luke doesn’t think Jesus’ death was about atonement for the sins of humankind?
Yes attempting to rebut this claim but its also the claim made in Jeff Sikers guest post on May 19th – which is where the conversation with Iskander started.
Also suffering less does not indicate a later gospel – later christians might well have felt a need to increase Christs suffering so as to increase the sacrifice made.
Also Jesus does not become increasingly divine in successive gospels – in all four he is the son of god, lord, and “I am” / “ego eimi” statements are made by him.
Iskander Robertson said
you will see that in luke , jesus is not pierced. this persecuted and diseased suffering servant is “pained BECAUSE of…..”
Luke 24:39/40 “Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have. When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet”
The implication is that his hands and feet bear the markings of the crucifixion nails.
“led like a lamb” means that the object was easily manhandled, this had absolutely nothing to do with “lamb being slaughtered for sins”
Right buts its a lamb led to slaughter – the point is the asham of Isaiah 53 is not bloodless.
“cut off from land of the living” could be interpreted differently and it does not have to mean death, but it definitely does not mean “sacrifice for sins”
Well I think it certainly does mean death, as does “He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death”.
But the point is the asham of Isaiah 53 is being put to death.
אשם can mean guilt or can refer to a guilt offering. It does not refer to making an offering of a person and very importantly does not have a connector between אשם and נפשו.
The sentence is, in effect, calling for repentance which, by extension, heals the suffering servant – granting him long life and children – rather than him continuing to be in pain due to the problems of society.
Yes it means guilt offering – but whats being offered in Isaiah 53 is נפשו (soul/life)
53:10 – He poured out unto death נפשו(his soul/life)
Iskander Robertson said
so you are repeating yourself ? bearing sins BECAUSE of what people are doing to it, bearing sins does not mean dying for sins. pouring out life as offering for sins is simply christianizing the text .
luke doesn’t even employ your christinizing language of isaiah 53
There is an offering for sin/guilt in Isaiah 53. The offering is someones/somethings soul/life. This person/thing takes on the ills and pains and sins of us. This person/thing is crushed for out iniquities and the lord has laid our iniquities on him/it.
The christianization is simply equating this person/thing with Jesus – which is what Luke does.
The connection to what Luke claims happened to Jesus is so obvious that Luke merely has Jesus is the one who is numbered with the transgressors – everything else Luke wants to say has already been said by Isaiah in ch 53.”
yet he NEVER employs your christianized version of isaiah 53, don’t you think that is strange?
The strangeness is explained by Luke 24:44/45 “He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you:Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms. Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.”
The disciples didnt understand what was happening at the time so Luke gives the reader the same experience. You must go to Isaiah to find the meaning. Luke merely tells you precisely where to go.
brenmcg said
Yes attempting to rebut this claim but its also the claim made in Jeff Sikers guest post on May 19th – which is where the conversation with Iskander started.
Also suffering less does not indicate a later gospel – later christians might well have felt a need to increase Christs suffering so as to increase the sacrifice made.
Also Jesus does not become increasingly divine in successive gospels – in all four he is the son of god, lord, and “I am” / “ego eimi” statements are made by him.
Except we know Jesus did suffer–crucifixion was a horrible death, in and of itself. So it’s not like they were inventing the fact that he died a horrible humiliating death. What they deemphasized was how much he felt it, because they could not accept a divine being as having suffered the same way a mortal man would–Jesus had to somehow remain powerful, during an experience that was specifically designed to make you look powerless. That indicates later authorship for Luke. Mark’s Jesus is the earliest, because he can actually admit he’s suffering, and shows the effects of that suffering in his crying out to God in despair.
Matthew mainly just copies Mark. But at the end, when Jesus dies, he has the skies darkening, the earth shaking, and the dead rising from their tombs and walking around in front of people (why would Mark edit that out?)
Matthew feels Mark didn’t do enough to make the significance of the event clear–the temple veil being ripped (how would anyone other than the temple priesthood know?) and one centurion admiring the way Jesus met death wasn’t remotely sufficient. So for you to say later accounts would add to the story–that proves the opposite of what you want to believe. Mark’s account is the barest and sparest, by far, though still containing stories that nobody told right after the crucifixion happened.
Mark in turn is probably using earlier sources, passion narratives we no longer have, that would themselves have been embellished. There are no eyewitness accounts, because probably only some of Jesus’ female followers saw it (and only from a distance, according to Mark).
As to whether Luke believed Jesus died for our sins–it’s not a matter of crucial importance to me, but obviously I trust Bart’s interpretation more than yours. TBH, I’ve forgotten why Bart doesn’t believe it, and I’d have to go look it all up, and I want to get out with my dog this morning. Later. 🙂
godspell said
Except we know Jesus did suffer–crucifixion was a horrible death, in and of itself. So it’s not like they were inventing the fact that he died a horrible humiliating death. What they deemphasized was how much he felt it, because they could not accept a divine being as having suffered the same way a mortal man would–Jesus had to somehow remain powerful, during an experience that was specifically designed to make you look powerless. That indicates later authorship for Luke. Mark’s Jesus is the earliest, because he can actually admit he’s suffering, and shows the effects of that suffering in his crying out to God in despair.
Matthew mainly just copies Mark. But at the end, when Jesus dies, he has the skies darkening, the earth shaking, and the dead rising from their tombs and walking around in front of people (why would Mark edit that out?)
Matthew feels Mark didn’t do enough to make the significance of the event clear–the temple veil being ripped (how would anyone other than the temple priesthood know?) and one centurion admiring the way Jesus met death wasn’t remotely sufficient. So for you to say later accounts would add to the story–that proves the opposite of what you want to believe. Mark’s account is the barest and sparest, by far, though still containing stories that nobody told right after the crucifixion happened.
Both Matthew and Mark have Jesus crying out to god in despair – so this doesnt work as an argument for Markan priority. There is in fact no difference at all in the suffering of Jesus between Matthew and Mark.
Why did Mark leave out the people rising from the tombs and entering Jerusalem? – almost certainly because he didnt believe it happened and the claim had by the time of writing become embarrassing to christians when preaching to the greeks.
Here though is the problem for Markan priority. It is the earthquake and dead rising from the graves that terrifies the centurion and leads him to exclaim “surely this was the son of god”.
When Luke removes these embarrassing claims he realizes you cant have the centurion still exclaim “son of god” so Luke changes it to “a righteous man”.
Mark however leaves “son of god” in – making his editing of Matthew quite obvious.
As an final piece of evidence we see Mark attempting to clear up an ambiguity in Matthew. Its often missed in Matthew’s account that the dead rising from the graves occurs only after Jesus’s resurrection. So does the centurion exclaim “son of god” at the crucifixion or after the resurrection?
Mark gives his take on the question by adding some new information Mk 15:39 “And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he died, he said, “Surely this man was the Son of God!”
An obvious afterthought by a secondary writer.
As to whether Luke believed Jesus died for our sins–it’s not a matter of crucial importance to me, but obviously I trust Bart’s interpretation more than yours. TBH, I’ve forgotten why Bart doesn’t believe it, and I’d have to go look it all up, and I want to get out with my dog this morning. Later. 🙂
Bart doesnt believe it because Luke never says it.
However the claim above is that Luke references the point in Isaiah where the prophecy of “bore the sins of many” is made.
So your point is that Mark was a rationalist who wanted to push back on Matthew’s supernaturalism? You know Mark has Jesus controlling the weather and raising the dead, right?
Luke also has darkness over the earth. And of course, both Matthew and Luke have the immaculate conception of Jesus–which became accepted. And they both have Jesus physically risen, as Mark (in the original) does not (implied, naturally–all Christians believed Jesus had risen, or they wouldn’t have been Christians). Matthew became accepted as canonical, and was also written in Greek, so where’s your argument? It was marketed to the less rational Greeks?
Your argument is that Christians started out making extreme supernatural claims, then became Mulder-like skeptics, then became gullible again. Pagan Greeks believed in the supernatural just as much as Jews did. Matthew’s account is the most extreme, but that’s precisely in reaction to Mark’s being too mild. Luke and John split the difference.
You claim not to be a believing Christian. So where does this idee fixe of yours derive from? Why do you need to believe Matthew came first? And don’t you also think Luke came before Mark? So we go from the earth shaking and the dead rising, to darkness over the earth, to just a temple veil symbolically tearing? How come Luke edited out the “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” It’s about a lot of things, but none of it has to do with “I better not make this supernatural claim or people won’t believe me.”
You have answers to all of this–and none of them make sense. Because it’s entirely about your unwillingness to concede the priority of Mark. And everything else bows to that.
“Luke 24:39/40 “Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have. When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet”
The implication is that his hands and feet bear the markings of the crucifixion nails.”
and where does luke imply that? there is no poking going on there.
where does luke say that nails were used? since you want to TIE jesus to isaiah 53, then lets go with “tying lambs” .
so lets say that jesus was TIED and then died.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“look at my hands and feet….touch me…..” he would show those parts anyway because those parts were tied and are the parts of the body people use all the time.
luke does not say jesus was poked , but touched.
“Right buts its a lamb led to slaughter – the point is the asham of Isaiah 53 is not bloodless.”
the guy is diseased and sick.
he would already have wounds because of his disease which he is suffering from. diseased skin condition has cuts/broken tissue.
the issue is not about bleeding wounds , the issue is about it being a sacrifice for sins.
“cut off” could mean exiled since the text says:
Despised and rejected by men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness, and as one who hides his face from us, despised and we held him of no account.
yet we accounted him as plagued,
“But the point is the asham of Isaiah 53 is being put to death.”
it doesn’t look like it. too much of the language used is not even literal.
there is nothing in the text which says that the individual is IDENTICAL to an asham sacrifice.
אשם can mean guilt or can refer to a guilt offering. It does not refer to making an offering of a person and very importantly does not have a connector between אשם and נפשו.
The sentence is, in effect, calling for repentance which, by extension, heals the suffering servant – granting him long life and children – rather than him continuing to be in pain due to the problems of society.
“Yes it means guilt offering – but whats being offered in Isaiah 53 is נפשו (soul/life)”
as what? where does the text say that the person is IDENTICAL to an asham sacrifice?
:::::::::::::
“There is an offering for sin/guilt in Isaiah 53. The offering is someones/somethings soul/life. This person/thing takes on the ills and pains and sins of us. This person/thing is crushed for out iniquities and the lord has laid our iniquities on him/it.”
christianizing the text . the person is NEVER identical to an asham sacrifice. he is a SINNER who must do y before he gets x.
“taking on” is not SINS being pumped into it. “taking on” is NON-literal language which means that the person is being accused of things he is not guilty of and is being mistreated.
“The strangeness is explained by Luke 24:44/45 “He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you:Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms. Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.”
The disciples didnt understand what was happening at the time so Luke gives the reader the same experience. You must go to Isaiah to find the meaning. Luke merely tells you precisely where to go.”
clearly luke did not see jesus as an ASHAM sacrifice .
we can use lukes understanding and see that isaiah 53 does not mean jesus is identical to an asham sacrifice and slaughtered for sins.
As to whether Luke believed Jesus died for our sins–it’s not a matter of crucial importance to me, but obviously I trust Bart’s interpretation more than yours. TBH, I’ve forgotten why Bart doesn’t believe it, and I’d have to go look it all up, and I want to get out with my dog this morning
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
13 Now on that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles[** you do not have permission to see this link **] should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.
28 As they came near the village to which they were going, he walked ahead as if he were going on. 29 But they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over.” So he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight.
how can you find pierced, when neither did the two who journeyed with jesus?
the only way out is to say that jesus’ hands were TIED , not pierced.
godspell said
So your point is that Mark was a rationalist who wanted to push back on Matthew’s supernaturalism? You know Mark has Jesus controlling the weather and raising the dead, right?Luke also has darkness over the earth. And of course, both Matthew and Luke have the immaculate conception of Jesus–which became accepted. And they both have Jesus physically risen, as Mark (in the original) does not (implied, naturally–all Christians believed Jesus had risen, or they wouldn’t have been Christians). Matthew became accepted as canonical, and was also written in Greek, so where’s your argument? It was marketed to the less rational Greeks?
Your argument is that Christians started out making extreme supernatural claims, then became Mulder-like skeptics, then became gullible again. Pagan Greeks believed in the supernatural just as much as Jews did. Matthew’s account is the most extreme, but that’s precisely in reaction to Mark’s being too mild. Luke and John split the difference.
You claim not to be a believing Christian. So where does this idee fixe of yours derive from? Why do you need to believe Matthew came first? And don’t you also think Luke came before Mark? So we go from the earth shaking and the dead rising, to darkness over the earth, to just a temple veil symbolically tearing? How come Luke edited out the “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” It’s about a lot of things, but none of it has to do with “I better not make this supernatural claim or people won’t believe me.”
You have answers to all of this–and none of them make sense. Because it’s entirely about your unwillingness to concede the priority of Mark. And everything else bows to that.
No the point is Mark having the centurion who has just had Jesus executed say “surely this was the son of god” makes no sense. A claim supported by the fact that Luke changes it “surely this was a righteous man” (whether he’s editing Mark or Matthew).
A good explanation for this account in Mark is that Mark is editing Matthew where a terrified centurion saying “surely this was the son of god” makes sense. And further supported by noticing Marks additional clarifying text “who stood there in front of Jesus”.
My claim that later christians were embarrassed by the walking dead story in matthew, while it helps the argument, is not actually necessary for it. Whatever the reason Mark didn’t have the walking dead he should not have had the centurion who just executed Jesus say “son of god”.
I dont have a need to believe Matthew came first. I find the arguments for Markan priority to be surface level and unconvincing. The above is a very good indicator of secondary text, examples of which you dont get why going from Mark to Matthew.
How come Luke edited out the “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” – well he’s editing it out regardless of whether he’s editing Matthew or Mark. Probably because he doesnt like Jesus saying god has forsaken him.
Iskander Robertson said
and where does luke imply that? there is no poking going on there.
Its implicit – we know Jesus was crucified and we know nailing to the cross was a common Roman method. Its the same idea as John 20 so we know at least some 1C christians were thinking in those terms.
“But the point is the asham of Isaiah 53 is being put to death.”
it doesn’t look like it. too much of the language used is not even literal.
there is nothing in the text which says that the individual is IDENTICAL to an asham sacrifice.
Right but some of it is sufficiently explicit “because he poured out his life unto death”.
Doesnt need to be identical to an asham sacrifice, just needs to be used as one.
Isaiah 53:10 “if he makes his soul an asham”. This soul will bear the sins of many, be poured out unto death and make intercession for transgressors.
christianizing the text . the person is NEVER identical to an asham sacrifice. he is a SINNER who must do y before he gets x.
“taking on” is not SINS being pumped into it. “taking on” is NON-literal language which means that the person is being accused of things he is not guilty of and is being mistreated.
doesnt need to be identical to sacrifice just needs to be used as one. the persons soul/life is used as the asham in 53:10 and this soul/life is poured out unto death in 53:12
it could mean being accused of things he is not guilty of but this person then makes intercession for the transgressors. “The punishment that brought us peace was upon him”. This is sacrificial language.
The only christianizing of the text is in Luke when he claims Isaiah 53 is referring to Jesus.
clearly luke did not see jesus as an ASHAM sacrifice .
we can use lukes understanding and see that isaiah 53 does not mean jesus is identical to an asham sacrifice and slaughtered for sins.
The only thing clear from Luke is that he believes Jesus is the one numbered with the transgressors who will bear the sins of many and make intercession for their transgressions.
What we have in Luke is the disciples not understanding until after the resurrection – thats why Jesus shouldnt tell them in advance “the son of man … will give his life as a ransom for many.
Bren, you’re reading it the wrong way. The centurion is undoubtedly a pagan, not a Jew. “Son of god” means something very different in his context. He’s just admiring the way Jesus met death–in spite of his anguish, there’s still a dignity there. In his mythology, a hero is often the son of a god–still mortal, but with something higher in him. Mark knew quite a bit about the pagan way of viewing things, as we can infer from his knowledge of Greek.
There is darkness over the land in Mark as well (they have cloudy days in Palestine as well), but I think Mark is referring more to the way Jesus died, from which we’re supposed to infer that in spite of his anguish and despair, there was some inner quiet to his passing–perhaps he simply stopped struggling to live, as most crucified men did, and accepted his fate. This would explain why he died so quickly. That’s something a pagan soldier can understand and respect.
Now who knows if anything like that happened–one must view all accounts of the Passion with great skepticism, given that even Mark says the only Christians present were a few women standing well away. The men were running. But what is Mark’s point? He’s already shown that Jesus can do great miracles. He’s not one for visual overstatement. The point all along, as Bart has told us, is that nobody knew who Jesus was, and that’s the irony he’s going for–that this pagan can see what the disciples could not. Jesus was touched by something divine. And in his pagan context, that would mean divine parentage. In Mark’s view, it means he was adopted by God at his baptism. (It occurs to me, this irony might have been taken literally, leading in part to the virgin birth stories in Matthew and Luke).
And we can also intuit that Mark is looking forward–he’s writing a gospel for pagan converts, after all. Whether his original sources in Aramaic and/or Hebrew had this line is an interesting question, but impossible to answer.
Mark came first of the gospels we still have. But he was not the first to tell the story of the Passion.
godspell
Several problems with this interpretation. Firstly, Luke doesnt agree with it. He thinks there’s something that needs to be corrected. When you have a 1stC greek speaking christian author disagreeing with your understanding of another 1stC greek speaking christian author then the theory is in serious trouble.
Next Mark’s whole gospel is about the son of god – he’s not going to have a roman centurion mis-characterize this title at the very end. Claiming to be the son of the blessed one is the very thing that got him executed.
Even if we took it to mean some hero made higher at the last, there’s still no reason for the centurion to say it. Jesus was insulted on the cross, told to come down and save himself so that they may see and believe. Jesus asks god why he has forsaken him and then dies with a loud cry. Everything in keeping with an executed false messiah. Nobodies supposed to realize anything until after the resurrection.
If there’s some inner quiet to his passing this contradicts claims that Jesus became more divine like on the cross as the gospels were written. For Matthew its nothing Jesus did that makes the centurion claim hes son of god, for Mark Jesus’s inner calm makes him see it.
Also this doesnt address the centurion “standing right in front of Jesus” line. An additional clarification by Mark.
If Mark wrote first we have both Matthew and Luke thinking somethings wrong and needs to be fixed. If Matthew wrote first we have Mark and Luke both removing a story of earthquakes and walking dead and being left with a centurion making a statement which no longer makes sense in their context.
Ps – nowhere in Marks gospel is Jesus said to be an adopted son. On the contrary Mark unlike the other 3 is careful to make no mention of an earthly father.
In the transfiguration Mark has “this is my son whom I love” whereas Luke has “this is my son whom I have chosen”. A christological movement of adopted to begotten son is going the wrong way here.
If Luke thinks it needs correcting, so does Matthew, and that means they both read Mark.
Mark’s gospel is about the ADOPTED son of god. The centurion would understand adoption too, since that’s how the Emperors picked their heirs. But let’s assume for a moment that Mark copied Matthew–then why would he say the centurion said what he did, while implying it’s just because Jesus died well on the cross? Matthew says it’s because they saw the earthquake. You realize nobody reading this is going to know if there was an earthquake or not. Most of the readers were never in Jerusalem, then or ever. They can’t consult seismological records. There’s no record of any pagan ever debunking Matthew’s account of events. Roman pagans also would use such dramatic symbolism to denote a major event. This is not about what really happened. Other than the crucifixion and maybe a few other things, NONE OF IT HAPPENED.
Matthew added the earthquakes (and the zombies) because he’s correcting what he sees as Mark’s failure to properly denote the significance of the event–it’s a literary dispute, not a factual one. Luke presumably never read Matthew prior to writing his own gospel (it’s still a matter of dispute which of them wrote first, though pretty nearly everyone agrees Mark came before either). Matthew and Luke are both reading Mark, neither is reading each other. Otherwise, their accounts of the birth and its aftermath wouldn’t differ so widely. And Mark, of course, never believed in the virgin birth at all.
Mark is widely believed by scholars to have based God’s words to Jesus at the baptism on a psalm–obviously Matthew wouldn’t have agreed with this interpretation, since in his gospel, Jesus was ‘begotten’ before his birth, not on the day of his baptism. I seem to recall some copies of Mark actually use this language. The relationship between the psalm and the baptism story was recognized–and you know full well the gospel authors did this.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Luke also has the virgin birth, as Mark does not. Luke is adapting parts of Mark, so this makes perfect sense–he’s not relying entirely on Mark.
And you didn’t answer my question about why you’re so intent on proving this, when you know very well you can’t. I still believe there is a religious component to your obsession, but you don’t want to address it.
and where does luke imply that? there is no poking going on there.
“Its implicit – we know Jesus was crucified and we know nailing to the cross was a common Roman method. Its the same idea as John 20 so we know at least some 1C christians were thinking in those terms.”
what john and 1c christians were thinking does not mean ALL christians writing in the 1c were thinking the same thing.
what is common method does not mean that method was employed all the time.
their is nothing in luke which shows that jesus was NAILED to the cross and ISAIAH 53 DEFINATELY does not say that the suffering servant was NAILED /pierced.
“Right but some of it is sufficiently explicit “because he poured out his life unto death”.”
POURED OUT his LIFE could mean RISked his life. THEIR is no HUMAN sacrifice going on here for sins of people.
how many OTHER ways, other than human sacrifice can one imagine “pouring out life” ?
these are all ambiguous texts.
“Doesnt need to be identical to an asham sacrifice, just needs to be used as one.”
and the servant is giving his asham by acknowledging his guilt.
“Isaiah 53:10 “if he makes his soul an asham”. This soul will bear the sins of many, be poured out unto death and make intercession for transgressors.”
“But in truth it was our ills that he bore, and our pains that he carried — but we had regarded him diseased
there is no word for “sins” here
does he make his soul an ASHAM or does he make his flesh an asham?
what died for the sins in your religion? the flesh part or the soul part?
praying for someone does not mean dying for the sins of someone via human sacrifice.
“doesnt need to be identical to sacrifice just needs to be used as one.”
it is using its GUILT. what is used as one? human body is used as an ASHAM ?
“the persons soul/life is used as the asham in 53:10 and this soul/life is poured out unto death in 53:12”
how do you use soul as an ASHAM? WHAT HAS this got to do with the asham in leviticus 5?
“it could mean being accused of things he is not guilty of but this person then makes intercession for the transgressors. “The punishment that brought us peace was upon him”. This is sacrificial language.”
thats the view of the pagans, is that gods view?
there is a difference between punishment and slaughtering someone for sins.
“The only thing clear from Luke is that he believes Jesus is the one numbered with the transgressors who will bear the sins of many and make intercession for their transgressions.
What we have in Luke is the disciples not understanding until after the resurrection – thats why Jesus shouldnt tell them in advance “the son of man … will give his life as a ransom for many.”
** you do not have permission to see this link ** “But in truth it was our ills that he bore, and our pains that he carried — but we had regarded him diseased
there is no bearing of sins.
“He was pained because of our rebellious sins and oppressed through our (because of our) iniquities; the chastisement upon him was for our benefit, and through his wounds we were healed.
THERE IS NO bearing of sins.
“What we have in Luke is the disciples not understanding until after the resurrection – thats why Jesus shouldnt tell them in advance “the son of man … will give his life as a ransom for many.”
no, what luke is doing is saying that the disciples rejected jesus as their messiah
But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel.
for arguments sake, lets assume luke tells his readers to go back to isaiah 53, luke uses isaiah 53 to to show not that jesus was a human sacrifice for sins, but that jesus got unjustly executed (“He was pained because of our rebellious sins and oppressed through our (because of our) iniquities; the chastisement upon him was for our benefit, and through his wounds we were healed.”) and now one should , i quote :
Mark, and Paul, have a doctrine of atonement. Jesus’ death is a death “for the sake of others.” He dies in the place of others. His death is a sacrifice that pays the debt that is owed by others. Luke does not have a doctrine of the atonement. For him, Jesus’ death makes you realize how you have sinned against God and you turn to God and beg his forgiveness, and he forgives you. No one pays your debt; God simply forgives it.
Jesus’ death, then, continues to be vitally important to Luke. Jesus is God’s messiah, his very Son, the final great prophet sent here at the end of time to deliver God’s message of forgiveness. But rather than accepting him, the Jewish people rejected him and killed him. When you realize with horror what has happened, you turn to him – and to the God who sent him – and ask for forgiveness for your sins. God forgives you, and you then have eternal life.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)