Over and over again I hear single lines from Isaiah (and Jeremiah, and Psalms, etc) taken completely out of context and used to make grand sweeping generalizations about Jesus, God, etc. or force-fit as prophesy.
Angel, I am sorry but the first chapter of Isaiah isn't God explaining details of his nature in a broad sense. Like, "By the way, that killing animal thing, not so much of that anymore okay?". Instead it is God expressing his anger at Israel for following the ritual of the Law while sinning. It is like if my child were exceptionally badly behaved one day and said "I'm sorry". I might reply "Sorry doesn't cut it little mister!". I am not saying "From now until you are 18 you are never to apologize again". I AM saying that sorry isn't going make it alright this time. God is telling the nation of Israel that their "sorry" (sacrifices, rituals, etc) simply aren't enough.
I cannot see how an objective reading of the first chapter of Isaiah could be taken to mean anything else. In verse 15 God says "When you stretch out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen" (The New Oxford Annotated Bible). This makes perfect sense in the context outlined above (God is speaking as if to a naughty child). If, as Angel claims, Isaiah is revealing the nature of God then the only logical conclusion is that God is and has been cut off from man since at least 2700 years ago. He doesn't see us, he doesn't hear us, etc. No Christian would make that claim yet to believe both interpretations simultaneously (that verse 11 means general nature of God, while verse 15 is merely referring to that time and on that occassion) is ridiculous.
I believe that, like most of the OT quote mining, using Isaiah 1:11 to prove that God doesn't like or want blood sacrifice only can be reasoned if one was told explicitly "this means this, go look it up." What I am saying (a point made repeatedly on this forum by others far wiser than myself) is that the "obvious" meaning of these quotes is only obvious if you are told what they mean and told to accept no other interpretaion. I find it impossible to believe that anyone reading (for example) Isaiah chapter 7 with no bias would ever conclude it was about Jesus. It is like that with all of the so-called prophetic verses supposedly concerning Jesus from the OT. I highly doubt that the people who claim it is clear and obvious would ever have seen it unless pointed that direction.
And that brings me to another point (I apologize in advance, I am on a rant). I am really sick and tired of this argument that you only think these verses are misinterpreted and out of context because God has denied you the magic ability to see the truth. (btw, Angel hasn't, to the best of my knowledge, used this argument here. I really appreciate that) I once went to a friend's house because she challenged me that five minutes in her "ghost-buster" parent's house would send me out screaming. When no ghosts appeared I was told that my disbelief and negative energy prevented the ghosts from manifesting themselves. It's the same argument. That the OT is all about Jesus is true and obvious IF you believe unquestioningly that the OT is all about Jesus. If you have the slightest doubt then you are punished by being only able to find a completely different meaning.
™ Version 4.2
