Isaiah 49:1-13: What Jesus as the Ultimate Servant and Israelite Means for Israel and the World

[@Calvinist-Premil]

This one was the best lecture so far. Even as an Amil I could not deny the passages concerning the salvation of National Israel. I went back and forth with my fellow Amil brothers but they tend to hyper spiritualize passages. Lots of weaknesses in the Amil and Postmil view. This passage will go into my collection of passages concerning the salvation of national Israel. I have 36 video lectures left. I have some questions but I will leave them till after the last lecture incase you answer them in the upcoming videos.

[@michaeljvlach7388]

Thank you!

[@adamradford2285]

Hi Michael thanks so much for posting this , it has really helped me understand what in an incredible and mind blowing prophesy and passage. I have heard that the Jewish faith claim the servant is referring to the Nation of Israel. But I agree with you and my pastor that clearly it refers to an individual.. of which clearly Jesus Christ is the only saviour. Best wishes from the UK

[@michaeljvlach7388]

Thank you. I agree

[@Brian-tk5vt]

Great job! I suspect our covenantal brothers would just immediately respond to this kind of video saying that the church is Israel and that these promises are all fulfilled spiritually. It would be great at some point to hear a response to some of the covenantal arguments and key texts for replacement theology.

[@ZacharyKlein]

I think this passage actually goes towards refuting such an interpretation, as national Israel is clearly in view in verse 7 (“abhorred by the nation”), and yet that same Israel ultimately experiences the blessings of the new Covenant (which the non-Israelite nations also benefit from). A church that consists of Jew and Gentile in a united body cannot suddenly substitute for national Israel mid-thought - the text indicates Israel as being both the rejecting nation as well as the ultimate benefactor of the servant’s work (and again, the mention of other nations being involved as well, as nations and not as becoming part of “Israel” through the church, argues against the supersessionist paradigm).