# Isaiah 53



## Barnpreacher (Feb 14, 2007)

I'm curious as to some of your thoughts on the language of Isaiah 53. Much of it was written in past tense, but then there are some key parts that are written in future tense. 

Obviously when Isaiah wrote this the Cross was still over 700 years away. I understand it was a Messianic prophetic passage. I'm just curious as to why you think Isaiah switched back and forth from past and future tense almost interchangeably throughout the passage.

Was it simply to show that eternally in the mind of God redemption was decreed, but yet had to be fulfilled in time? Which kind of shoots in the foot the dispensational thinking that the Cross was a Plan B, but that's a whole other .

Thoughts?


----------



## Chris (Feb 14, 2007)

> dispensational thinking that the Cross was a Plan B



I think I've seen you make reference to that on other boards......but I've never heard a dispensational preacher actually say that. 

Could you give an example of a dispensational-leaning church that officially teaches that?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 14, 2007)

Brither Ryan,
You have hit *the* most incredible passage, respecting the Covenant of Redemption. This passage is nothing more nor less than the Father's will expressed to the Son, and the promises he makes to him on the basis of what he (assuredly) fulfills. The flux of tense in the passage is indicative of the atemporal quality of this agreement; it is eternal. But Isaiah is recording it as both a past agreement, a future fulfillment, and something so certain, as to be declared successful in its accomplishment before the Mediator even appears in the flesh.

Thomas Goodwin, in his treatise "of Christ the Mediator" (Works, vol. 5) expresses this much more fully and adequately than I. Blew me away when I read it.

I quote myself from another thread: "And if you desire to see the Covenant agreement itself, begin reading in Isaiah 49, and then do not miss the stipulations of the bargain, Is. 53: the Servant shall do thus and such, and Jehovah will do thus and such."


----------



## Theoretical (Feb 14, 2007)

Chris said:


> I think I've seen you make reference to that on other boards......but I've never heard a dispensational preacher actually say that.
> 
> Could you give an example of a dispensational-leaning church that officially teaches that?


It is a necessary and logical consequence of the classic Scofieldian view that salvation of Jews in the OT was by works and the Church in the NT is a parenthetical point in history where grace by faith is the rule, but that later Israel returns to reclaim its primacy.

Modern dispensationalism often radically softens this view, and is slowly coming to a much healthier view of Israel and the Church, but this dichotomy is still there.


----------



## Herald (Feb 14, 2007)

Ryan,

Actually Isaiah begins his Messianic writing in chapter 52:13-15. He introduces Jesus' physical condition at the cross (52:14) and His kingly reign (52:15).

I see the tense changes as revealing the redemptive motif of the chapter. It is interesting that all the references to the Messiah are past tense until verses 10-12.

[bible]Isaiah 53:10-12[/bible]

The atoning work of the Messiah is complete (52:12, "Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors."), His second coming and kingly reign are yet to come.


----------



## Chris (Feb 15, 2007)

Theoretical said:


> It is a necessary and logical consequence of the classic Scofieldian view that salvation of Jews in the OT was by works and the Church in the NT is a parenthetical point in history where grace by faith is the rule, but that later Israel returns to reclaim its primacy.
> 
> Modern dispensationalism often radically softens this view, and is slowly coming to a much healthier view of Israel and the Church, but this dichotomy is still there.



Tonight at church we were discussing daily devotionals, and one member went on about his Scofield Bible. 

I just bit my tongue.  

How would you address this? (I found this via google-searching for 'dispensational plan b')

http://www.endtimes.org/dispens.html

specifically: 


> The method of salvation, justification by faith alone, never changes through the dispensations





> seeing the church as part of Plan A and not Plan B is what makes someone Dispensational



(I should mention: I live in a dispensational world, amongst folks who virtually never discuss dispensationalism. I see more merit in CT, but I suppose I'm a bit Piperish in my views that both schools of thought have at least some merit)


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 15, 2007)

Jonathan Edwards, _[whoops, OK, the site says "John Edwards (1637-1716)"_ the famous Dispensationalist theologian? Surely they (at that site) must be kidding...

A very tendentious website, as if those Early church fathers would have seen Dispensationalists as their heirs? They are trying to sell this view as the doctrine of the faithful--actually present in the earliest documents of the church. Isn't it neat how there aren't any actual quotations, just vague reference that these men believed in _principles consistent with_ dispensationalism?

Also they present modern dispensationalism, and repudiate the old-line, without so much as an acknowledgment that what they state is NOT dispensationalism WAS, in fact, dispensationalism.

The church as "plan A" being dispensationalism--this is just a rewriting of dispie history. I think this site is barely honest...


----------



## Theoretical (Feb 15, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Jonathan Edwards, the famous Dispensationalist theologian? Surely they (at that site) must be kidding...


It's a different John Edwards. Look at the birth/death dates. 

He must be pretty obscure, to say the least. I still love just how small and modern that list is.


----------



## Chris (Feb 15, 2007)

Funny....I saw the name but am a bit confused...how many Jonathan Edwards were there?


----------



## Theoretical (Feb 15, 2007)

Chris said:


> Funny....I saw the name but am a bit confused...how many Jonathan Edwards were there?


At least we aren't talking about this John Edward


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 15, 2007)

Check, OK, I misread J.E. Googled him, he's an older English Calvinist divine. 
http://gospelpedlar.com/articles/Church History/veritas_info.html
Still, this cherry picking of names prior to Darby, to try and establish a more creditable theological pedigree is misleading and shameful.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Feb 15, 2007)

Thanks for your responses guys.

Rev. Bruce - That was my line of thinking, but you had a way of expressing it better. Thanks.



Isaiah 53 was already one of the dearest passages in Scripture to my heart, but seeing it in the light of the Covenant of Redemption makes it even more glorious!


----------



## jaybird0827 (Feb 16, 2007)

Ryan,

Have you heard this yet?

Christ Crucified (Isaiah 52:13-15), Sunday 02/04/2007


----------



## Barnpreacher (Feb 16, 2007)

> Originally posted by *jaybird0827*
> _Ryan,
> 
> Have you heard this yet?
> ...



Thanks Jay. I'm downloading that message as I type right now. Looking forward to it. I spend most of my time listening to Beeke's sermons on Sermon Audio, so it's always a treat when I have someone recommend me to listen to someone else. 

God bless!


----------

