Isaiah 53 prophesies the future conversion of the nation Israel and chronicles the account of her future repentance. I want to focus on the middle triad of this confession, the apex of the five triads (52:13-15, 53:1-3, 53:4-6, 53:7-9, 53:10-12), in verses four through six and give a miniature exposition before getting to the point of the post, which proceeds from the truth of the last verse of that majestic text.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Some Exposition of Isaiah 53:4-6, the Apex of Isaiah 52:13-53:12, the Middle Triad
When Israel is saved, those to be saved will confess in lament that the servant of Jehovah (52:13), their Messiah, bore their griefs and carried their sorrows. He was bearing theirs, not His own. He had none. They confess that they esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, that He was being punished for His own sins. This was the very wrong estimation of what was occurring. What a woeful assessment! No, not so! He was wounded for their transgressions, and so forth in verse 5. He wasn't paying for His own sinning. He was righteous. Just the opposite, He was paying for theirs.
When Israel is saved, those to be saved will confess in lament that the servant of Jehovah (52:13), their Messiah, bore their griefs and carried their sorrows. He was bearing theirs, not His own. He had none. They confess that they esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, that He was being punished for His own sins. This was the very wrong estimation of what was occurring. What a woeful assessment! No, not so! He was wounded for their transgressions, and so forth in verse 5. He wasn't paying for His own sinning. He was righteous. Just the opposite, He was paying for theirs.
Their repentance includes confession of their attitude (v. 4), the wrong disposition about their Messiah, their deeds (v. 5) -- transgressions, iniquities, etc. -- and their nature (v. 6). They will confess that they are sinners by attitude, deed, and by nature. Sheep by nature go astray. They were doing what was in their nature to do.
Going astray is wandering. The wandering that is going astray is communicated by the following Christmas hymn:
I wonder as I wander out under the sky
How Jesus my Saviour did come for to die
For poor on'ry people like you and like I
I wonder as I wander out under the sky
I wonder as I wander out under the skySheep wander, like "poor on'ry people like you and like I." Consider these two lines from "God Rest Ye Merry Gentleman":
That Jesus my Saviour did come for to die
For poor on'ry people like you and like I
I wonder as I wander out under the sky
I wonder as I wander out under the sky
To save us all from Satan's powerInstead of staying with the shepherd and with the rest of the flock, sheep wander out and away. This is how sheep are. They are helpless and weak, but they are also stupid, so they get away from the shepherd and the rest of the sheep, following their own curiosity. They want to go astray. Instead of going the way, the Lord's way, with the rest of the flock, they go their own way.
When we were gone astray.
The Hebrew word for "iniquity" in verse 6 is a word that can be translated "punishment." It is part of the lexiconal listing and has this in its definition. When the sheep goes astray, punishment comes. Instead of the sheep facing the rod that Jehovah lays, that punishment fell upon the Servant of the Lord. The sheep would die if it received the punishment it deserved. It could not survive the blow of the Shepherd.
The Shepherd watches over a flock of sheep, which are together in His way, not their own. A sheep wanders from His way, a place of unity among the sheep. The sheep doesn't find the way on His own, but by following the Shepherd. The sheep doesn't receive protection outside of the fold. That is going astray. That is going a different way than the Shepherd.
The Lord Jesus Christ didn't die so that the sheep could go their way. He died because they went their way. They should have been punished for going their way, but instead the Lord Jesus Christ took that punishment. The freedom that comes from the deliverance of Jesus isn't the freedom of the sheep to wander on his own, but the freedom that is the ability to continue in the flock and enjoy the protection and feeding and leading of the Shepherd.
"Going your own way," outside the fold, and away from authority is individual. This was Rousseau's idea of freedom (see this post).
The Parallel or Contrast to a False Definition of Freedom as Individual
Going astray sounds bad. What was that though? It was leaving the confines and safety of the flock with the presence of the Shepherd. It was wandering. It was being a free agent instead of under authority. The authority seems confining, conflicting with freedom. The sheep that could not wander away from the flock doesn't have freedom.
Wandering doesn't sound bad. It sounds like someone curious, who wants to venture out further on his own without the restriction of a boundary. To give it a noble significance, it's like those in the original colonies pushing out into the frontier. This is a trailblazer. But no, it's a wandering sheep that seizes or snatches individual sovereignty for himself. He doesn't even have to give an explanation, except that he wants his own freedom to explore. He might also elevate his wandering, which is actually going astray, to "developing his own conviction," with an emphasis on "his own." Without the ability to wander and leave the fold, he argues, he doesn't have the freedom to have his own beliefs.
No beliefs that anyone possesses are "his own." They are God's, and there is only one set of beliefs that God gives, not various options. There isn't a unique set of beliefs, free floating outside of the flock, that someone can reach out and grasp. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth. This is where someone gets the truth and the understanding of it. Those moving outside of the flock are following after their own lusts, such as described in 1 John 2:19:
Rousseau said that in man's original "state of nature" he was free, essentially wandering around alone outside of the confines of society. Society is the source of evil. Many like this idea of freedom. The flock confines.
Ghosting is an extreme, unscriptural form of separation, which has been defined as "the practice of ending a personal relationship with someone by suddenly and without explanation withdrawing from all communication." One variety of the ghoster is a wandering sheep. He walks away from his fold without announcement or explanation. He disappears. It doesn't mean he won't find another flock, just that the flock he joins functions according to his own way.
The free sheep in the portrayal of Isaiah 53 is the one still in the fold, not the wanderer, the ghoster. This contradicts the conception of lost mankind. He sees freedom outside the fold, where he finds his own way according to his own will. Man's state of nature confined itself to male and female, husband and wife, dad and mom, and finally church, so within spheres of sovereignty. The wandering is the bondage to one's own will, which is depraved. This is the same state of nature as sheep, which by nature go astray. This is against the best interest of the sheep, the blessing of the sheep, the thriving of the sheep.
Freedom is not individual. I'm not saying there isn't individual freedom. There is. However, the individual freedom is preserved within spheres: family, church, and even state -- institutions ordained by God. Those seeking freedom outside of these folds are wanderers. They are going astray. They are candidates for punishment by God. The Lord Jesus Christ bore their punishment, not so they would have the freedom to wander, but so that they would stay within the flock in unity with the one will of the Shepherd.
The Parallel or Contrast to a False Definition of Freedom as Individual
Going astray sounds bad. What was that though? It was leaving the confines and safety of the flock with the presence of the Shepherd. It was wandering. It was being a free agent instead of under authority. The authority seems confining, conflicting with freedom. The sheep that could not wander away from the flock doesn't have freedom.
Wandering doesn't sound bad. It sounds like someone curious, who wants to venture out further on his own without the restriction of a boundary. To give it a noble significance, it's like those in the original colonies pushing out into the frontier. This is a trailblazer. But no, it's a wandering sheep that seizes or snatches individual sovereignty for himself. He doesn't even have to give an explanation, except that he wants his own freedom to explore. He might also elevate his wandering, which is actually going astray, to "developing his own conviction," with an emphasis on "his own." Without the ability to wander and leave the fold, he argues, he doesn't have the freedom to have his own beliefs.
No beliefs that anyone possesses are "his own." They are God's, and there is only one set of beliefs that God gives, not various options. There isn't a unique set of beliefs, free floating outside of the flock, that someone can reach out and grasp. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth. This is where someone gets the truth and the understanding of it. Those moving outside of the flock are following after their own lusts, such as described in 1 John 2:19:
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us:: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."Went out from us" and "they went out" parallel with "gone astray." Is a sheep "free" that cannot wander? Is someone not free unless he can go astray? Or is this assumed or even arbitrary freedom really bondage? The limitation of the flock protects the sheep. It can live. Going astray is death for the sheep. The shepherd and sheep is used as an analogy, but the application itself is real.
Rousseau said that in man's original "state of nature" he was free, essentially wandering around alone outside of the confines of society. Society is the source of evil. Many like this idea of freedom. The flock confines.
Ghosting is an extreme, unscriptural form of separation, which has been defined as "the practice of ending a personal relationship with someone by suddenly and without explanation withdrawing from all communication." One variety of the ghoster is a wandering sheep. He walks away from his fold without announcement or explanation. He disappears. It doesn't mean he won't find another flock, just that the flock he joins functions according to his own way.
The free sheep in the portrayal of Isaiah 53 is the one still in the fold, not the wanderer, the ghoster. This contradicts the conception of lost mankind. He sees freedom outside the fold, where he finds his own way according to his own will. Man's state of nature confined itself to male and female, husband and wife, dad and mom, and finally church, so within spheres of sovereignty. The wandering is the bondage to one's own will, which is depraved. This is the same state of nature as sheep, which by nature go astray. This is against the best interest of the sheep, the blessing of the sheep, the thriving of the sheep.
Freedom is not individual. I'm not saying there isn't individual freedom. There is. However, the individual freedom is preserved within spheres: family, church, and even state -- institutions ordained by God. Those seeking freedom outside of these folds are wanderers. They are going astray. They are candidates for punishment by God. The Lord Jesus Christ bore their punishment, not so they would have the freedom to wander, but so that they would stay within the flock in unity with the one will of the Shepherd.
10 comments:
We need to repent of our sins of sexism and white privilege and nationalism. As Americans, we think we can be "independent" and nationalist. We need to repent as a nation for voting for people such as Trump who believe in nationalism. We need to repent of our critiquing of Beth Moore.
Hello Anonymous,
You didn't interact with the post, but I'll give you a little bit of time to show from scripture how that all these things are sin, of which you say we need to repent: sexism, white privilege, nationalism, voting for Trump, and critiquing Beth Moore.
"Isaiah 53 prophesies the future conversion of the nation Israel and chronicles the account of her future repentance."
When you say "future conversion" I have to assume you mean our future conversions, as written about from Isaiah's standpoint. Otherwise, that is quite hyperdispensational, because all of those things apply to Abraham's seed, (e.g. the election of God), as we may claim to be by virtue of Galatians 3:16 and 3:29. See Galatians 4 and Hebrews 8, 9:15 and 11:39-40-- and also Isaiah 54:3 as well.
I wouldn't want someone taking away those things from me by attempting to wrest the scriptures. The rest of the post makes sense.
Andrew,
Since salvation is only one way, anyone who comes to the Lord in this same manner, which is biblical repentance, he too will be saved. However, Isaiah 53 is the future confession of a repentant Israel, which fits with a lot of other prophecy, including Zechariah 12-14, Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel 36, and several other places. It also fits with the Apostle Paul in Romans 11:26. This is not hyperdispensationalism. When Israel is surrounded by her enemies in the tribulation, she will look upon Him, whom she has pierced, and turn to Him as Messiah. Only 1/3 of the nation will turn to Him, but that will constitute the nation Israel.
Salvation isn't different between Israel and Gentiles. It's all the same. I was saved the same way as we see in Isaiah 53. I too say that I am like a sheep gone astray and the Lord laid my sins and punishment on Jesus Christ.
"However, Isaiah 53 is the future confession of a repentant Israel, which fits with a lot of other prophecy, which fits with a lot of other prophecy, including Zechariah 12-14, Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel 36, and several other places."
Yes, how exactly. And in Jeremiah 31:31-34 we have a direct parallel to Hebrews 8:6-10. In Hebrews 8:6-10 we see that the Lord has established a "more excellent ministry," one in which he mediates for us. In Zechariah 14:21, we see that "there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts." This levels with Romans 11:26 where the salvation of all of Israel is accomplished by turning away ungodliness from Jacob. The unbelieving are in God's word as Ishmael was compared to Isaac. They are not the children of promise, and shall not be heirs of God through Christ. But we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
All we need to do then is wait patiently for the events of Zechariah 14:21, book of Revelation 11:2, and 3:9, Psalm 94:23, Psalm 37:34 to come true. And I'm looking forward to inheriting the things, the land along with Christ, who has inherited me. No one can deny such a clear scripture as Galatians 3:16 combined with Genesis 22:17. These things are of course not to anyone but to our Lord, the only begotten Son of God firstly, and we, then, the subjects of Him described in Galatians 3:29.
Furthermore, Hebrews 8:6-10 being connected with what Jeremiah 31:33 says also ties us to Ezekiel 36:28, which is another of the passages you mentioned. Very similar parallels exist at Hosea 1:10 & Romans 9:25-27 and also Hosea 2:23 & 1 Peter 2:9-10.
"This is not hyperdispensationalism."
So far the only thing that suggests hyperdispensationalism is the murky, unclear implication that, somehow, Isaiah 53 only applies to what is to me a very vaguely defined group of people. A group which apparently excludes me, despite any level of potential distance heritage, simply because I don't happen to have a family member who decided one day to start believing the Talmud (a wicked book). Simply because we regarded Matthew 23:8.
But why is this? Why have folks determined legitimacy from something such as the Babylonian Talmud? How is this considered a source of legitimacy? Maybe some people need to look into what C.I. Scofield introduced, and whether any of that is actually Biblical, and whether they're simply repeating the same claims he tried to wedge into scripture in what tries to be, but fails, a less hamfisted permutation of Scofield's original doctrines. Neoliberal tolerance and ecumenism? Neocons? Dual covenant theology?
Watered down doctrine in order to make compromise with these things?
Is THIS, perhaps, the future that they chose? I wonder.
"When Israel is surrounded by her enemies in the tribulation, she will look upon Him, whom she has pierced, and turn to Him as Messiah."
You just made a reference to either Zechariah 12:10, John 19:37 or book of Revelation 1:7. Where in one of these is a clear statement of repentence? Mourning, sure. By the way, this reaction is understandable. But where is the turning to him; or has that been read in.
"Only 1/3 of the nation will turn to Him, but that will constitute the nation Israel."
This is a reference to Zechariah 13:9. But we see that Zechariah 13:9 has a direct parallel to Hosea 2:23 and 1 Peter 2:9-10, and therefore, me.
"I too say that I am like a sheep gone astray and the Lord laid my sins and punishment on Jesus Christ."
Then it looks like I have not yet found any point of disagreement about anything you've thus far written. You've cleared up the question that I had before. Which is where you might have implied that somehow the statements in Isaiah 53 do not apply to you and me. I'd like to hear, of course, if you have any references to reply. My own reference, by the way, is Titus 1:10-11. Thanks.
I also noticed something else.
https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-covenant-name-of-god-jehovah-or.html
https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2019/11/jessie-penn-lewis-binding-and-loosing.html
In these two posts you cited the Mishna.
Was there any particular reason why you did this?
Dear Andrew,
I cited the Mishnah in those two posts for the reasons clear in the context of the two posts, as a historical document that illuminates aspects of the Hebrew language and Hebrew history. I trust that you can see that a very wide range of sources are cited in my posts.
By the way, Scofield was certainly not a perfect man, but the infallible Scripture is clear that in every NT instance where the word "Israel" is used it never means "the church" or "redeemed Gentiles," so whether you want to call it dispensationalism or not, Scripture is clear that Israel is not the church, and simply taking the Bible literally means that when God spends 8 chapters in Ezekiel describing a rebuilt Jewish temple there is actually going to be one.
I don't have a lot of time, so I apologize in advance if I don't respond further.
Thanks.
Good evening, Kent.
"By the way, Scofield was certainly not a perfect man, but the infallible Scripture is clear that in every NT instance where the word "Israel" is used it never means "the church"
Kent, I never, ever, once, said this.
"Scripture is clear that Israel is not the church"
Yes, and I agree. There are unsaved people in churches. The church is an instutition related to but not the same as the election of God. I hope that this makes sense.
"and simply taking the Bible literally means that when God spends 8 chapters in Ezekiel describing a rebuilt Jewish temple there is actually going to be one."
Yes, and? It seems you agree then with me and my previous post if that's all there is to say, because I agree with this as well. I only have some concern, that, in this case there is still a lack of complete separation from talmudic subversion. This would come from a lack of recognition of the problem. But that's all it is, a concern. Hopefully you can understand why I would be concerned. I know I and the people I've spoken with in great detail about this do not have this hyper-dispensational approach (as I've mentioned before) but they take the term dispensation Biblically, by using actual Scripture references when talking about this subject. No further response is required if we simply agree. But I will keep an eye on this page if I'm still welcome here.
If I can add another thing since you allowed my previous post. If I have said something wrong, isn't now the time that I should be admonished about what I have said that is wrong? And if not, and I'm talking to everyone reading this, if you can't tell me where I ought to be admonished, why then be so afraid to just admit the truth of God's word?
Andrew,
This isn't silence because of arguments. I've published your comments, but I haven't read any of them since the first one. I had a hard time following that comment. I'll answer you when I read your comments and understand them. Don't take silence as bowled over yet. I haven't read the comments.
KB
Post a Comment