H J Cadbury
2021年11月13日Register here: http://gg.gg/wuvs1
A selection of nine delicious Cadbury milk chocolates - salted caramel charm, truffle heart, fudge duet, perfect praline, strawberry temptation and caramel softy. Milk Tray with a new more special look and feel makes a great gift for all occasions. If you would like this in a Cadbury gift box please go to our Pick ’n’ Mix service.
*Cadbury (Author) 5.0 out of 5 stars 1 rating. See all formats and editions Hide other formats and editions. Price New from Used from Hardcover ’Please retry’ $26.98. $2.99: $2.49: Paperback ’Please retry’ $22.00. $18.00: $15.20: Hardcover $26.98.
*In 2015, Kraft Foods Group Inc. Merged with the H.J. Heinz Company to form The Kraft Heinz Company, the world’s fifth-largest food and beverage company. Ever since Kraft’s acquisition of Cadbury in 2010 some analysts have predicted the Mondelez spin-off.
*Cadbury merged with J. Fry & Sons in 1919, and Schweppes in 1969, known as Cadbury Schweppes until 2008, when the American beverage business was split as Dr Pepper Snapple Group; the rights ownership of the Schweppes brand had already differed between various countries since 2006.The New Testament Use of Isaiah
James Flamming | Southwestern Journal of Theology Vol. 11 - Fall 1968
Isaiah might be called the prophet for the New Testament. Isaiah is quoted more than twice as much as any other major prophet and more than all of the minor prophets combined. Because of the abundant use that New Testament writers make of Isaiah, some have sought to attribute to Isaiah the structure and development of New Testament thought and doctrine. This is saying too much, as we shall see, for the determining factor is always the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. None the less, Isaiah served as a major source book for first century Christians, particularly in the latter part of the first century.
Isaiah and the Earliest Sermons
The earliest glimpse available to the thought and practice of the first century church is to be found in its preaching (kerygma). Of special interest are the sermons found in Acts 1-10. Whether or not these sermons should be used as material for rebuilding the kerygma of the early church, has been questioned by some. Dibelius, for example, sees them as compositions pieced together by the author of Acts and scarcely deserving a first rate historical designation. Bultmann is also skeptical of using the sermons as material for rebuilding the kerygma of the early church. Certain others feel that Luke assumed the stance of an ancient historian (e.g., Thucydides), to tell part of his narrative by means of speeches put into the mouths of the chief actors. However, Aramaic scholars have contended for a long time that these early Acts passages are a translation of an earlier Aramaic document. Dodd, Richardson, F. F. Bruce, F. C. Grant, and Eduard Schweitzer consider that this point has been proven. F. F. Bruce suggests that Luke may have picked up these sources (whether oral or written) during his journey to Jerusalem with Paul in A.D. 57 (Acts 21:15). Richardson adds to the intrigue by surmising that some of these sermons could be from early sermon notes from the first Christian preachers. Certainly Luke never heard Peter on the day of Pentecost, nor when he addressed the Jewish ruler, nor Cornelius, nor was he present when Stephen defended himself before the Sanhedrin, nor when Paul preached at Athens (cf. I Thess. 3:1). It would seem that the abundant evidence is that Luke did obtain condensed sermon notes from an Aramaic source and translated these as literally as possible into the Geek. The Greek translation of these passages is quite rough and uncharacteristic of the Lukan style.
The foregoing discussion is important for two reasons. The first is that these early sermons, unlike most of the rest of the New Testament, do not use Isaiah to any appreciable degree for either textual or footnote purposes. The only certain reference to any passage from Isaiah in Peter’s five sermons is the reference to Jesus as the “servant of God” (Pais, Acts 3:13, 4.27; Isa. 41:8, 52: 13). Another possible reference is in Acts 2:39 referring to the promise to Israel (Isa. 57:19). The scarcity of Isaiah usage is not what we would expect nor is it comparable with the use of Isaiah in most of the rest of the New Testament. In Stephen’s apology in Acts 7, only one use of Isaiah is made. It does not refer to Christ but to Isaiah’s doctrine of the transcendence of God (cf. Acts 7:49, 50; Isa. 66: 1, 2).
Even a cursory analysis of these sermons will reveal that their content is made up of the recent happenings centering in and around Jesus Christ. The climactic event in each of these sermons is the resurrection. There had not been at this point any effort to relate the death of Christ to any Old Testament passage, not even Isaiah 53. In these sermons, the resurrection is the foundation for the great “good news” of the gospel. Such an investigation as we have here undertaken, would concur with the conclusion of C.F.D. Moule.
When it is claimed that whole sections . . . were spun out of Old Testament material, this is far out-running the evidence. In the main, the evidence points to the Gospel events as the controlling and decisive factor to which the Old Testament material is almost always subordinate. What this seems to indicate is that the earliest preachers of the New Testament era did not pick a text from the Old Testament and interpret this in the light of the Christ event. The closest thing to this is Stephen’s sermon in Acts 7. The ignition of the evangelistic message of these preachers was not caught by correlative glimpses of Old Testament insight. They were instead alive with what they had seen, heard, and felt of the Lord Christ. Some have felt that I John is indeed a reworked first century sermon. This has much to commend it. If indeed it is, its introduction is a germane footnote to this discussion.
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us.
A second matter is worth mentioning. Luke, as we shall see later, is very fond of Isaiah, particularly his passages on what we might call social concern or mission action. In Luke Acts there are over thirty solid references to Isaiah. The only other content section in Luke’s writings which use few references to Isaiah, is the great central section of Luke (Luke 13-18:14). What this may indicate is that in both the Acts sermons and in the great central section in Luke, the Physician was following his sources with little editorial handling. For both the central section of Luke, which includes those parables and teachings of Jesus unique in Luke’s gospel, and in the Acts sermons, occasion would present itself for Luke to footnote with Isaiah as did Matthew in his gospel (i.e., Matt. 4:12-16; Isa. 9:1, 2). If this reasoning is correct, further evidence is given to the authenticity of the brief but early sermons that Luke lists in Acts.
Isaiah During the Controversial Period
The exciting preaching of the apostles plus the early success which it enjoyed brought certain and early controversy. It is out of this controversy noted in Acts 15 for example, that extensive use of Old Testament passages began. We may assume that such debates were widespread and occurred much earlier than the Acts conference. Indeed, any place one picks to enter the missionary journeys of Paul, he is thrust into the melieu of controversy and debate with the Jews. Controversy about the Sabbath law, about diet, about circumcision, about leprosy laws, about the person and work of the Messiah, would have come early in the history of the first century church. In the midst of this pressure from the outside, the early church found itself doing two things. First, it quite naturally began to recall and recite traditions it had heard from the eyewitnesses to Jesus’ teaching on these matters. Christians, living in Jewish ghettos with non-Christian Jews, would need these teachings
of Jesus to defend themselves. Second, the Christians began to draw upon the Old Testament to substantiate their position. Thus it is not difficult to see how the New Testament came to be hammered out in the midst of controversy, and in the midst of such controversy, drew from respected and revered Old Testament passages. For example, when Luke did the research for his gospel (Luke 1:1-4), he already had behind him a considerable amount of Christian teaching and writing (tracts?) plus Old Testament footnoting, from which he could draw to write his gospel.
Slots machine games for free panther. It is at this controversial state of New Testament development that the use of the Old Testament, and particularly Isaiah, began to lend its weight. An example of this can be found in the matter concerning the Jewish problem, i.e. their rejection of the gospel, and the questions surrounding their subsequent salvation. In one way or another, almost every writer in the New Testament dealt with this problem. Paul’s treatment of the issue may illustrate how Isaiah was used to undergird the argument. Paul began by pointing out that rejection had been part of the pattern of the Jews from the beginning. He quoted a much used passage from Isaiah for support (cf. Matt. 13:14- 15; Mk. 4:12; Luke 8:10; Acts 28:26).
Hear and hear, but do not understand; see and see, but do not perceive. Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.
Why have the Jews rejected? Paul’s answer was because they did not pursue a relationship to God based upon faith, but rather were content with one based upon works (Rom. 9:32). For this reason they have stumbled over the stumbling stone of Isaiah’s prophecy.
Therefore thus says the Lord God, Behold, I am laying in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation: He who believes will not be in haste.
And he will become a sanctuary, and a stone of offense, and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
But why should God in his great wisdom have included the Gentiles in his mercy? Paul found his answer in Isaiah 65:1 (Rom. 10:20).
“Here am I, here am I, to a nation that did not call on my name.”
Besides, will a man get into the position of questioning the creator?
You tum things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay; that the thing made should say of its maker, “He did not make me”; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, “He has no understanding”?
Is there then no hope at all for God’s own people, Israel? Indeed there is. At this point Paul drew upon the prophetic doctrine of the remnant.
And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved; for the Lord will execute his sentence upon the earth with vigor and dispatch.” And as Isaiah predicted, “If the Lord of hosts had not left us children, we would have fared like Sodom and been made like Gomorrah.”
Lest the Gentiles in the church at Rome begin to be wise in their own conceit Paul turned to remove any basis for gentile supremacy. All Israel will be saved (Rom. 11:26), and he found the basis for this promise in Isaiah (Isa. 59:20, 21; Isa: 27:9). In fact, their present disobedience is to be used by God until “the full number of the Gentiles come in” (Rom. 11:25). By this time, Paul must have realized that his readers would be in some very deep water (and all subsequent readers!), and so he tied it all together in the mysterious workings of the mind of God.
Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord, or as his counselor has instructed him? Whom did he consult for his enlightenment, and who taught him the path of justice, and taught him knowledge, and showed him the way of understanding?
Not all of the Isaiah passages in these three chapters have been noted. But enough have been pointed out to establish the great use that the early Christians made of Isaiah in the midst of Jewish controversy. And since Isaiah is such a many faceted book, and because of its prestige in the eyes of the Jewish people, it was used for varied arguments and debates. Paul seems to have used Isaiah somewhat more than others.
Hebrews, for example, stands as an example of an entire book devoted to the Jewish problem. While the writer of Hebrews drew heavily from the Old Testament, there are only three certain references to Isaiah, and none of them from later Isaiah. Nevertheless, we may conclude with certainty that the early Christians found frequent use of Isaiah in their controversial and apologetic endeavors.H J Cadbury Company
Isaiah in the Gospels
Investigation into the Evangelists’ use of Isaiah is of great interest not only because of the over one hundred times the prophet’s themes are quoted or reflected (the exact number depending upon one’s judgment of Isaiah as being the only source), but also because of the variety of ways in which the prophet is used.
A. In the Teachings of Jesus
Jesus’ familiarity with and use of Isaiah is reflected both in the number of times he used the prophet in his teachings, and in the sources which reflect these uses. Although source scholarship does not enjoy the popularity it once enjoyed, sources were used by the writers as indicated by Luke in his introduction (Luke 1:1-4). A general knowledge of these sources is helpful to our purpose inasmuch as it shows the consistency with which Isaiah permeates Jesus’ teachings.
Jesus depends upon Isaiah as revealed by Matthew and Luke in the so-called Q source. This material, which Matthew and Luke had in common but which is not found in Mark, is early, its latest possible date around A.D. 60.
Three instances may be found which reflect the direct influence of Isaiah upon Jesus’ teachings in this early source.
Q Isaiah Incident
Matt. 5:4 51:2, 3 The Great Sermon
Luke 6:21
Luke 10:21 29:14 “I thank thee father…”
Matt. 11:25-7 19:12 A prayer of praise after the successful mission effort of the disciples into the towns of Galilee.
Matt. 11:21-3 14:13-15 Woes on the cities for their unbelief
Luke 10:13-15 23:1-8
Turning to another source, what influence does Isaiah seem to reflect in those passages unique to Matthew? The influence seems less direct but nonetheless important. The positions Jesus took were certainly expressed centuries earlier by the prophet.
Matthew Isaiah Incident
6:6 26:20 Sermon on the Mount
Teaching on Prayer
6:16 58:5 Sermon on the Mount
Teaching on Fasting
5:34 66:1 Sermon on the Mount
Teaching on Oaths
25:35, 36 58:7 Parable of Sheep and Goats
Matthew used Isaiah more extensively in an explicit way than any of the other Evangelists. The above instances are only from the material peculiar to his Gospel.
Of the sources used by Matthew and Luke, Mark is the most certain because we have it in hand. What influence from Isaiah can be seen here used in the teachings of Jesus? Four instances may serve as examples, three of which are used by both Matthew and Luke in their Gospels, and one only by Matthew.
Mark Isaiah Incident
Mark 12:1-12 5:1, 2 Parable of the Unfaithful Husbandmen in the Vineyard
(Matt. 21:33-46)
(Luke 20:9-19)
Mark 4:12 6:9, 10 On the purpose of parables and hardness of heart
(Matt. 13:13)
(Luke 8:10)
Mark 7:6, 7 29:13 On hardness of heart
(Matt. 15:8, 9)
Mark 8:31 53 Jesus foretells his death
(Matt. 16:21)
(Luke 9:22)
Of the more identifiable sources used by the Evangelists, only Luke’s unique material remains. This is the only source which bears no reflection of Isaiah. Such a fact is surprising, since Luke is most fond of Isaiah. However, his fondness is more thematic than supportive, or to put it another way, he does not often use Isaiah as a proof-text as does Matthew. Perhaps the absence of Isaiah’s reflection may be explained by the largely parabolic nature of the material (cf. Luke 13:1-18:14). Whatever the reason, it has its benefit. No one can claim that Jesus’ teachings are simply Isaiah reworked, for some of Christ’s greatest teachings are in this section.
The reason for breaking apart the Isaiah influence upon Jesus’ teachings into the sources is to better understand the process whereby Isaiah became the most quoted prophet in the New Testament, and to suggest the importance Isaiah had for Jesus himself. Canon Crum is quoted by Vincent Taylor as suggesting such importance.
If two independent and authentic accounts have come to us from the first generation of Christianity, we are like men who can focus what they see with both their eyes. We see what we see from two slightly different angles. The story stands out in new perspective.
What we see, then, is that Jesus was comfortable with and found support in Isaiah. Is it any wonder then that His church should follow His example?
B. In the Work of the Evangelists
All four gospels use Isaiah, Matthew the most explicitly, and John the most implicitly. As one might expect, the longest Gospel, Matthew, contains the most Isaiah material, and the shortest Gospel, Mark, the least. But the story does not stop with the enumeration of their usage. Matthew and Mark use Isaiah in a supportive way, that is to support the life, teachings, and work of Christ by prophetic referent. John and Luke, on the other hand, use Isaiah as a theological base, Luke to show the work of Christ, and John to show the person of Christ.
The most obvious use of Isaiah is made by Matthew. It is interesting to note that Goodspeed begins his little book on Matthew with a section entitled, “Isaiah in Matthew.” Matthew’s purpose was to show how the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus exactly fulfilled the prophetic utterances of the Old Testament.
Matthew did not work Isaiah into the narrative so that it read smoothly with comfortable style, as Luke occasionally did (i.e. Luke 4: 16-19). Instead he introduced most of his correlations with statements like, “as it is written in the prophet Isaiah.” The first Evangelist used all of the Isaiah passages from Mark excepting those which were spoken by unbelievers (cf. Mark 2:7; 12:32). The difference between Mark and Matthew may thus be seen. Mark used Isaiah because Jesus used Isaiah. But Matthew does not stop with the teachings. From his own study he footnotes the life of Christ using Isaiah at every opportunity. (An exception to this is in Isaiah 53 which is a special case as we shall see later.) Below are those obvious instances mentioned above, and not quoted previously.
Matthew 1:23
“Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.”
Isaiah 7:14
Matthew 3:3
“The voice of one crying in the wildern
https://diarynote.indered.space
A selection of nine delicious Cadbury milk chocolates - salted caramel charm, truffle heart, fudge duet, perfect praline, strawberry temptation and caramel softy. Milk Tray with a new more special look and feel makes a great gift for all occasions. If you would like this in a Cadbury gift box please go to our Pick ’n’ Mix service.
*Cadbury (Author) 5.0 out of 5 stars 1 rating. See all formats and editions Hide other formats and editions. Price New from Used from Hardcover ’Please retry’ $26.98. $2.99: $2.49: Paperback ’Please retry’ $22.00. $18.00: $15.20: Hardcover $26.98.
*In 2015, Kraft Foods Group Inc. Merged with the H.J. Heinz Company to form The Kraft Heinz Company, the world’s fifth-largest food and beverage company. Ever since Kraft’s acquisition of Cadbury in 2010 some analysts have predicted the Mondelez spin-off.
*Cadbury merged with J. Fry & Sons in 1919, and Schweppes in 1969, known as Cadbury Schweppes until 2008, when the American beverage business was split as Dr Pepper Snapple Group; the rights ownership of the Schweppes brand had already differed between various countries since 2006.The New Testament Use of Isaiah
James Flamming | Southwestern Journal of Theology Vol. 11 - Fall 1968
Isaiah might be called the prophet for the New Testament. Isaiah is quoted more than twice as much as any other major prophet and more than all of the minor prophets combined. Because of the abundant use that New Testament writers make of Isaiah, some have sought to attribute to Isaiah the structure and development of New Testament thought and doctrine. This is saying too much, as we shall see, for the determining factor is always the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. None the less, Isaiah served as a major source book for first century Christians, particularly in the latter part of the first century.
Isaiah and the Earliest Sermons
The earliest glimpse available to the thought and practice of the first century church is to be found in its preaching (kerygma). Of special interest are the sermons found in Acts 1-10. Whether or not these sermons should be used as material for rebuilding the kerygma of the early church, has been questioned by some. Dibelius, for example, sees them as compositions pieced together by the author of Acts and scarcely deserving a first rate historical designation. Bultmann is also skeptical of using the sermons as material for rebuilding the kerygma of the early church. Certain others feel that Luke assumed the stance of an ancient historian (e.g., Thucydides), to tell part of his narrative by means of speeches put into the mouths of the chief actors. However, Aramaic scholars have contended for a long time that these early Acts passages are a translation of an earlier Aramaic document. Dodd, Richardson, F. F. Bruce, F. C. Grant, and Eduard Schweitzer consider that this point has been proven. F. F. Bruce suggests that Luke may have picked up these sources (whether oral or written) during his journey to Jerusalem with Paul in A.D. 57 (Acts 21:15). Richardson adds to the intrigue by surmising that some of these sermons could be from early sermon notes from the first Christian preachers. Certainly Luke never heard Peter on the day of Pentecost, nor when he addressed the Jewish ruler, nor Cornelius, nor was he present when Stephen defended himself before the Sanhedrin, nor when Paul preached at Athens (cf. I Thess. 3:1). It would seem that the abundant evidence is that Luke did obtain condensed sermon notes from an Aramaic source and translated these as literally as possible into the Geek. The Greek translation of these passages is quite rough and uncharacteristic of the Lukan style.
The foregoing discussion is important for two reasons. The first is that these early sermons, unlike most of the rest of the New Testament, do not use Isaiah to any appreciable degree for either textual or footnote purposes. The only certain reference to any passage from Isaiah in Peter’s five sermons is the reference to Jesus as the “servant of God” (Pais, Acts 3:13, 4.27; Isa. 41:8, 52: 13). Another possible reference is in Acts 2:39 referring to the promise to Israel (Isa. 57:19). The scarcity of Isaiah usage is not what we would expect nor is it comparable with the use of Isaiah in most of the rest of the New Testament. In Stephen’s apology in Acts 7, only one use of Isaiah is made. It does not refer to Christ but to Isaiah’s doctrine of the transcendence of God (cf. Acts 7:49, 50; Isa. 66: 1, 2).
Even a cursory analysis of these sermons will reveal that their content is made up of the recent happenings centering in and around Jesus Christ. The climactic event in each of these sermons is the resurrection. There had not been at this point any effort to relate the death of Christ to any Old Testament passage, not even Isaiah 53. In these sermons, the resurrection is the foundation for the great “good news” of the gospel. Such an investigation as we have here undertaken, would concur with the conclusion of C.F.D. Moule.
When it is claimed that whole sections . . . were spun out of Old Testament material, this is far out-running the evidence. In the main, the evidence points to the Gospel events as the controlling and decisive factor to which the Old Testament material is almost always subordinate. What this seems to indicate is that the earliest preachers of the New Testament era did not pick a text from the Old Testament and interpret this in the light of the Christ event. The closest thing to this is Stephen’s sermon in Acts 7. The ignition of the evangelistic message of these preachers was not caught by correlative glimpses of Old Testament insight. They were instead alive with what they had seen, heard, and felt of the Lord Christ. Some have felt that I John is indeed a reworked first century sermon. This has much to commend it. If indeed it is, its introduction is a germane footnote to this discussion.
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us.
A second matter is worth mentioning. Luke, as we shall see later, is very fond of Isaiah, particularly his passages on what we might call social concern or mission action. In Luke Acts there are over thirty solid references to Isaiah. The only other content section in Luke’s writings which use few references to Isaiah, is the great central section of Luke (Luke 13-18:14). What this may indicate is that in both the Acts sermons and in the great central section in Luke, the Physician was following his sources with little editorial handling. For both the central section of Luke, which includes those parables and teachings of Jesus unique in Luke’s gospel, and in the Acts sermons, occasion would present itself for Luke to footnote with Isaiah as did Matthew in his gospel (i.e., Matt. 4:12-16; Isa. 9:1, 2). If this reasoning is correct, further evidence is given to the authenticity of the brief but early sermons that Luke lists in Acts.
Isaiah During the Controversial Period
The exciting preaching of the apostles plus the early success which it enjoyed brought certain and early controversy. It is out of this controversy noted in Acts 15 for example, that extensive use of Old Testament passages began. We may assume that such debates were widespread and occurred much earlier than the Acts conference. Indeed, any place one picks to enter the missionary journeys of Paul, he is thrust into the melieu of controversy and debate with the Jews. Controversy about the Sabbath law, about diet, about circumcision, about leprosy laws, about the person and work of the Messiah, would have come early in the history of the first century church. In the midst of this pressure from the outside, the early church found itself doing two things. First, it quite naturally began to recall and recite traditions it had heard from the eyewitnesses to Jesus’ teaching on these matters. Christians, living in Jewish ghettos with non-Christian Jews, would need these teachings
of Jesus to defend themselves. Second, the Christians began to draw upon the Old Testament to substantiate their position. Thus it is not difficult to see how the New Testament came to be hammered out in the midst of controversy, and in the midst of such controversy, drew from respected and revered Old Testament passages. For example, when Luke did the research for his gospel (Luke 1:1-4), he already had behind him a considerable amount of Christian teaching and writing (tracts?) plus Old Testament footnoting, from which he could draw to write his gospel.
Slots machine games for free panther. It is at this controversial state of New Testament development that the use of the Old Testament, and particularly Isaiah, began to lend its weight. An example of this can be found in the matter concerning the Jewish problem, i.e. their rejection of the gospel, and the questions surrounding their subsequent salvation. In one way or another, almost every writer in the New Testament dealt with this problem. Paul’s treatment of the issue may illustrate how Isaiah was used to undergird the argument. Paul began by pointing out that rejection had been part of the pattern of the Jews from the beginning. He quoted a much used passage from Isaiah for support (cf. Matt. 13:14- 15; Mk. 4:12; Luke 8:10; Acts 28:26).
Hear and hear, but do not understand; see and see, but do not perceive. Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.
Why have the Jews rejected? Paul’s answer was because they did not pursue a relationship to God based upon faith, but rather were content with one based upon works (Rom. 9:32). For this reason they have stumbled over the stumbling stone of Isaiah’s prophecy.
Therefore thus says the Lord God, Behold, I am laying in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation: He who believes will not be in haste.
And he will become a sanctuary, and a stone of offense, and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
But why should God in his great wisdom have included the Gentiles in his mercy? Paul found his answer in Isaiah 65:1 (Rom. 10:20).
“Here am I, here am I, to a nation that did not call on my name.”
Besides, will a man get into the position of questioning the creator?
You tum things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay; that the thing made should say of its maker, “He did not make me”; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, “He has no understanding”?
Is there then no hope at all for God’s own people, Israel? Indeed there is. At this point Paul drew upon the prophetic doctrine of the remnant.
And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved; for the Lord will execute his sentence upon the earth with vigor and dispatch.” And as Isaiah predicted, “If the Lord of hosts had not left us children, we would have fared like Sodom and been made like Gomorrah.”
Lest the Gentiles in the church at Rome begin to be wise in their own conceit Paul turned to remove any basis for gentile supremacy. All Israel will be saved (Rom. 11:26), and he found the basis for this promise in Isaiah (Isa. 59:20, 21; Isa: 27:9). In fact, their present disobedience is to be used by God until “the full number of the Gentiles come in” (Rom. 11:25). By this time, Paul must have realized that his readers would be in some very deep water (and all subsequent readers!), and so he tied it all together in the mysterious workings of the mind of God.
Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord, or as his counselor has instructed him? Whom did he consult for his enlightenment, and who taught him the path of justice, and taught him knowledge, and showed him the way of understanding?
Not all of the Isaiah passages in these three chapters have been noted. But enough have been pointed out to establish the great use that the early Christians made of Isaiah in the midst of Jewish controversy. And since Isaiah is such a many faceted book, and because of its prestige in the eyes of the Jewish people, it was used for varied arguments and debates. Paul seems to have used Isaiah somewhat more than others.
Hebrews, for example, stands as an example of an entire book devoted to the Jewish problem. While the writer of Hebrews drew heavily from the Old Testament, there are only three certain references to Isaiah, and none of them from later Isaiah. Nevertheless, we may conclude with certainty that the early Christians found frequent use of Isaiah in their controversial and apologetic endeavors.H J Cadbury Company
Isaiah in the Gospels
Investigation into the Evangelists’ use of Isaiah is of great interest not only because of the over one hundred times the prophet’s themes are quoted or reflected (the exact number depending upon one’s judgment of Isaiah as being the only source), but also because of the variety of ways in which the prophet is used.
A. In the Teachings of Jesus
Jesus’ familiarity with and use of Isaiah is reflected both in the number of times he used the prophet in his teachings, and in the sources which reflect these uses. Although source scholarship does not enjoy the popularity it once enjoyed, sources were used by the writers as indicated by Luke in his introduction (Luke 1:1-4). A general knowledge of these sources is helpful to our purpose inasmuch as it shows the consistency with which Isaiah permeates Jesus’ teachings.
Jesus depends upon Isaiah as revealed by Matthew and Luke in the so-called Q source. This material, which Matthew and Luke had in common but which is not found in Mark, is early, its latest possible date around A.D. 60.
Three instances may be found which reflect the direct influence of Isaiah upon Jesus’ teachings in this early source.
Q Isaiah Incident
Matt. 5:4 51:2, 3 The Great Sermon
Luke 6:21
Luke 10:21 29:14 “I thank thee father…”
Matt. 11:25-7 19:12 A prayer of praise after the successful mission effort of the disciples into the towns of Galilee.
Matt. 11:21-3 14:13-15 Woes on the cities for their unbelief
Luke 10:13-15 23:1-8
Turning to another source, what influence does Isaiah seem to reflect in those passages unique to Matthew? The influence seems less direct but nonetheless important. The positions Jesus took were certainly expressed centuries earlier by the prophet.
Matthew Isaiah Incident
6:6 26:20 Sermon on the Mount
Teaching on Prayer
6:16 58:5 Sermon on the Mount
Teaching on Fasting
5:34 66:1 Sermon on the Mount
Teaching on Oaths
25:35, 36 58:7 Parable of Sheep and Goats
Matthew used Isaiah more extensively in an explicit way than any of the other Evangelists. The above instances are only from the material peculiar to his Gospel.
Of the sources used by Matthew and Luke, Mark is the most certain because we have it in hand. What influence from Isaiah can be seen here used in the teachings of Jesus? Four instances may serve as examples, three of which are used by both Matthew and Luke in their Gospels, and one only by Matthew.
Mark Isaiah Incident
Mark 12:1-12 5:1, 2 Parable of the Unfaithful Husbandmen in the Vineyard
(Matt. 21:33-46)
(Luke 20:9-19)
Mark 4:12 6:9, 10 On the purpose of parables and hardness of heart
(Matt. 13:13)
(Luke 8:10)
Mark 7:6, 7 29:13 On hardness of heart
(Matt. 15:8, 9)
Mark 8:31 53 Jesus foretells his death
(Matt. 16:21)
(Luke 9:22)
Of the more identifiable sources used by the Evangelists, only Luke’s unique material remains. This is the only source which bears no reflection of Isaiah. Such a fact is surprising, since Luke is most fond of Isaiah. However, his fondness is more thematic than supportive, or to put it another way, he does not often use Isaiah as a proof-text as does Matthew. Perhaps the absence of Isaiah’s reflection may be explained by the largely parabolic nature of the material (cf. Luke 13:1-18:14). Whatever the reason, it has its benefit. No one can claim that Jesus’ teachings are simply Isaiah reworked, for some of Christ’s greatest teachings are in this section.
The reason for breaking apart the Isaiah influence upon Jesus’ teachings into the sources is to better understand the process whereby Isaiah became the most quoted prophet in the New Testament, and to suggest the importance Isaiah had for Jesus himself. Canon Crum is quoted by Vincent Taylor as suggesting such importance.
If two independent and authentic accounts have come to us from the first generation of Christianity, we are like men who can focus what they see with both their eyes. We see what we see from two slightly different angles. The story stands out in new perspective.
What we see, then, is that Jesus was comfortable with and found support in Isaiah. Is it any wonder then that His church should follow His example?
B. In the Work of the Evangelists
All four gospels use Isaiah, Matthew the most explicitly, and John the most implicitly. As one might expect, the longest Gospel, Matthew, contains the most Isaiah material, and the shortest Gospel, Mark, the least. But the story does not stop with the enumeration of their usage. Matthew and Mark use Isaiah in a supportive way, that is to support the life, teachings, and work of Christ by prophetic referent. John and Luke, on the other hand, use Isaiah as a theological base, Luke to show the work of Christ, and John to show the person of Christ.
The most obvious use of Isaiah is made by Matthew. It is interesting to note that Goodspeed begins his little book on Matthew with a section entitled, “Isaiah in Matthew.” Matthew’s purpose was to show how the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus exactly fulfilled the prophetic utterances of the Old Testament.
Matthew did not work Isaiah into the narrative so that it read smoothly with comfortable style, as Luke occasionally did (i.e. Luke 4: 16-19). Instead he introduced most of his correlations with statements like, “as it is written in the prophet Isaiah.” The first Evangelist used all of the Isaiah passages from Mark excepting those which were spoken by unbelievers (cf. Mark 2:7; 12:32). The difference between Mark and Matthew may thus be seen. Mark used Isaiah because Jesus used Isaiah. But Matthew does not stop with the teachings. From his own study he footnotes the life of Christ using Isaiah at every opportunity. (An exception to this is in Isaiah 53 which is a special case as we shall see later.) Below are those obvious instances mentioned above, and not quoted previously.
Matthew 1:23
“Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.”
Isaiah 7:14
Matthew 3:3
“The voice of one crying in the wildern
https://diarynote.indered.space
コメント