Sunday, June 25, 2006

Jesus is Lord!!!

Some thoughts. I need to do more research re this. Isaiah 53:10. Yahweh is the Lord. Jesus is the Lord. Yahweh is Jesus. Jesus does not crush Himself.
Using the Studylight.org interlinear I've noticed a couple things. Could Isaiah be translated something like, "Yahweh was moved/pleased/delighted to allow Himself to be crushed and to be wounded." I want to propose that Yahweh, or the High Priest/Servant who represented/was Yahweh was the one being wounded. This lines up with the Gospel account. Isaiah 53:6, seems to say that Yahweh intercedes in our iniquity. Is this why Aaron had to be so careful when performing the atonement rites, or he would be killed? The lamb was a substitute for Aaron, if he didn't perform them correctly, did the people go after Aaron? Iniquity meaning something close to reciprocal violence, the cycle of revenge/violence. As it says somewhere else, without Him interceding no flesh would have been saved. In Isaiah 53, are we witnessing an atonement ritual. Is this what Jesus was enacting? Jesus allowed Himself to be wounded, like the servant, to bear our sins, so that his children may be prolonged/saved. Humans wounded Yahweh in both Isaiah and the Gospels, to deny this I think is to deny the reality of the text. We transfered our sins to Jesus. Jesus allowed Himself to be the recipient of our sins (the whip, the nails, the cross, our hatred). We made Jesus to be sin, and because He loved us he went along with it. It was either accept the transference of our sin to Himself, or Jesus in the end transfering that sin to another scapegoat. Jesus loved us all He could not do that. God desires mercy not sacrifice, this is plainly stated.

Rene Girard's mimetic theory (James Alison and Atonement) and Margaret Barker's work re First Temple/Day of Atonement symbolism can really provide quite a bit of insight into the text of Isaiah 53. Girardian theory and Margaret Barker's works are must reads if you want to understand Christian symbolism.

Is saying that Jesus is Yahweh scandalous?

No comments: