Cain's action

[greenonions]

So you agree that this cup of blood refers to death. And in the passage, the blood results in the remission of sins -- so do you see "remission" of sins to mean "striving against sin" or "forgiving past sins"?

Both, because if our Lord had not endured the wrongs being committed against him, the only alternative would have been to judge sinners. People must see how they have sinned against God and repent and nowhere in all of scripture is this more clear than by the evil done to his Son,

repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name Lk.24:47

And those who believe in him are being conformed to his image,

For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
1Pet.2:19-21

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, Act.2:38

Yes, Christ is our example and we die with Christ. The part you are missing is that Christ took our sin upon Himself.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

[journeyman]

Yes, Christ is our example and we die with Christ. The part you are missing is that Christ took our sin upon Himself.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

I'm not missing this part my friend. You're misunderstanding what Paul is saying. Our Lord "took our sin upon himself" in the sense of enduring the abuse he suffered at the hands of both Jews and gentiles,

Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? Act.4:25, Psa.2:1

The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. Act.4:26

and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. Psa.69:9

we know that this man is a sinner. Jn.9:24

he ought to die Jn.19:7

the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him. Lk.22:63

the LORD hates.....hands that shed innocent blood Pro.6:16-17

[Fenris]

Isaiah 42:1-17 starts with "Behold! My servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him" --- This servant is special and is introduced with "Behold!" to call for your attention. Israel will receive the Holy Spirit in the Messianic era, so either this is another servant, or it is Israel in the Messianic era.

Isaiah 42:18-25 is another servant who is blind and deaf, who is named Jacob and Israel in 42:24. This is Israel before the Messianic era.

Why can't it be the same subject in the entre chapter? Israel.

Isaiah 43:1-21 talks about Israel in comforting words, but calls them "blind and deaf" in 43:8 and chosen servant in 43:10. This is "You", the present day Israel, that does not fully understand that God is the only true God.

Why does it have to be "present day Israel"? Why can't it be the generation that saw the exile? Verse 14 So said the Lord, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, "Because of you, I sent to Babylon..." The present day Israel wasn't sent to Babylon. The Israel of 586BC was.

Isaiah 43:22-28 talks about Jacob and Israel as evil but does not mention the word servant

So what? The subject of all these chapters is Israel, identified by name. Sometimes called God's "servant", sometimes called God's "witnesses", sometimes called "Jacob" and sometimes called just "Israel".

Isaiah 44:1-5 talks about Jacob as the chosen servant with the Spirit poured on his descendants. This refers to Israel in the Messianic era

OK. And Isaiah 53 is the nations of the world in the messianic era, acknowledging that Israel is God's servant- just as you have done right now. Thank you for proving my point!

Isaiah 49:1-9 talks about the servant, whose identity we have disagreed about.

Verse 3: "You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast."

I mean, what more do you want?

Verse 5 and 6 indicates that it is someone who brings Jacob back to God, so I claimed it was another servant

"And now, the Lord, Who formed me from the womb as a servant to Him..." Why can't this be the prophet Isaiah? Isn't that who actually wrote this book?

namely the same servant in Isaiah 42:1-17 and 52:13-53:12. You claim there is no other servant besides Israel mentioned previously. If verse 5 and 6 are sufficient to establish that this is not national Israel, the "light to the Gentiles" in 42:6 and 49:6 identify the servants in the two passages as the same servant.

The Jews see their mission as being a "light unto the nations" (the word "gentile" is a bad translation and that word didn't even exist in Isaiah's lifetime).

Isaiah 52:13-52:12 is a servant who suffers before the Messianic era and is exalted during the Messianic era.

And why can't this be Israel, who suffers before the messianic era and will be exalted during the messianic era?

I agree that Isaiah 43:10 refers to national Israel.

Excellent. This is progress.

You have two options:

I don't understand this chart or what you're trying to say here.

Cleaner, in my opinion.

You mean it aligns with your theology. Ok.

I agree that it happens at the cusp of the messianic era

Ok. So I guess we shall see.

I don't think the Hebrew had commas, so consider the comma an interpretation.

Modern Hebrew does. Biblical Hebrew has cantillation marks (for the tune how it's chanted) which does much the same thing.

Yes, of course you can use different words to convey the same meaning of "concerning" or "regarding". You claim that "Et Asher" can mean "regarding" in Hebrew idiom. It is possible that you have used it yourself in that way, but do you have any Bible verse that shows that ancient Biblical Hebrew ever used such an idiom?

Yes, the verse in question.

[greenonions]

Isaiah 42:1-17 starts with "Behold! My servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him" --- This servant is special and is introduced with "Behold!" to call for your attention. Israel will receive the Holy Spirit in the Messianic era, so either this is another servant, or it is Israel in the Messianic era.

Isaiah 42:18-25 is another servant who is blind and deaf, who is named Jacob and Israel in 42:24. This is Israel before the Messianic era.

Why can't it be the same subject in the entre chapter? Israel.

As I pointed out, the Holy Spirit is on the servant in Isaiah 42:1-17, so it could be Israel, but it is not Israel in the pre-messianic era.

Isaiah 43:1-21 talks about Israel in comforting words, but calls them "blind and deaf" in 43:8 and chosen servant in 43:10. This is "You", the present day Israel, that does not fully understand that God is the only true God.

Why does it have to be "present day Israel"? Why can't it be the generation that saw the exile? Verse 14 So said the Lord, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, "Because of you, I sent to Babylon..." The present day Israel wasn't sent to Babylon. The Israel of 586BC was.

You are right. It seems to fit more with ancient Israel with their sacrifices. I guess I can't just lump the entire pre-messianic era together.

Isaiah 43:22-28 talks about Jacob and Israel as evil but does not mention the word servant

So what? The subject of all these chapters is Israel, identified by name. Sometimes called God's "servant", sometimes called God's "witnesses", sometimes called "Jacob" and sometimes called just "Israel".

I was just taking notes here.

Isaiah 44:1-5 talks about Jacob as the chosen servant with the Spirit poured on his descendants. This refers to Israel in the Messianic era

OK. And Isaiah 53 is the nations of the world in the messianic era, acknowledging that Israel is God's servant- just as you have done right now. Thank you for proving my point!

I did not dispute that some of these references are to national Israel. I just said that some of them were not.

Isaiah 49:1-9 talks about the servant, whose identity we have disagreed about.

Verse 3: "You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast."

I mean, what more do you want?

This was the reason why I quoted the thing about David. I suggested that "Israel" in verse 3 could mean a descendant of Israel, just like David who would be king forever could be the Messiah, the son of David. The reason it can't be national Israel is because I think it is the same servant in verse 3 as verse 5 and 6.

If we split verses 1-4 and verse 5-8, and we call 1-4 Israel and 5-8 Isaiah/Other, it still results in the existence of a non-Israel servant in a context where national Israel is mentioned in the same chapter. If that is the case, your argument that the context forces Isaiah 52-53 to be about Israel is weakened, because we would have an example where context is not decisive.

Verse 5 and 6 indicates that it is someone who brings Jacob back to God, so I claimed it was another servant

"And now, the Lord, Who formed me from the womb as a servant to Him..." Why can't this be the prophet Isaiah? Isn't that who actually wrote this book?
1) Your point is that the servant is national Israel. You just made an exception for yourself, allowing the possibility of someone else. e.g. Isaiah. That means I can do the same thing while being consistent with your approach to interpretation
2) It could be Isaiah or a third servant, but I wouldn't call Isaiah "God's salvation to the ends of the earth"

namely the same servant in Isaiah 42:1-17 and 52:13-53:12. You claim there is no other servant besides Israel mentioned previously. If verse 5 and 6 are sufficient to establish that this is not national Israel, the "light to the Gentiles" in 42:6 and 49:6 identify the servants in the two passages as the same servant.

The Jews see their mission as being a "light unto the nations" (the word "gentile" is a bad translation and that word didn't even exist in Isaiah's lifetime).

Interesting. Nations and Gentile means different things? So because Jews believe 42:6 and 49:6 refers to them being the light to the nations, so that is evidence that the Jews are the servant in these passages? Sounds like a circular argument.

Isaiah 52:13-52:12 is a servant who suffers before the Messianic era and is exalted during the Messianic era.

And why can't this be Israel, who suffers before the messianic era and will be exalted during the messianic era?

I'm not saying it can't be Israel based on this broad context of timing. I'm just analyzing this text.

I agree that Isaiah 43:10 refers to national Israel.

Excellent. This is progress.

Did you think I thought otherwise? Or that I just didn't know Isaiah 43:10 existed?

You have two options:

I don't understand this chart or what you're trying to say here.

Suppose a newspaper boy shouts the result of the NBA finals right after the game. Everyone would believe him. You interpret the kings to be saying a message after the start of the messianic era. Everyone would believe these kings. Isaiah 52:1 is talking about a situation where the messenger is being labeled as a spreader of fake news, which doesn't match the two examples I mentioned. The key is the timing of when the message is reported, before or after everyone knows. The kings are among the last to know.

Cleaner, in my opinion.

You mean it aligns with your theology. Ok.

I mean that there are only two parties involved in the sentence: you and me. No third group of stabbed people need to be referred to.

I agree that it happens at the cusp of the messianic era

Ok. So I guess we shall see.

yes

I don't think the Hebrew had commas, so consider the comma an interpretation.

Modern Hebrew does. Biblical Hebrew has cantillation marks (for the tune how it's chanted) which does much the same thing.

neat. Do you know what Selah means?

Yes, of course you can use different words to convey the same meaning of "concerning" or "regarding". You claim that "Et Asher" can mean "regarding" in Hebrew idiom. It is possible that you have used it yourself in that way, but do you have any Bible verse that shows that ancient Biblical Hebrew ever used such an idiom?

Yes, the verse in question.

OK, but that's a circular argument. Do you have any other Bible verse that shows more clearly that ancient Biblical Hebrew used such an idiom?

[Fenris]

As I pointed out, the Holy Spirit is on the servant in Isaiah 42:1-17, so it could be Israel, but it is not Israel in the pre-messianic era.

Why not?

You are right. It seems to fit more with ancient Israel with their sacrifices. I guess I can't just lump the entire pre-messianic era together.

The people of Israel have their us and downs, but no one verse in the prophets can describe all of Jewish history. Even just look at Lev 26 and Deut 28 have the blessings for obedience and the curses for disobedience, which have variously applied at different times in Jewish history.

I was just taking notes here.

That's good, helps keep the mind organized.

I did not dispute that some of these references are to national Israel. I just said that some of them were not.

That's fair. But as I posited above, and you agree is sensible, Israel goes through times good and bad. So to for the "servant".

This was the reason why I quoted the thing about David. I suggested that "Israel" in verse 3 could mean a descendant of Israel, just like David who would be king forever could be the Messiah, the son of David.

I mean, we know that the Davidic line is sometimes just referred to as "David" because it's obviously spelled out in the text (Ez 37:24, 2 Kings 19:34, 2 Kings 20:6, etc etc.), although sometimes it's just referring to king David himself (1 Chron 17:4 for example). That doesn't mean that "Israel" is some descendant of Israel. It seems more that you would like this to be so, but there's no compelling reason to believe it aside from that.

If we split verses 1-4 and verse 5-8, and we call 1-4 Israel and 5-8 Isaiah/Other, it still results in the existence of a non-Israel servant in a context where national Israel is mentioned in the same chapter. If that is the case, your argument that the context forces Isaiah 52-53 to be about Israel is weakened, because we would have an example where context is not decisive.

Correct, although the servant in 53 could be national Israel, and there's nothing in the text makes it impossible to be so.

1) Your point is that the servant is national Israel. You just made an exception for yourself, allowing the possibility of someone else. e.g. Isaiah. That means I can do the same thing while being consistent with your approach to interpretation

Again, you could, and the fact that we are having this discussion means that a large number of people do hold to your interpretation. Having said that, there's nothing textually wrong with the way I'm seeing it, and historically this has been the Jewish perspective on the text.

2) It could be Isaiah or a third servant, but I wouldn't call Isaiah "God's salvation to the ends of the earth"

Well, chapter 45 is addressed to Cyrus and uses that phrase. Muddies the waters.

Interesting. Nations and Gentile means different things?

The Hebrew word in the verse, "Goy", simply means "nation". Not "gentile" (again that word didn't exist at the time). I will direct your attention to Exodus 19:5-6, where God says, "Now if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, you will be My treasured possession out of all the nations—for the whole earth is Mine. And unto Me you shall be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’". I've bolded the last word because in the Hebrew it uses that same word- "Goy". Everyone translates it as "holy nation" not "holy gentile".

So because Jews believe 42:6 and 49:6 refers to them being the light to the nations, so that is evidence that the Jews are the servant in these passages? Sounds like a circular argument.

Well, we've already established that the servant can be Israel, so why not? For certain Jews have adopted this as a mission statement- to lead moral and ethical lives as God's moral pilot project.

Suppose a newspaper boy shouts the result of the NBA finals right after the game. Everyone would believe him. You interpret the kings to be saying a message after the start of the messianic era. Everyone would believe these kings. Isaiah 52:1 is talking about a situation where the messenger is being labeled as a spreader of fake news, which doesn't match the two examples I mentioned. The key is the timing of when the message is reported, before or after everyone knows. The kings are among the last to know.

I think you mean 53:1. Using your analogy, it's the newspaper boy expressing shock at the end of the game that the team predicted to lose 100-0 actually won instead. "Who would have believed it?!!"

I mean that there are only two parties involved in the sentence: you and me. No third group of stabbed people need to be referred to.

It's not about "need", its about what the text actually says.

Look, Christianity doesn't succeed or fail based on that one verse. On the other hand, Christianity's credibility in my eyes certainly hangs on forcing translations when that isn't what the Hebrew text actually says. 

Do you know what Selah means?

We know the meaning of all but a few obscure Hebrew words, "Selah" being one of them. Nobody has known for certain what that word means since the end of the first temple era.

OK, but that's a circular argument. Do you have any other Bible verse that shows more clearly that ancient Biblical Hebrew used such an idiom?

Biblical Hebrew uses lots of idioms. So does biblical Greek for that matter.

[greenonions]

Yes, Christ is our example and we die with Christ. The part you are missing is that Christ took our sin upon Himself.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

I'm not missing this part my friend. You're misunderstanding what Paul is saying. Our Lord "took our sin upon himself" in the sense of enduring the abuse he suffered at the hands of both Jews and gentiles,

Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? Act.4:25, Psa.2:1

The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. Act.4:26

and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. Psa.69:9

we know that this man is a sinner. Jn.9:24

he ought to die Jn.19:7

the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him. Lk.22:63

the LORD hates.....hands that shed innocent blood Pro.6:16-17

The exact words should be "he made to be sin on our behalf". Jesus was made sin (or a sin offering, which is literally "sin" in Hebrew e.g. H4203 "khattawaw" in Leviticus 4:8 ). <-- edited to replace 8 ) emoji

[greenonions]

As I pointed out, the Holy Spirit is on the servant in Isaiah 42:1-17, so it could be Israel, but it is not Israel in the pre-messianic era.

Why not?

Pardon my jumping to another book, but Ezekiel 39:29 says: "I won’t hide my face from them any more; for I have poured out my Spirit on the house of Israel,’ says the Lord Yahweh.”

This is after the Gog and Magog war. I think that this is at cusp of the messianic era. It also sounds like this: if God's Spirit is poured on the house of Israel, then God will not hide His face from Israel any more i.e. they would never be brought into captivity again because of disobedience. So since we see that Israel has suffered much over the centuries, I don't think this event of pouring of God's Spirit on the house of Israel has been fulfilled yet. This is why I didn't think Isaiah 42:1 could refer to national Israel because it says "I have put my Spirit on him".

However, I do think God's Spirit is present in a subset of the Jewish population. In the past, Moses, elders, leaders, prophets did have God's Spirit on them. So Isaiah 42:1 could refer to a small subset of the nation of Israel. Plus Jewish Christians would also have received the Holy Spirit according to the Christian faith, after the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost in partial fulfillment of Joel 2:20.

I did not dispute that some of these references are to national Israel. I just said that some of them were not.

That's fair. But as I posited above, and you agree is sensible, Israel goes through times good and bad. So to for the "servant".

I agree that the servant can go through good times and bad. Have you considered that the Messiah can go through good times and bad too?

This was the reason why I quoted the thing about David. I suggested that "Israel" in verse 3 could mean a descendant of Israel, just like David who would be king forever could be the Messiah, the son of David.

I mean, we know that the Davidic line is sometimes just referred to as "David" because it's obviously spelled out in the text (Ez 37:24, 2 Kings 19:34, 2 Kings 20:6, etc etc.), although sometimes it's just referring to king David himself (1 Chron 17:4 for example). That doesn't mean that "Israel" is some descendant of Israel. It seems more that you would like this to be so, but there's no compelling reason to believe it aside from that.

OK, so you understand my analogy of Israel vs David, but you said the reference to the descendant of David was more clear and the reference to the descendant of Israel was less clear. The verses you quoted, 2 Kings 19:34 and 2 Kings 20:6, says that God would defend the city for David's sake. I actually think this means David himself. I have thought about Ezekiel 37:24 and considered the possibility that David is resurrected and ruling as king. The only reason I think it is not David is that the Messiah will be ruling over Israel. Similar logic applies to Isaiah 49:3. The reason I think it is not Israel is because it doesn't match verses 5-6. In other words, the actions of the "David" or "Israel" cause us to find an alternate explanation.

If we split verses 1-4 and verse 5-8, and we call 1-4 Israel and 5-8 Isaiah/Other, it still results in the existence of a non-Israel servant in a context where national Israel is mentioned in the same chapter. If that is the case, your argument that the context forces Isaiah 52-53 to be about Israel is weakened, because we would have an example where context is not decisive.

Correct, although the servant in 53 could be national Israel, and there's nothing in the text makes it impossible to be so.

So we can continue looking at the text of Isaiah 53.

1) Your point is that the servant is national Israel. You just made an exception for yourself, allowing the possibility of someone else. e.g. Isaiah. That means I can do the same thing while being consistent with your approach to interpretation

Again, you could, and the fact that we are having this discussion means that a large number of people do hold to your interpretation. Having said that, there's nothing textually wrong with the way I'm seeing it, and historically this has been the Jewish perspective on the text.

OK

2) It could be Isaiah or a third servant, but I wouldn't call Isaiah "God's salvation to the ends of the earth"

Well, chapter 45 is addressed to Cyrus and uses that phrase. Muddies the waters.

I looked at Isaiah 45:8 and 17 where "salvation" is used. It seems to be saying God will bring salvation. I don't think it said Cyrus is God's salvation, unless it is interpreted that way.

Interesting. Nations and Gentile means different things?

The Hebrew word in the verse, "Goy", simply means "nation". Not "gentile" (again that word didn't exist at the time). I will direct your attention to Exodus 19:5-6, where God says, "Now if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, you will be My treasured possession out of all the nations—for the whole earth is Mine. And unto Me you shall be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’". I've bolded the last word because in the Hebrew it uses that same word- "Goy". Everyone translates it as "holy nation" not "holy gentile".

They should translate it as nations then.

So because Jews believe 42:6 and 49:6 refers to them being the light to the nations, so that is evidence that the Jews are the servant in these passages? Sounds like a circular argument.

Well, we've already established that the servant can be Israel, so why not? For certain Jews have adopted this as a mission statement- to lead moral and ethical lives as God's moral pilot project.

It's a great mission to live for.

Suppose a newspaper boy shouts the result of the NBA finals right after the game. Everyone would believe him. You interpret the kings to be saying a message after the start of the messianic era. Everyone would believe these kings. Isaiah 52:1 is talking about a situation where the messenger is being labeled as a spreader of fake news, which doesn't match the two examples I mentioned. The key is the timing of when the message is reported, before or after everyone knows. The kings are among the last to know.

I think you mean 53:1. Using your analogy, it's the newspaper boy expressing shock at the end of the game that the team predicted to lose 100-0 actually won instead. "Who would have believed it?!!"

So it looks like I made a argument on Isaiah 53:1 (thanks for the correction) based on the past tense of "Who has believed", but you are suggesting that the meaning of the past tense can be more flexible and mean "Who would have believed". Thanks for understanding my analogy.

I mean that there are only two parties involved in the sentence: you and me. No third group of stabbed people need to be referred to.

It's not about "need", its about what the text actually says.

You propose the third group of people that are stabbed are what the text actually says. If you read Zechariah 12:1-10, you will notice that the only people killed in that passage are the enemies of Judah and Jerusalem. I doubt the people would mourn for the enemies that tried to kill them. It's definitely possible that Jewish people died in the battle too, but they are not mentioned in the passage, so it is a stretch to say that Zechariah 12:10 definitely refers to mourning for these hypothetical Jewish casualties. The mourning in Zechariah 12:11 mentions Megiddo, which reminds us of the mourning when King Josiah was killed at Megiddo (2 Chronicles 35:22-25). So the mourning could refer to the mourning for a Jewish king i.e. the Messiah.

Look, Christianity doesn't succeed or fail based on that one verse. On the other hand, Christianity's credibility in my eyes certainly hangs on forcing translations when that isn't what the Hebrew text actually says.

I hope I'm not forcing translations to say things the Hebrew text isn't saying.

Do you know what Selah means?

We know the meaning of all but a few obscure Hebrew words, "Selah" being one of them. Nobody has known for certain what that word means since the end of the first temple era.

The cantillation marks that you mentioned, were they introduced after they added vowel marks?

OK, but that's a circular argument. Do you have any other Bible verse that shows more clearly that ancient Biblical Hebrew used such an idiom?

Biblical Hebrew uses lots of idioms. So does biblical Greek for that matter.

Yes many idioms are used, but do you have any other Bible verse that shows that this particular idiom "et asher" --> "regarding those whom" was used in ancient Biblical Hebrew?

[Fenris]

Pardon my jumping to another book, but Ezekiel 39:29 says: "I won’t hide my face from them any more; for I have poured out my Spirit on the house of Israel,’ says the Lord Yahweh.”

This is after the Gog and Magog war. I think that this is at cusp of the messianic era. It also sounds like this: if God's Spirit is poured on the house of Israel, then God will not hide His face from Israel any more i.e. they would never be brought into captivity again because of disobedience. So since we see that Israel has suffered much over the centuries, I don't think this event of pouring of God's Spirit on the house of Israel has been fulfilled yet. This is why I didn't think Isaiah 42:1 could refer to national Israel because it says "I have put my Spirit on him".

Let's stay with Isaiah 42 for now. Verse 19 says "Who is blind but My servant, and deaf as My messenger whom I will send?" This isn't necessarily an enlightened bunch. But God has put His spirit upon them nevertheless. I don't see why it can't be national Israel.

I agree that the servant can go through good times and bad. Have you considered that the Messiah can go through good times and bad too?

But the fact that the servant goes through times good and bad times doesn't disqualify it being Israel.  I know, I know. You very much want the servant to be the messiah, especially with chapter 53 so near. But there's nothing compelling about this reading to a Jewish person. The subject of the bible is a national story. It's about Israel. The messiah is a minor figure, who shows up at the end, after all the trials and tribulations are over. Isaiah 40 to 66 is about Israel's redemption. And that comes from God. There's no need to see the messiah in there anywhere.

OK, so you understand my analogy of Israel vs David, but you said the reference to the descendant of David was more clear and the reference to the descendant of Israel was less clear. The verses you quoted, 2 Kings 19:34 and 2 Kings 20:6, says that God would defend the city for David's sake. I actually think this means David himself.

It doesn't. David was long dead by that time.

I have thought about Ezekiel 37:24 and considered the possibility that David is resurrected and ruling as king. The only reason I think it is not David is that the Messiah will be ruling over Israel. Similar logic applies to Isaiah 49:3. The reason I think it is not Israel is because it doesn't match verses 5-6. In other words, the actions of the "David" or "Israel" cause us to find an alternate explanation.

I apologize for saying this, but you're basically making up the rules as you go. A word means what you need it to mean. There's no consistency in this. If you find it convincing, so be it. But don't expect others people to.

I looked at Isaiah 45:8 and 17 where "salvation" is used. It seems to be saying God will bring salvation. I don't think it said Cyrus is God's salvation, unless it is interpreted that way.

Well, the word "salvation" means different things to Christians than it does to Jews. You think it means being saved from sin or eternal damnation. To a Jew it just means being saved from a difficult situation.

They should translate it as nations then.

I'll speak to them immediately.

It's a great mission to live for.

It is! And the crazy thing is, that of all the near eastern, bronze age peoples, only the Jews remain. In the same land (finally!) speaking the same language, reading the same holy books, and practicing the same religion as our ancestors did more than 3,000 years ago. We believe in the God Who acts through history and this to us explains our continued existence. 

So it looks like I made a argument on Isaiah 53:1 (thanks for the correction) based on the past tense of "Who has believed", but you are suggesting that the meaning of the past tense can be more flexible and mean "Who would have believed". Thanks for understanding my analogy.

I'm glad we are understanding each other.

You propose the third group of people that are stabbed are what the text actually says. If you read Zechariah 12:1-10, you will notice that the only people killed in that passage are the enemies of Judah and Jerusalem. I doubt the people would mourn for the enemies that tried to kill them. It's definitely possible that Jewish people died in the battle too, but they are not mentioned in the passage, so it is a stretch to say that Zechariah 12:10 definitely refers to mourning for these hypothetical Jewish casualties.

Well, this is going outside the text of the chapter itself. Verses 11-14 describe a great mourning throughout the land. Whatever it is, it's some future event. So I guess we shall see.

The cantillation marks that you mentioned, were they introduced after they added vowel marks?

It's my understanding they were always there, like musical notes for the Psalms. 

Yes many idioms are used, but do you have any other Bible verse that shows that this particular idiom "et asher" --> "regarding those whom" was used in ancient Biblical Hebrew?

I don't know. Searching the bible would be exhausting.

[journeyman]

The exact words should be "he made to be sin on our behalf". Jesus was made sin (or a sin offering, which is literally "sin" in Hebrew e.g. H4203 "khattawaw" in Leviticus 4:8 ). <-- edited to replace 8 ) emoji

As I pointed out, our Lord was falsely accused, regarded as a sinner,

he was numbered with the transgressors Isa.53:12, Mk.15:28

He wasn't one.

[greenonions]

Let's stay with Isaiah 42 for now. Verse 19 says "Who is blind but My servant, and deaf as My messenger whom I will send?" This isn't necessarily an enlightened bunch. But God has put His spirit upon them nevertheless. I don't see why it can't be national Israel.

Isaiah 42:2 seems to be talking about an individual, who walks in the street of a town.
Isaiah 42:6 says he will be a covenant to the people (singular, probably meaning national Israel). This is similar to Isaiah 49:8.

But the fact that the servant goes through times good and bad times doesn't disqualify it being Israel.  I know, I know. You very much want the servant to be the messiah, especially with chapter 53 so near. But there's nothing compelling about this reading to a Jewish person. The subject of the bible is a national story. It's about Israel. The messiah is a minor figure, who shows up at the end, after all the trials and tribulations are over. Isaiah 40 to 66 is about Israel's redemption. And that comes from God. There's no need to see the messiah in there anywhere.

I think you would agree that Isaiah 11:1-4 is about the Messiah who has God's Spirit on him and he judges the nations, which is very similar to Isaiah 42:1, 4. God is a major figure in Isaiah, so if the Messiah is God (it is God who is judging the nations and rebuking them in Isaiah 2:4), then the Messiah is also a major figure.

OK, so you understand my analogy of Israel vs David, but you said the reference to the descendant of David was more clear and the reference to the descendant of Israel was less clear. The verses you quoted, 2 Kings 19:34 and 2 Kings 20:6, says that God would defend the city for David's sake. I actually think this means David himself.

It doesn't. David was long dead by that time.

Here are a few examples where God did things for David's sake even after David was dead. In the same way, I think 2 Kings 19:34 and 2 Kings 20:6 refer to David himself.

1 Kings 11:12-13 Nevertheless, I will not do it in your days, for David your father’s sake; but I will tear it out of your son’s hand. However I will not tear away all the kingdom; but I will give one tribe to your son, for David my servant’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake which I have chosen.”

1 Kings 15:4 Nevertheless for David’s sake, Yahweh his God gave him a lamp in Jerusalem, to set up his son after him, and to establish Jerusalem;

2 Kings 8:19 However Yahweh would not destroy Judah, for David his servant’s sake, as he promised him to give to him a lamp for his children always.

I have thought about Ezekiel 37:24 and considered the possibility that David is resurrected and ruling as king. The only reason I think it is not David is that the Messiah will be ruling over Israel. Similar logic applies to Isaiah 49:3. The reason I think it is not Israel is because it doesn't match verses 5-6. In other words, the actions of the "David" or "Israel" cause us to find an alternate explanation.

I apologize for saying this, but you're basically making up the rules as you go. A word means what you need it to mean. There's no consistency in this. If you find it convincing, so be it. But don't expect others people to.

1. David normally means David himself. But you allow it to mean his descendant in Ezekiel 37:24. You said it was clear in other passages that David meant his descendant, which I have tried to disprove.
2. Israel normally means Israel himself or the nation Israel. But I allow it to mean Israel's descendant in Isaiah 49:3.
3. If 2 Kings 19:34 and 2 Kings 20:6 are not about David's descendant, how does my logic differ from yours?

I looked at Isaiah 45:8 and 17 where "salvation" is used. It seems to be saying God will bring salvation. I don't think it said Cyrus is God's salvation, unless it is interpreted that way.

Well, the word "salvation" means different things to Christians than it does to Jews. You think it means being saved from sin or eternal damnation. To a Jew it just means being saved from a difficult situation.

First, you said concerning "You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth" (Isaiah 49:6) something like the exact same phrase was used to describe Cyrus in Isaiah 45. I didn't find that exact phrase. Second, Isaiah 45:8 mentions salvation not necessarily in relation to Cyrus. Third, Isaiah 45:17 talks about everlasting salvation, which Cyrus certainly did not bring.

It's a great mission to live for.

It is! And the crazy thing is, that of all the near eastern, bronze age peoples, only the Jews remain. In the same land (finally!) speaking the same language, reading the same holy books, and practicing the same religion as our ancestors did more than 3,000 years ago. We believe in the God Who acts through history and this to us explains our continued existence. 

Hallelujah!

I'm glad we are understanding each other.

Yes. Let's go back to Isaiah 53:5 again. Bringing this back from Post #66.

The speaker had misconceptions, but this is the structure of the verses:

Truth: Isaiah 53:4 Surely he has borne our sickness
Truth:     and carried our suffering;                               
Misconception: yet we considered him plagued,
Misconception:    struck by God, and afflicted.
Truth: 5 But he was pierced [from] our transgressions.
Truth:    He was crushed [from] our iniquities.
Truth: The punishment that brought our peace was on him;
Truth:    and by his wounds we are healed.
Truth: 6 All we like sheep have gone astray.
Truth:    Everyone has turned to his own way;
Truth:    and Yahweh has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

"Surely" in verse 4 indicates truth. The misconception in verse 4 is clearly marked by "we considered". The beginning of verse 5 starts the truth statements, where the speaker(s) acknowledges their own transgressions. The healing is in the truth section. The peace and healing are true, even at the start of the messianic era. Therefore the Gentile kings are not the speakers, because their nations are devastated at the beginning of the messianic era.

Well, this is going outside the text of the chapter itself. Verses 11-14 describe a great mourning throughout the land. Whatever it is, it's some future event. So I guess we shall see.

Yes. Time will tell.

The cantillation marks that you mentioned, were they introduced after they added vowel marks?

It's my understanding they were always there, like musical notes for the Psalms. 

Are these in our Bibles? I haven't really noticed cantillation marks in the Psalms.

Yes many idioms are used, but do you have any other Bible verse that shows that this particular idiom "et asher" --> "regarding those whom" was used in ancient Biblical Hebrew?

I don't know. Searching the bible would be exhausting.

Understood. It's relatively easy to search for single words, but for some reason, it's a lot harder to search for pairs of words.

[greenonions]

The exact words should be "he made to be sin on our behalf". Jesus was made sin (or a sin offering, which is literally "sin" in Hebrew e.g. H4203 "khattawaw" in Leviticus 4:8 ). <-- edited to replace 8 ) emoji

As I pointed out, our Lord was falsely accused, regarded as a sinner,

he was numbered with the transgressors Isa.53:12, Mk.15:28

He wasn't one.

Yes Jesus was falsely accused, but I disagree with your conclusion that Jesus didn't carry our sins. Consider that Jesus needed to pay a price for our sins to be forgiven.

Mark 10:45 For the Son of Man also came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom
for many.”

1 Corinthians 6:20 for you were bought with a price. Therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.

Ephesians 1:7 in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

1 Peter 1:18 knowing that you were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, from the useless way of life handed down from your fathers, 19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish or spot, the blood of Christ,

Acts 20:28 Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the assembly of the Lord and God which he purchased with his own blood.

Revelation 5:9 9 They sang a new song, saying,
“You are worthy to take the book
    and to open its seals:
for you were killed,
    and bought us for God with your blood
    out of every tribe, language, people, and nation,
10 and made us kings and priests to our God,
    and we will reign on the earth.”

[journeyman]

Yes Jesus was falsely accused, but I disagree with your conclusion that Jesus didn't carry our sins.

He carried our sins by having them inflicted on himself by sinners.

Consider that Jesus needed to pay a price for our sins to be forgiven.

If a soldier dives on a bomb and saves his fellow soldiers from death, he paid the price with his own life.

Mark 10:45 For the Son of Man also came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Ransomed from death (Hos.13:14) This is God speaking. Our Creator. He doesn't pay any creditors because he owns everything.

1 Corinthians 6:20 for you were bought with a price. Therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.

Our bodies and spirits belonged to him before he sacrificed himself.

Ephesians 1:7 in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

His grace was choosing to endure the suffering sinners inflicted on him instead of destroying them.

1 Peter 1:18 knowing that you were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, from the useless way of life handed down from your fathers, 19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish or spot, the blood of Christ,

Without spot means he didn't deserve the way sinners mistreated him. We're reconciled to God by realizing the sins committed against him and repenting.

Acts 20:28 Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the assembly of the Lord and God which he purchased with his own blood.

Revelation 5:9 9 They sang a new song, saying,
“You are worthy to take the book
    and to open its seals:
for you were killed,
    and bought us for God with your blood
    out of every tribe, language, people, and nation,
10 and made us kings and priests to our God,
    and we will reign on the earth.”

Right, bought us, redeemed us. Try it this way,

 I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus. Gal.6:17

What does Paul mean by that?

[Fenris]

I think you would agree that Isaiah 11:1-4 is about the Messiah who has God's Spirit on him and he judges the nations,

The difference is that Isaiah 11 is very clearly speaking about an individual, who incidentally is not referred to as God's "servant". As an aside Isaiah 11 in the totality remains unfulfilled.

which is very similar to Isaiah 42:1, 4. God is a major figure in Isaiah, so if the Messiah is God (it is God who is judging the nations and rebuking them in Isaiah 2:4), then the Messiah is also a major figure.

There's nothing in Jewish theology or the Jewish bible that would lead me to believe that the messiah is anything other than a human being. Obviously followers of the NT have information that suggests otherwise.

1 Kings 11:12-13 Nevertheless, I will not do it in your days, for David your father’s sake; but I will tear it out of your son’s hand. However I will not tear away all the kingdom; but I will give one tribe to your son, for David my servant’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake which I have chosen.”

1 Kings 15:4 Nevertheless for David’s sake, Yahweh his God gave him a lamp in Jerusalem, to set up his son after him, and to establish Jerusalem;

2 Kings 8:19 However Yahweh would not destroy Judah, for David his servant’s sake, as he promised him to give to him a lamp for his children always.

Yeah but the context here is obviously different. It's talking about his son, Solomon. Not king Hezekiah hundreds of years hence.

1. David normally means David himself. But you allow it to mean his descendant in Ezekiel 37:24. You said it was clear in other passages that David meant his descendant, which I have tried to disprove.
2. Israel normally means Israel himself or the nation Israel. But I allow it to mean Israel's descendant in Isaiah 49:3.
3. If 2 Kings 19:34 and 2 Kings 20:6 are not about David's descendant, how does my logic differ from yours?

Because saying that the term "Israel" refers to a single descendent occurs no other place in the bible. You're making a single exception because in this one instance it first your theology. And what's more, it doesn't even fit the context of the surrounding chapters, where "Israel" is referring to the entire people. 

First, you said concerning "You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth" (Isaiah 49:6) something like the exact same phrase was used to describe Cyrus in Isaiah 45. I didn't find that exact phrase. Second, Isaiah 45:8 mentions salvation not necessarily in relation to Cyrus. Third, Isaiah 45:17 talks about everlasting salvation, which Cyrus certainly did not bring.

None of this affects the fact that the term "salvation" means something very different to a Jewish reader than to a Christian one.

Hallelujah!

Yes. Let's go back to Isaiah 53:5 again. Bringing this back from Post #66.

The speaker had misconceptions, but this is the structure of the verses:

Truth: Isaiah 53:4 Surely he has borne our sickness
Truth:     and carried our suffering;                               
Misconception: yet we considered him plagued,
Misconception:    struck by God, and afflicted.
Truth: 5 But he was pierced [from] our transgressions.
Truth:    He was crushed [from] our iniquities.
Truth: The punishment that brought our peace was on him;
Truth:    and by his wounds we are healed.
Truth: 6 All we like sheep have gone astray.
Truth:    Everyone has turned to his own way;
Truth:    and Yahweh has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

"Surely" in verse 4 indicates truth.

It indicates nothing more than what the speaker believes to be truth.

The misconception in verse 4 is clearly marked by "we considered". The beginning of verse 5 starts the truth statements, where the speaker(s) acknowledges their own transgressions. The healing is in the truth section.

No, it doesn't. It's the same speaker sharing their feelings which may or may not be true. Hitler used that exact term- he said to exterminate the Jews would "heal Germany" (I don't have the exact quote, I will find it later).

Are these in our Bibles? I haven't really noticed cantillation marks in the Psalms.

They're not even in their original language.

[greenonions]

Yes Jesus was falsely accused, but I disagree with your conclusion that Jesus didn't carry our sins.

He carried our sins by having them inflicted on himself by sinners.

I disagree with your conclusion that Jesus didn't take responsibility for our sins.

Consider that Jesus needed to pay a price for our sins to be forgiven.

If a soldier dives on a bomb and saves his fellow soldiers from death, he paid the price with his own life.

Mark 10:45 For the Son of Man also came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Ransomed from death (Hos.13:14) This is God speaking. Our Creator. He doesn't pay any creditors because he owns everything.

Exodus 13:13 uses the word translated ransom in Hosea 13:14 (H6299), and translates it redeem.
Every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem [H6299] with a lamb; and if you will not redeem it, then you shall break its neck; and you shall redeem all the firstborn of man among your sons.

Sometimes the word ransom definitely refers to paying a price. Other times a price does not seem necessary. God does not pay creditors because he owns everything -- but He can pay Himself.

1 Corinthians 6:20 for you were bought with a price. Therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.

Our bodies and spirits belonged to him before he sacrificed himself.

Yes, we belonged to him before he sacrificed himself, so we doubly belong to him. God still paid a price. It can be a dive bomb example, but it's not free.

Ephesians 1:7 in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

His grace was choosing to endure the suffering sinners inflicted on him instead of destroying them.

This verse equates "redemption through his blood" with "the forgiveness of our trespasses".

1 Peter 1:18 knowing that you were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, from the useless way of life handed down from your fathers, 19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish or spot, the blood of Christ,

Without spot means he didn't deserve the way sinners mistreated him. We're reconciled to God by realizing the sins committed against him and repenting.

A lamb without blemish or spot was one that had no defect, and was fit for being offered as a sacrifice (e.g. Leviticus 1:10). So yes, being without spot means Jesus didn't deserve mistreatment or punishment. But again, the blood of Christ is a payment that is compared with silver and gold.

Acts 20:28 Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the assembly of the Lord and God which he purchased with his own blood.

Revelation 5:9 9 They sang a new song, saying,
“You are worthy to take the book
    and to open its seals:
for you were killed,
    and bought us for God with your blood
    out of every tribe, language, people, and nation,
10 and made us kings and priests to our God,
    and we will reign on the earth.”

Right, bought us, redeemed us.

Right.

Try it this way,

 I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus. Gal.6:17

What does Paul mean by that?

Paul compared himself with the people who wanted people to be circumcised. The false teachers didn't want to be persecuted. Paul, on the other hand, suffered for Jesus' sake.

Galatians 6:12 As many as desire to make a good impression in the flesh compel you to be circumcised; just so they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.

------
More than just paying a price, Jesus was offered as a guilt offering.

Isaiah 53:10 WEB Yet it pleased Yahweh to bruise him.
    He has caused him to suffer.
When you make his soul an offering for sin,
    he will see his offspring.
He will prolong his days
    and Yahweh’s pleasure will prosper in his hand.

[greenonions]

I think you would agree that Isaiah 11:1-4 is about the Messiah who has God's Spirit on him and he judges the nations,

The difference is that Isaiah 11 is very clearly speaking about an individual, who incidentally is not referred to as God's "servant". As an aside Isaiah 11 in the totality remains unfulfilled.

Yes, the shoot from the stock of Jesse sounds like a descendant of Jesse, and is not called a servant in Isaiah 11. I think Spirit is already on him just as the servant had the Spirit in Isaiah 42:1, but the rest of the chapter remains future.

which is very similar to Isaiah 42:1, 4. God is a major figure in Isaiah, so if the Messiah is God (it is God who is judging the nations and rebuking them in Isaiah 2:4), then the Messiah is also a major figure.

There's nothing in Jewish theology or the Jewish bible that would lead me to believe that the messiah is anything other than a human being. Obviously followers of the NT have information that suggests otherwise.

Compare the branch in Isaiah 11:1 with Jeremiah 23:5. What is his name?

Jeremiah 23:5 “Behold, the days come,” says Yahweh,
    “that I will raise to David a righteous Branch,
and he will reign as king and deal wisely,
    and will execute justice and righteousness in the land.
6 In his days Judah will be saved,
    and Israel will dwell safely.
This is his name by which he will be called:
    Yahweh our righteousness.

What does it mean to sit at God's right hand?

Psalm 110:1 Yahweh says to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand,
    until I make your enemies your footstool for your feet.”

Compare the usage of the words "high and lifted up":

Isaiah 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple.

Isaiah 52:13 Behold, my servant will deal wisely.
    He will be exalted and lifted up,
    and will be very high.

Who is the Psalmist addressing as "you"?

Psalm 45:6 Your throne, God, is forever and ever.
    A scepter of equity is the scepter of your kingdom.
7 You have loved righteousness, and hated wickedness.
    Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.

1 Kings 11:12-13 Nevertheless, I will not do it in your days, for David your father’s sake; but I will tear it out of your son’s hand. However I will not tear away all the kingdom; but I will give one tribe to your son, for David my servant’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake which I have chosen.”

1 Kings 15:4 Nevertheless for David’s sake, Yahweh his God gave him a lamp in Jerusalem, to set up his son after him, and to establish Jerusalem;

2 Kings 8:19 However Yahweh would not destroy Judah, for David his servant’s sake, as he promised him to give to him a lamp for his children always.

Yeah but the context here is obviously different. It's talking about his son, Solomon. Not king Hezekiah hundreds of years hence.

1 Kings 11:12-13 is about David's son, Solomon.
1 Kings 15:4 is about Abijam, not Solomon, and the context in 1 Kings 15:3 talks about his father David.
2 Kings 8:19 is about Jehoram, who also lived more than 100 years after David.

2 Kings 20:6 I will add to your days fifteen years. I will deliver you and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city for my own sake, and for my servant David’s sake.

You = Hezekiah. God didn't clearly say I will defend this city for your sake.

1. David normally means David himself. But you allow it to mean his descendant in Ezekiel 37:24. You said it was clear in other passages that David meant his descendant, which I have tried to disprove.
2. Israel normally means Israel himself or the nation Israel. But I allow it to mean Israel's descendant in Isaiah 49:3.
3. If 2 Kings 19:34 and 2 Kings 20:6 are not about David's descendant, how does my logic differ from yours?

Because saying that the term "Israel" refers to a single descendent occurs no other place in the bible. You're making a single exception because in this one instance it first your theology. And what's more, it doesn't even fit the context of the surrounding chapters, where "Israel" is referring to the entire people. 

The context of the surrounding verses (Isaiah 49:5-6) strongly suggests someone other than national Israel. The servant was named while still in his mother in Isaiah 49:1. Jacob was named after he was born. Jesus was given His name by the angel before He was born.

In fact, there is someone else mentioned in Isaiah named Israel.

Isaiah 44:3 YLT For I pour waters on a thirsty one, And floods on a dry land, I pour My Spirit on thy seed, And My blessing on thine offspring.
4 And they have sprung up as among grass, As willows by streams of water.
5 This [one] saith, For Jehovah I [am], And this calleth [himself] by the name of Jacob, And this [one] writeth [with] his hand, `For Jehovah,' and by the name of Israel surnameth himself.

First, you said concerning "You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth" (Isaiah 49:6) something like the exact same phrase was used to describe Cyrus in Isaiah 45. I didn't find that exact phrase. Second, Isaiah 45:8 mentions salvation not necessarily in relation to Cyrus. Third, Isaiah 45:17 talks about everlasting salvation, which Cyrus certainly did not bring.

None of this affects the fact that the term "salvation" means something very different to a Jewish reader than to a Christian one.

The Christian view of salvation begins with the forgiveness of sins, but ultimately the Christian is saved from God's wrath at the end of the age.

Yes. Let's go back to Isaiah 53:5 again. Bringing this back from Post #66.

The speaker had misconceptions, but this is the structure of the verses:

Truth: Isaiah 53:4 Surely he has borne our sickness
Truth:     and carried our suffering;                               
Misconception: yet we considered him plagued,
Misconception:    struck by God, and afflicted.
Truth: 5 But he was pierced [from] our transgressions.
Truth:    He was crushed [from] our iniquities.
Truth: The punishment that brought our peace was on him;
Truth:    and by his wounds we are healed.
Truth: 6 All we like sheep have gone astray.
Truth:    Everyone has turned to his own way;
Truth:    and Yahweh has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

"Surely" in verse 4 indicates truth.

It indicates nothing more than what the speaker believes to be truth.

The misconception in verse 4 is clearly marked by "we considered". The beginning of verse 5 starts the truth statements, where the speaker(s) acknowledges their own transgressions. The healing is in the truth section.

No, it doesn't. It's the same speaker sharing their feelings which may or may not be true. Hitler used that exact term- he said to exterminate the Jews would "heal Germany" (I don't have the exact quote, I will find it later).

So you think the speaker is still using the language of his first preconceptions when describing what happened.

---
Let me copy from post #65 with a little editing

I think you would agree that Isaiah 53:1-11a is spoken by a different speaker than Isaiah 53:11b-12, that talks about "my" servant again. The last 1.5 verses seem to be a recap of the main points mentioned earlier in Isaiah 53:1-11a.

Examples similarities in recap:
1) verse 4 (borne our sickness, carried our suffering) --> verse 11b (bear their iniquities), verse 12 (bore the sins of many)
2) verse 8 (cut off out of the land of the living) --> verse 12 (poured out his soul to death)
3) verse 6 (Yahweh has laid on him the iniquity of us all, where "laid" is a Hebrew word similar to intercede) --> verse 12 (made intercession for the transgressors).

I want to focus on the second half of Isaiah 53:11

My righteous servant will justify many by the knowledge of himself;
    and he will bear their iniquities.

1) The servant is righteous. That's something that Isaiah would not attribute to himself or to his people

Isaiah 64:6 For we have all become like one who is unclean,
    and all our righteousness is like a polluted garment.
We all fade like a leaf;
    and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

Though Balaam's prophecy shows God's view of Israel too:

Numbers 23:21 He has not seen iniquity in Jacob. Neither has he seen perverseness in Israel. Yahweh his God is with him. The shout of a king is among them.

2) Other people will be justified, or declared righteous. So not just the servant, but other people too. Other people will become more righteous than Isaiah's people were in Isaiah 64:6.

3) The servant bears the iniquities of the #2 people who were justified. These iniquities belong to the #2 people who are justified. If the #2 people were just because they didn't commit iniquity, the servant would have no iniquities to bear. If however, the #2 people were just BECAUSE the servant took away their iniquities, then we have vicarious atonement.

See also Lamentations 5:7 as an example where bearing iniquities means to suffer the consequences of someone else's sins, and not suffering from sins directed towards them.

Lamentations 5:7 Our fathers sinned, and are no more. We have borne their iniquities.

4) If Verse 11b is about vicarious atonement and is part of a recap of Verse 1-11a, then Verses 4-6 also describe vicarious atonement. (Even if Verse 5 means "from" our transgressions, the substitute sin bearer can still suffer "from" our transgressions)

Are these in our Bibles? I haven't really noticed cantillation marks in the Psalms.

They're not even in their original language.

So they are only in ancient manuscripts?

----
I thought of something else regarding Zechariah 12:10

Zechariah 12:10 I will pour on David’s house, and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they will look to me whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son, and will grieve bitterly for him, as one grieves for his firstborn.

Notice that they are mourning for someone who is in the singular.