Isaiah 53-66

This continues much of the same themes of the rest of Isaiah. It discusses God's redemption of Zion and anger towards sin. Some of the literal predictions of the redemption of Zion seem to have already come about (people living to 100, people living in the homes that they build, etc...) while others have not (lions eating straw).

Again, major difficulty is how literal we should interpret it. Some things are clearly metaphorical, for instance, the sun will never set and the moon will never disappear. On one hand, at the height of the British empire, it was said that the sun never set on it because it was worldwide. However, the lunar cycle requires it to disappear during the New Moon.

Likewise, during the discussion of how dangerous creatures will no longer be violent, it makes the statements that vipers will eat dirt. Snakes already appear to do this, although they are tasting the air as a sensory organ. Given the context, it reminds me of the signs of the spirit that Jesus describes, in that poisonous snakes will not harm those with Christ's spirit. The only example of such an occurrence was when the viper bit Paul on Malta.

Anyway, may point is that in reading Isaiah, we can see the events it is describing in the post-Christ era as already occurring or not, but it depends on if we interpret we literally or figuratively.

One stand out chapter is Isaiah 53. This chapter is frequently associated as a prediction of Christ and to a large extent, it fits. However, I think some details of the chapter are overlooked in an effort to associate this with Christ.

The main thing is that the passage is written in the past tense, not the future tense. If it is a prediction of a future event, the past tense feels inappropriate. That said, if Isaiah was speaking of something in the past, he would just specify the name of the person and provide a contextual date. The lack of which suggests it is a future event? So, why is it in the past tense? I am not sure, other than to say that to God, the lapse of time is different and it is as if events have already happened or destined to be.

Likewise, there are a few things in the chapter where one must stretch the literal interpretation slightly to the metaphorical to make it fit with Christ. Notably, this man of Isaiah 53 did not (past tense, as noted) open his mouth during his execution. (v. 7) Well, we know that Christ said a few things, but he did not say much. If we interpret the verse to mean it literally, it is not Christ, but if we accept a slightly figurative interpretation of just generally protesting the execution, then we can match it with Christ.

Likewise, verse 10 states that the man of Isaiah 53 will have many descendants. Jesus is not recorded as having been a father. Taken literally and if this is Christ, that actually gives some credence to the theories of Da Vinci Code, in which Christ fathered a bloodline. But if we accept a slightly figurative interpretation of "descendants" to mean "children", then we can match it with Christ as it is commonly understood among Christians that Christ is like a father to us children.

Taking a step back, we also see other familiar, almost Biblically universal themes, in this passage. In particular, the allusion and analogy of a "lamb". The man of Isaiah 53 was like a lamb to the slaughter. (v. 7). We see the mentioning of lamb throughout the Bible, from the

Passover, Old Testament restitution of sins, Lord is my Shepherd (Psalm 23), the birth of Christ in the manger with shepherds nearby, and John the Baptist exclaiming "behold the lamb of God" when he sees Christ for the first time.