Who in the world doesn't know that Isaiah 53 applies to the body of Christ? That's being silly.
But that is exactly what you are saying when you make statements like yours, because it applies to the body of Christ prophetically, because it prophesies the atonement, and both Jews and Gentiles are united to Christ in the same atonement. Yes, I know,you're saying it doesn't apply to the us as the Body of Christ until it was revealed to Paul, but that is just a backward way of saying that it did not carry that meaning until it was assigned by Paul, or rather revealed to Paul by God. It is God's Word, it either meant what it meant when it was written or it did not. The understanding of its correct application does not negate its prophetic content, which necessarily exists independently of time, since God Himself exists independently from time. To allege otherwise, you may as well believe Open Theism.
The rules of sound English dictate that this: "Isaiah 53 does not speak SPECIFICALLY OR PROPHETICALLY" means that Isaiah 53 does not speak to Body of Christ in either a specific or a prophetic sense. (NOTE, YOU DID NOT QUALIFY THAT STATEMENT). If that is so, then how can you pilfer from it to apply to redemption at all? That simply makes no sense. Nobody denies that it applies to us SPECIFICALLY, because it was written to a specific people at a specific time, and there was no understanding of its application with regard to Christ's atonement until the Church Age, but MUST speak to us prophetically, or it can not be understood by ANY Christian, Jew or Gentile to apply to the atonement of Christ, or, alternatively, it would mean that Jesus' atonement is applicable only to Jews, since you specfiy that it speaks of Israel. Additionally, using the same logic, one can say that any prophecy of the OT that is Christological that has an alternative fulfillment, like Isa. 7:14, which was first fulfilled by the birth of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz is, in fact, NOT prophetic of Christ for that reason. You entire hermaneutic is inconsistent and, using it, one can conclude that the Messianic prophecies Matthew himself cites are NOT speaking prophetically of Christ Himself at all until Matthew wrote to that effect.
The prophetic nature of Isaiah applies to the church in this respect independently, apart from a revelation to Paul. God does not require a separate revelation to Paul to make the text apply to the church in any way. That's one step away from Open Theism and the way it says God perceives the future. That's like saying a stop sign does mean stop to a blind person because they can't see. Either that sign means what it means independently of the perception of the person or it does not. It is like saying the Trinity was not in existence or a valid doctrine until Christianity came along to understand it in the teachings of the New Testament and then the Nicene, Athanasian, and Chalcedoean Creeds clarified it.
The bottom line is that not one line of Scripture makes the distinctions you make. The gospel of Paul is the SAME gospel as that of Christ. To say otherwise is to impose a doctrinal system that does not exist.
What you're saying is that there was not blurring of distinctions between Jew and Greek in Christ, until Paul said so. That makes God's word subject to time in some way, in direct contravention of the attribute of God's eternity. There are no such distinctions in God's mind. Isaiah 53 certainly speaks specfically and prophetically of us, as well as Israel, or else Paul would not allude to it multiple times in Romans, nor would the writer of Hebrews, nor would Philip use it as his text for the eunuch. I wonder do you feel free to pilfer Israel's property to appropriate the comfort of Ezekiel 34:24-31 and Joel 2:23? If so, then you are being inconsistent.
You point to Matt. 1. Well, Matt. 1 quotes Isa. 7:14 as well. Are we also to believe that Christ was not spoken of prophetically in Isa. 7:14, at least until Matthew wrote his gospel? You entire hermaneutic is inconsistent with any conception of Hebrew parallelism.
It was a MYSTERY REVEALED to Paul.
It was a truth existing in the mind of God before Paul was even born. Ultimately, you will have to affirm some form of the doctrine of God's eternity with respect to revelation that makes God subject to time by making the gospel itself subject to time and the knowledge of the writers of the pertinent texts. This also violates the concept of God's independence. Methinks you need to take a course in systematic theology that doesn't rely on Schofield or Darby. Using that same logic, one can conclude that the Trinity in its form affirmed by Paul is not affirmed in the Old Testament because there was no such understanding of it in Judaism (and that remains so today). We can also say that the Messianic texts in Isaiah and Psalms did not prophetically apply to Christ at all, since there was no real understanding of Jesus identity until Advent (this is a tactic atheists use when criticising Christology), and, with respect to the theological writing of the NT, until the gospels began being written. Not only that, we should also affirm that Psalm 14 and Psalm 53 did not apply to the sinfulness of all persons specifically or prophetically, since Paul is the one that makes that application in Romans 3. That's plainly absurd, but is very much where you "logic," and I use that term loosely, goes.
They didn't KNOW ABOUT THE BODY until Paul's salvation who REVEALED it. Got it?
SO WHAT, God did, and God is the author of Isaiah, not Paul. The Old Testament saints clearly did know of Christ, because many of them saw Jesus day according to Jesus own words, e.g. Abraham. You are not privy about ANYTHING the Apostles or the prophets or even the Patriarchs knew or did not know. Only they are privy to it.
You erred and spake of which you didn't know, understand,
The famous cry of the classic dispensationalists who forget there is not one line of Protestant theology affirming their views until the 19th century. I bet you affirm free willism too, and FYI, I spent 12 years studying dispensational theology. I know quite well what I'm discussing here.
And there was no footnote to your post anyway, so an appeal for "documentation" or your part comes across as spurious.
He wrote of it, NOT THE APOSTLES,
Paul was an Apostle...and, once again, the Bible is not a historical theology textbook, which is the underlying assumption of your system. It is a unity.
who you say expounded the text for the body of Christ. NO THEY DIDN'T.
How do you know, you weren't there, and Acts is a selective record, not an exhaustive record. We do know they did what God directed them to do. This may or may not have included such an understanding against which you mitigate. They DID understand that Isaiah 53 was about the atonement. The Jews were saved the same way as Gentiles were. Paul NEVER says that Isaiah 53 applies differently to the Jews and Gentiles. SAME GOSPEL. Philip expounded to the eunuch from Isa. 53,
because God directed him to do so in order for him to be converted. (Additionally, he was a Greek convert to Judaism and not a hereditary Jew anyway). The root cause of this was that God had elected the eunuch to salvation and was using Philip to bring that to pass. In your view, you are affirming that this text applied to the eunuch because he was Jewish. That is nothing less than conditional election, because the text applies to a person because of some intrinsic quality. This violates God's justice, mercy, and sovereignty in individual salvation and means God is playing favorites. Perhaps you need to take a trip to the Calvinism/Arminianism forum.
You are saying that we are to preach Paul's gospel, not Jesus' gospel. That makes a sum total of zero sense. You seem to be affirming FOUR DIFFERENT GOSPELS. If you were remotely logical, you'd understand this. FOUR GOSPELS = HERESY.
Paul was the one who declared IN DUE TIME, that Christ died as a RANSOM for all. (1 Tim.2) It concerned HIS GOSPEL. See the context.
Okay, let's look at that statement in 1 Tim 2.
First of all, Jesus is the mediator for the believers, not the unbelievers. To me, "men" in this verse can only mean the elect, the Christians. Though I understand how an Arminian would interpret this verse, the Calvinist position is more consistent with the rest of the scriptures I've examined.
Second, considering that "all" in 2 Cor. 5:14-15, 1 Cor. 15:22, and Rom. 5:18 can only mean the Christians, it follows that when we approach verses like 1 Tim. 2:4-6, there is legitimacy in interpreting it in a consistent manner with the other verses; that is, the "all" is the elect.
Therefore, 1 Tim. 2:4 can have two possible interpretations:
1) The Arminian: The "all" means every individual.
2) The Calvinist: The "all" means the Christians. But since the Arminian interpretation would contradict the interpretations found in 2 Cor. 5:14-15, 1 Cor. 15:22, and Rom. 5:18, we are left with the Calvinist interpretation as the only legitimate one; namely, that the "all" means the Christians.
Also, there is the problem of answering how the desire of God is thwarted. The Arminian position has the desires of God frequently thwarted in addition to having the decision of God depend on the decision of man. God can only save someone if that someone makes the right choice.
The term "all men" taken by itself is capable of an absolute meaning but the the context of 1 Tim. 2 does not support it. That "all" or "all men" do not always mean all and every man that were, are, or shall be, may be made apparent by nearly 500 instances found in Scripture. "Paul definitely mentions 'groups' or 'classes' of men; kings (v.2), those in high position (v.2) etc., the Gentiles (v.7). He is thinking of rulers and (by implication) subjects, of Gentiles and (again by implication) Jews, and he is urging Timothy to see to it that in [the] public worship [at Ephesus] not a single group be omitted" (William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles). God desires, in harmony with His eternal decree, to save all men without distinction (i.e., without respect to rank, station, race, or nationality) and bring them to the knowledge of the truth.
Isa. 53 either speaks to us or not at all. Your viewpoint assumes general atonement and corporate, not individual election in order to be true. If it speaks specifically to Israel and the atonement, then only Israel is saved, because Isa. 53 does NOT teach general atonement. Your position ultimately rests on the validity of general atonement. If limited atonement is true, your position on Isa. 53 falls apart completely. If actual, general atonement is true, you end up at universalism. In short, this portion of what you say depends on the validity of your view of the atonement, and, if particular atonement is true, your position on Isa. 53 disappears with it, and, yes, I do affirm that Isa. 53 does not teach general atonement. .
1 Tim 2:4 has the key: hós pántas anthroópous thélei sootheénai kaí eis epígnoosin aleetheías eltheín
"Thelei is a third person singular present active INDICATIVE verb. God's desire is real and actual, not hypothetical or rhetorical; this is the function of the indicative mood. If "all men" is all men without regard to scope, then, linguistically, we must affirm universalism, because, theologically, what God actually desires is also effective. If God desires all men without exception to be saved, then all men will be saved. On the other hand, if "all men" means "all men without distinction," then only those that believe will be saved. "All" in 2:6 therefore only applies to saved persons, not all persons everywhere. If we apply Isa. 53 to this, it MUST apply to the church in a prophetic sense, regardless of whether or not there is a separate Pauline gospel, or else it does not apply at all. No, there is ONE GOSPEL, to say otherwise amounts to heresy.
By excluding the OT saint from the ekklesia (church) the dispensationalist is required to produce some means, other than partaking of the New Covenant in Christ, for one or the other of the groups to be granted eternal life. The teaching of the church for the last 2,000 yrs precludes this, as does our Lord. No dispensationalist that affirms Reformed soteriology will affirm your statement for that reason.
NE preached it before him. It was communicated to others who UNDERSTOOD IT and PERCEIVED HIS MINISTRY by the Holy Spirit, who leads and guides into all truth. (Gal.2, Eph.3) Now IGNORE those verses also.