Hi SteeleRedux

I agree that the author of 2nd Isaiah was not forecasting the death of Jesus when they wrote of the suffering servant. Some Christians may interpret the text that way, but I don’t think that is what Peter is arguing. Rather, Isaiah helps the church to understand Jesus’s life and death as part of a pattern of salvation history.

There are clear parallels between the events of Jesus’ life and the story of the suffering servant. Like the servant, Jesus is approved and commissioned by God, carries God’s message, faces growing opposition, does not protest or retaliate when threatened and abused, and is humiliated and killed. This apparent defeat is mistakenly read as a sign of failure and of God’s disapproval, but paradoxically it is actually through suffering and persecution that his mission of reconciling people to God is achieved. He is vindicated, and his mission revealed as a success. These similarities led the early church to interpret parts of Jesus’ story through the lens of Isaiah.

So while Isaiah almost certainly did not have Jesus in mind when he wrote of the suffering servant, the New Testament’s writers may well have had the suffering servant in mind when they wrote of Jesus. Perhaps the closest parallel is in 1 Peter 2:22-25 which seems closely patterned on Isaiah 53.

Dear Rhian,

You put: "There are clear parallels between the events of Jesus’ life and the story of the suffering servant. Like the servant, Jesus is approved and commissioned by God, carries God’s message, faces growing opposition, does not protest or retaliate when threatened and abused, and is humiliated and killed."

Indeed, but that could be said of more than one of the prophets. Amos for example was said to have been felled by a club by the son of the king and took two days to die, all this after being exiled.

The suffering martyr is a potent but well worn thread of the biblical literature.

And I agree: "the New Testament’s writers may well have had the suffering servant in mind when they wrote of Jesus" more so in the later works and gospels. The suffering of characters like Job and Abraham are also relatable.

It really is damn fine literature isn't it.

Posted by david f, Thursday, 26 May 2022 3:01:12 PM, who writes: "My daughter attends a Buddhist Sangha every week. They do not mention God as that is not a concept recognized in their faith."

And my question prompted by the last word of your assertion quoted immediately above: "where might an interested reader find the faith element in your daughter's adherence?"

I know little to nothing of Buddhism as a formula for living one's life in order to attain perfect enlightenment and peace but was surprised by your choice of word to describe such an experience as a faith-based concept.

Rephrasing the question I asked: Was your descriptive an ill-considered mistake or is there a significant faith component in Buddhism?

Could this quote: "....the Mahayana (the Great Way), which held that the Buddha was more than a great spiritual teacher but also a savior god. It was believed that he had appeared in perfect human form to relieve suffering with the message that, by performing good deeds and maintaining sincere faith, everyone could reach nirvana through means less strict and arduous than in Theravada"
<https://factsanddetails.com/world/cat55/sub355/item1336.html> figure in your reply? I confess to becoming so interested in this issue that I sought answers for myself.

Dear Pogi,

There are different schools of Buddhism. There is no predominant one. Those who recognise Buddha as analogous to a God are a minority. I feel that is Buddhism corrupted by a western view, but that is just my opinion. I feel that Christianity with a God made flesh is a corruption of Judaism, but that is also my opinion.

Regarding the multiplicity of faiths I agree with the wise Hindu, Vinoba Bhave. He advised one who is dissatisfied with one's faith to look deeper in it rather than look for meaning in other traditions. If one cannot find it there it is nowhere. I believe it is nowhere.

The problem of Spinoza's god is it doesn't have a human or cultural face. God as a representation of divine humanity surely needs one. The same for rulers- people need something to aspire to. This is one reason for the greatness of the Queen.

Don't forget that man made God in his own image.
David