לתשובת המינים1>
|
|
General Difficulties with Christian "Messianic Prophecies" Verses Cited By the Christian Bible as Messianic Prophecies
Additional Verses Cited By Christian Missionaries and Apologists Messianic Significance of the Jewish Festivals The True Messiah of the Hebrew Bible
Yirmeyahu At Teshuvas HaMinim DaughtCom
Please report any advertisements which are inappropriate to Yirmeyahu atteshuvashaminim dowt caulm.
Teshuvas HaMinim recommends (but is not affiliated with) Lev laLev Girls Orphanage in Israel |
Isaiah 8:14, 28:16Who is the Stumbling Stone?Romans 9:33, 1 Peter 2:88
"It shall be for a portent and a stone upon which to dash oneself and for a rock upon which to stumble for the two houses of Israel, who came to be for a snare and a trap fro the inhabitants of Jerusalem." (Isaiah 8:14, Judaica Press) "Therefore, thus said my Lord Hashem/Eloqim: Behold, I am laying a stone for a foundation in Zion: a sturdy stone, a precious cornerstone, a secure foundation. Let the believer not expect it soon." (28:16) These passages are cited by Peter in a passage where he discusses the Nazarene as being the "living Stone". The Nazarene is a precious cornerstone for believers but a stumbling block for unbelievers. Although some commentators, such as Rashi, understand Isaiah 28:16 as Messianic we are nevertheless confronted with the fact that the verse gives no information that would suggest that the Nazarene was the Messiah the verse spoke of. Some might wish to argue that the passage continues to speak of the "covenant with death" being annulled is a reference to the idea that the punishment for sins was removed in by the Nazarene’s suffering, the context is clear (vs.15) that it refers to the state of scoffing denial the "rulers of the people" in Jerusalem held about their own vulnerability. It is impossible to interpret the abrogation of this "covenant" as having a positive implication. Peter’s use of this verse may have been without support but we will see that his citation of Isaiah 8:14 is even more difficult. While the specifics of the passage are open for interpretation the context is clear. This passage is from Isaiah chapter eight which see discussed above as being the conclusion and true fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. It is certainly worthwhile to read the entire chapter seven and eight passages together. Rezin king of Aram conspired with Pekach king of Israel (i.e. the Northern Kingdom also known as Ephraim) to attack Judah which was ruled by the Davidic King, Achaz. God promised to King Achaz through the prophet Isaiah (who was accompanied by his son Shear-jashub at God’s command) that their conspiracy would fail and furthermore that in sixty-five more years Ephraim would be destroyed. Despite Ahaz’s disingenuous rejection of Isaiah’s instruction to ask for a sign to confirm this prophecy, God declared that the עַלמָה would have a child and that prior to the child becoming of age Rezin and Pekach would be abandoned. Furthermore Achaz is told that Judah will be spared from the attack of Assyria which would eventually lead to the downfall of the Northern Kingdom. Chapter eight begins with the prophetic naming of Isaiah’s new son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, who had been prophesied in the previous chapter. God reiterates that prior to the child being able to say father or mother, a child’s earliest words, the capitals of Israel and Aram would be plundered by Assyria. Israel was going to be "flooded" by Assyrian troops since they rejected the waters of the Shiloah (i.e. the water supply of Jerusalem, the capital of Judah, implying the kinship of the House of David). The people may "conspire" against Judah along with Rezin, but God is with (Immanu-el) Judah. God then admonishes Isaiah not to follow in the "ways of this people" (ibid 11) and not to "speak of a cabal" nor "fear what they fear" (ibid 12). Some commentators understand the people being those mentioned previously who "rejoiced with Rezin" (ibid 6) and the cabal being the conspiracy to over-through the House of David. Other commentators see the reference not being the immediate threat of Aram and Israel but the upcoming threat of Assyria. Isaiah was commanded to warn the people not to be afraid of Assyria like "this people" nor to join in their plan to surrender to them (see 2 Kings 18:28). It is here that we read, "He shall be a sanctuary, but also a striking stone and a stumbling rock, for the two houses of Israel ; a trap and a snare for the inhabitants of Jerusalem" (vs. 14).1 The "He" in this passage is God Himself.2 Those who have plotted against the House of David will fall. Nothing in this passage gives us any indication that the stumbling block should be identified as any individual. It is only when one starts with the premise that the Nazarene is God incarnate that one can conclude that it refers to him. Rather than evidence this is itself a conclusion that the passage refers to the Nazarene/Messiah but lacking supporting evidence. As if to punctuate that this had been a continuous thought Isaiah adds, "Behold, I and the children whom Hashem has given me are signs and symbols for Israel, from Hashem, Master of Legions, Who dwells in Mount Zion" (vs. 18), recalling Maher-shalal-has-baz and Shear-jashub and their prophetic names who were mentioned earlier in the account. Despite the assertion of Peter, there is no evidence to support identifying the Nazarene with the cornerstone of Isaiah 28:16. Even were we to accept the opinion of those who identify it as Messianic, the fact that the T’nakh predicts the coming of the Messiah is by no means evidence that the Nazarene is that Messiah.
1 The reference to the two "Houses of Israel" imply that this verse’s application was prior to the destruction of Israel sixty-five years after the prediction, rather than hundreds of years later. And while Rashi doesn’t understand the reference to the two house of Israel in its typical sense here, they are nevertheless contemporaneous to the prophecy. Insofar as Peter disregards the context he does not provide a plausible explanation for the reference to the two houses that fits his understanding.
2 Alternatively "he" could be rendered "it", i.e. there plot caused them to stumble. While this understanding has merit, the translation above follows the Radak and more closely resembles the understanding of, and so better highlights the fault of, the New Testaments understanding.
|