Is there any value in understanding the historical settings surrounding biblical narratives?

[JohnDB]

JohnDB:
How much do you know about the Roman attack on Jerusalem? What do you consider the "WHOLE" story?

I've read "the traitor " Flavious Josephus....both copies. (One is believed to be more accurate than the other)

And since he was on the inside....he knew what was going on. Theres several things revealed by his historical perspective....Essenes behavior, how Jews would not handle or explain the scriptures.



And the lead up to and horrors of the seige of the Temple in Jerusalem.
The vendors selling animals? They ALL died...even those who surrendered were hacked apart because a few swallowed gold coins to smuggle them out. . Those who had children ate their children....

Much of this was due to the zylaforee festival (wood gathering) the store rooms were overflowing with wood. Which were caught on fire due to fire arrows and then in turn they burned the store rooms that held the latest grain also overflowing and none of the doors were able to close.


Now none of these things are usually argued about or of any debate between various scholars.


What's the issue?

 

[JohnDB]

John DB
The book of Revelation is apocalyptic literature, while also blending prophetic and epistolary (letter) genres. Thus it is full of imagery. Obviously, it was written to the people of the author's time about events happening and about to happen and things people were fearful might happen. One of the "hidden" techniques. For instance the process of assigning numerical values to Hebrew letters is called Gematria. In this system, each of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet represents a specific number. Because the system does not use separate symbols for numbers (like 1, 2, 3), words and phrases can be added up to find their total numerical value, which is then analyzed for deeper spiritual, biblical, or philosophical meaning but the reader alone determines the numbers and their import.
The first 10 letters of the Hebrew alphabet = increments of 1 (1,2,3 etc). The second 10 letters equal increments of 10x ( 10, 20,30 ect) and the final 4 letters increment is 100x (100, 200, 300 ect)

In gematria, 666 is most famously interpreted as a numerical code for the Roman Emperor Nero Caesar based on his name Hebrew. The Calculation: In the Book of Revelation (13:18), the Bible famously calls 666 the "number of the beast" and hints at a hidden calculation. When the Greek name for the brutal emperor—Neron Kaisar—is transliterated into Hebrew letters (nrwn qsr), the values of the letters add up precisely to 666.The Alternative Variant (616): This theory is heavily supported by historical context because early New Testament manuscripts list the number as 616 instead. Scholars note that 616 matches the Latin spelling variant of Nero's name (nrw qsr) when transliterated into Hebrew.

Historical Context: First-century Christians viewed Nero as a tyrant and the ultimate persecutor of the early church. Using gematria allowed the author of Revelation to safely critique and identify the Roman regime under a coded numerical veil.

As later Christian communities lost familiarity with written ancient Hebrew, they began to fantasize new identities for the 666 character as even our current generation does. Speculation is rampant about this ancient name symbolically hidden, as Nero was one of the most violent rulers of his age.

So understanding the historic background can relieve a great deal of modern anxiety.

Well, you have a theory....

But I tend to believe in the customary system schedule of the three time tables associated with prophesy of the future as detailed in Isaiah. The three: near/soon, mid term, and far future.
Then there would be also a sign given so people would believe in the prophesy.

 

[biblestudent78]

Well, you have a theory....

But I tend to believe in the customary system schedule of the three time tables associated with prophesy of the future as detailed in Isaiah. The three: near/soon, mid term, and far future.
Then there would be also a sign given so people would believe in the prophesy.

JohnDB
As noted obscure ancient "prophecy" is an open door for discussion and interpretation. Sometimes I wonder if dwelling on these is swatting at gnats and swallowing camels. The core tenets of Christianity have been in some form of debate/warfare since 390 AD. So, i think the new next open door is "prophecy" where everyone's opinion carries equal weight. "Signs" are all about what you see. They are never widely "seen." Remember, at Jesus baptism when a voice from the clouds announced ""This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased" (or "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" in older translations). But many hearing the same thing only heard thunder. So "signs" are in the eye of the beholder.

Those who claim to have seen "signs" from God include: St Francis of Assisi, Joan of Arc, Saint Teresa, Joseph Smith (LDS founder) Ellen G White (7th day adventists founder), William J. Seymour (Pentecostalism founder) and Aimee McPherson ( 4 Square Gospel founder)

So, it would appear that "signs" are in the eye of the beholder.

 

[biblestudent78]

Only that the event you mentioned occurred twice during Jesus's ministry. You didn't provide any historical context that I could see.

Tall_Timbers,
To what "event" are you referring to?

 

[Tall_Timbers]

Tall_Timbers,
To what "event" are you referring to?

This one from the OP:

For instance:
What as happening in the temple scene in Jerusalem where Jesus overturned the tables of the "money changers? And when in Jesus ministry did this event take place?

 

[biblestudent78]

Unfortunately, it is easy to misunderstand and misinterpret the message of the text if we don't know the time period and contemporary culture present when and where the original events took place.

Consider this example: Paul admonishes his readers to demonstrate their Christian faith by providing for the needy in their families (1 Timothy 5:8). While this is still true today, many of us live in countries with social welfare, insurance, and other backstops against extreme poverty. That was not the case in first century society, where the significant illness or death of a husband or father could result in family members being put out to the street or even sold into slavery. Caring for your unfortunate (extended) family was practical and necessary. In turn, they would care for you in your time of need.

Dino246
How would you compare your awareness of Paul's "time sensitive" and "cultural sensitive" admonitions to Jesus chapter long: Matthew 25:
31“When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32All the nations will be assembled before him, and he will separate people one from another like a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ 37Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or naked and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40And the king will answer them, ‘I tell you the truth, just as you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of mine, you did it for me.’

41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire that has been prepared for the devil and his angels! 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. 43I was a stranger and you did not receive me as a guest, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44Then they too will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not give you whatever you needed?’ 45Then he will answer them, ‘I tell you the truth, just as you did not do it for one of the least of these, you did not do it for me.’ 46And these will depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

 

[GWH]

It is very helpful to understand that God's plan of salvation required being set in human history,
which was His reason for creating the physical cosmos.

Bumped per the OP.

 

[biblestudent78]

Only that the event you mentioned occurred twice during Jesus's ministry. You didn't provide any historical context that I could see.

Tall_Timbes
You are correct that there are two accounts of Jesus overturning tables of the money changers in the temple. However, there is no basis for it having happened twice. In Matthew, Mark and Luke they place Jesus overturning the table of the temple money changers on the last week of Jesus life. In John, this event is recorded as happening at the very start of Jesus ministry. As none of the Gospels accounts for two events, it is unlikely it happened twice as it was a symbolic event to fulfil prophecy. The event was a prophetic Sign: Old Testament prophets often performed dramatic, symbolic actions to judge Israel's religious leadership and institutions. Scholars note that Jesus acting against the temple economy was a prophetic judgment on the corrupt system and a sign of His messianic authority. Thus there was no reason to do it twice.

The historic background is based on the influx of Jews from around the world that came to Jerusalem and its temple during the high feast days. They could not bring sheep, cattle or other sacrificial animals with them so the bought them at the temple from vendors who provide a variety of animals for purchase to be used in ritual sacrifice as per the Law. Apparently what angered Jesus was that the local vendors were ripping off the Jews coming from out of town by accepting their native coinage (money) but either vastly over charging them or deceiving them about the value of their country's money. Thus, they were using compliance with the Law to enrich themselves at the cost to worshipers.

 

[OMC]

Tall_Timbes
You are correct that there are two accounts of Jesus overturning tables of the money changers in the temple. However, there is no basis for it having happened twice. In Matthew, Mark and Luke they place Jesus overturning the table of the temple money changers on the last week of Jesus life. In John, this event is recorded as happening at the very start of Jesus ministry. As none of the Gospels accounts for two events, it is unlikely it happened twice as it was a symbolic event to fulfil prophecy. The event was a prophetic Sign: Old Testament prophets often performed dramatic, symbolic actions to judge Israel's religious leadership and institutions. Scholars note that Jesus acting against the temple economy was a prophetic judgment on the corrupt system and a sign of His messianic authority. Thus there was no reason to do it twice.

The historic background is based on the influx of Jews from around the world that came to Jerusalem and its temple during the high feast days. They could not bring sheep, cattle or other sacrificial animals with them so the bought them at the temple from vendors who provide a variety of animals for purchase to be used in ritual sacrifice as per the Law. Apparently what angered Jesus was that the local vendors were ripping off the Jews coming from out of town by accepting their native coinage (money) but either vastly over charging them or deceiving them about the value of their country's money. Thus, they were using compliance with the Law to enrich themselves at the cost to worshipers.

My friend, the claim that “there is no basis for two cleansings” is not accurate, because the issue is not whether the Gospels record two events, but whether the chronology and details in John and the Synoptics can be harmonized without forcing them into one; John places the cleansing at the start of Jesus’ ministry (John 2:13–22), tied to His first Passover and the inauguration of His public work, while Matthew, Mark, and Luke place it in the final week (Matt 21:12–13; Mark 11:15–17; Luke 19:45–46), tied to His final confrontation with the priesthood — and the differences in timing, dialogue, setting, and narrative function are significant enough that many scholars, myself included, (including conservative ones) conclude Jesus cleansed the Temple twice, once as a prophetic announcement and once as a final act of judgment.
Your argument that “it was symbolic so there was no reason to do it twice” misunderstands prophetic action: Jeremiah smashed a pot twice, Ezekiel enacted siege multiple times, and symbolic acts are repeated when the prophetic moment demands it. And while your historical background about festival pilgrims and corrupt pricing is correct, the Gospels emphasize something deeper: Jesus was not merely angry at dishonest exchange rates — He was judging a corrupt priestly system that had turned the Gentile court into a marketplace, blocking the nations from worship (Isa 56:7; Jer 7:11).
So yes, the Synoptics record one cleansing and John records one cleansing — but the chronology and context strongly support two distinct events, not one repeated story.

 

[biblestudent78]

My friend, the claim that “there is no basis for two cleansings” is not accurate, because the issue is not whether the Gospels record two events, but whether the chronology and details in John and the Synoptics can be harmonized without forcing them into one; John places the cleansing at the start of Jesus’ ministry (John 2:13–22), tied to His first Passover and the inauguration of His public work, while Matthew, Mark, and Luke place it in the final week (Matt 21:12–13; Mark 11:15–17; Luke 19:45–46), tied to His final confrontation with the priesthood — and the differences in timing, dialogue, setting, and narrative function are significant enough that many scholars, myself included, (including conservative ones) conclude Jesus cleansed the Temple twice, once as a prophetic announcement and once as a final act of judgment.
Your argument that “it was symbolic so there was no reason to do it twice” misunderstands prophetic action: Jeremiah smashed a pot twice, Ezekiel enacted siege multiple times, and symbolic acts are repeated when the prophetic moment demands it. And while your historical background about festival pilgrims and corrupt pricing is correct, the Gospels emphasize something deeper: Jesus was not merely angry at dishonest exchange rates — He was judging a corrupt priestly system that had turned the Gentile court into a marketplace, blocking the nations from worship (Isa 56:7; Jer 7:11).
So yes, the Synoptics record one cleansing and John records one cleansing — but the chronology and context strongly support two distinct events, not one repeated story.

I understand your point of view. It's unstated presupposition is that there can be no conflicts allowed by the reader. The hermeneutical approach is that no conflict is allowed. Thus any "plausible" explanation takes precedence over what is most likely. Proof texting from Hebrew Bible snippets is always the last resort of someone in desperate need of validation.

 

[OMC]

I understand your point of view. It's unstated presupposition is that there can be no conflicts allowed by the reader. The hermeneutical approach is that no conflict is allowed. Thus any "plausible" explanation takes precedence over what is most likely. Proof texting from Hebrew Bible snippets is always the last resort of someone in desperate need of validation.

In my view, your reply wasn’t exegesis at all — it was dismissal disguised as sophistication.
When you accused me of having a “presupposition that no conflict is allowed,” you weren’t engaging the text; you were avoiding it. Scripture itself says “the Scripture cannot be broken,” so I refuse to treat contradictions as acceptable simply because they make your reading easier.
I laid out the chronological, narrative, and contextual differences between John’s cleansing and the Synoptics, and instead of answering those details, you waved them away with rhetoric.
That’s not hermeneutics — that’s pride, and Proverbs warns that a fool “despises instruction.”

I also reject your claim that appealing to Jeremiah, Ezekiel, or Isaiah is “proof‑texting.” Jesus’ Temple actions are explicitly prophetic, and prophetic symbolic acts are repeated throughout the Hebrew Bible.
You dismissed the category because you didn’t want to deal with it.
And when you said my explanation was merely “plausible,” you ignored the fact that the actual data — timing, dialogue, Scripture quotations, surrounding events — points to two distinct cleansings unless someone is committed to flattening the text.
Your “most likely” is not probability; it’s preference.

So I stand by my conclusion: John records a cleansing at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, the Synoptics record one at the end, and the differences are too substantial to collapse into a single event. You didn’t refute that; you sidestepped it. And Scripture requires me to say so plainly.

 

[BartholomewB]

In my view, your reply wasn’t exegesis at all — it was dismissal disguised as sophistication.
When you accused me of having a “presupposition that no conflict is allowed,” you weren’t engaging the text; you were avoiding it. Scripture itself says “the Scripture cannot be broken,” so I refuse to treat contradictions as acceptable simply because they make your reading easier.
I laid out the chronological, narrative, and contextual differences between John’s cleansing and the Synoptics, and instead of answering those details, you waved them away with rhetoric.
That’s not hermeneutics — that’s pride, and Proverbs warns that a fool “despises instruction.”

I also reject your claim that appealing to Jeremiah, Ezekiel, or Isaiah is “proof‑texting.” Jesus’ Temple actions are explicitly prophetic, and prophetic symbolic acts are repeated throughout the Hebrew Bible.
You dismissed the category because you didn’t want to deal with it.
And when you said my explanation was merely “plausible,” you ignored the fact that the actual data — timing, dialogue, Scripture quotations, surrounding events — points to two distinct cleansings unless someone is committed to flattening the text.
Your “most likely” is not probability; it’s preference.

So I stand by my conclusion: John records a cleansing at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, the Synoptics record one at the end, and the differences are too substantial to collapse into a single event. You didn’t refute that; you sidestepped it. And Scripture requires me to say so plainly.

I agree with @biblestudent78. It probably only happened once, and that one time was probably a few days before the Crucifixion.

 

[NotmebutHim]

I think that historical backgrounds and backdrops are very important to understanding Scripture. How important the background is depends on the area of Scripture being studied.

It goes without saying that all of Scripture is true, but IMO it really helps to understand HOW and WHY it's true (other than it being inspired by the Holy Spirit).

 

[Tall_Timbers]

My friend, the claim that “there is no basis for two cleansings” is not accurate, because the issue is not whether the Gospels record two events, but whether the chronology and details in John and the Synoptics can be harmonized without forcing them into one; John places the cleansing at the start of Jesus’ ministry (John 2:13–22), tied to His first Passover and the inauguration of His public work, while Matthew, Mark, and Luke place it in the final week (Matt 21:12–13; Mark 11:15–17; Luke 19:45–46), tied to His final confrontation with the priesthood — and the differences in timing, dialogue, setting, and narrative function are significant enough that many scholars, myself included, (including conservative ones) conclude Jesus cleansed the Temple twice, once as a prophetic announcement and once as a final act of judgment.
Your argument that “it was symbolic so there was no reason to do it twice” misunderstands prophetic action: Jeremiah smashed a pot twice, Ezekiel enacted siege multiple times, and symbolic acts are repeated when the prophetic moment demands it. And while your historical background about festival pilgrims and corrupt pricing is correct, the Gospels emphasize something deeper: Jesus was not merely angry at dishonest exchange rates — He was judging a corrupt priestly system that had turned the Gentile court into a marketplace, blocking the nations from worship (Isa 56:7; Jer 7:11).
So yes, the Synoptics record one cleansing and John records one cleansing — but the chronology and context strongly support two distinct events, not one repeated story.

amen

 

[Dino246]

Dino246
How would you compare your awareness of Paul's "time sensitive" and "cultural sensitive" admonitions to Jesus chapter long: Matthew 25:
31“When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32All the nations will be assembled before him, and he will separate people one from another like a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ 37Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or naked and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40And the king will answer them, ‘I tell you the truth, just as you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of mine, you did it for me.’

41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire that has been prepared for the devil and his angels! 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. 43I was a stranger and you did not receive me as a guest, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44Then they too will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not give you whatever you needed?’ 45Then he will answer them, ‘I tell you the truth, just as you did not do it for one of the least of these, you did not do it for me.’ 46And these will depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

I don't understand your question. Please restate it without the long quotation.

 

[biblestudent78]

In my view, your reply wasn’t exegesis at all — it was dismissal disguised as sophistication.
When you accused me of having a “presupposition that no conflict is allowed,” you weren’t engaging the text; you were avoiding it. Scripture itself says “the Scripture cannot be broken,” so I refuse to treat contradictions as acceptable simply because they make your reading easier.
I laid out the chronological, narrative, and contextual differences between John’s cleansing and the Synoptics, and instead of answering those details, you waved them away with rhetoric.
That’s not hermeneutics — that’s pride, and Proverbs warns that a fool “despises instruction.”

I also reject your claim that appealing to Jeremiah, Ezekiel, or Isaiah is “proof‑texting.” Jesus’ Temple actions are explicitly prophetic, and prophetic symbolic acts are repeated throughout the Hebrew Bible.
You dismissed the category because you didn’t want to deal with it.
And when you said my explanation was merely “plausible,” you ignored the fact that the actual data — timing, dialogue, Scripture quotations, surrounding events — points to two distinct cleansings unless someone is committed to flattening the text.
Your “most likely” is not probability; it’s preference.

So I stand by my conclusion: John records a cleansing at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, the Synoptics record one at the end, and the differences are too substantial to collapse into a single event. You didn’t refute that; you sidestepped it. And Scripture requires me to say so plainly.

As we have discussed "prophetic texts" are whatever you choose them to be. Let's look at the full context of Isaiah 56 to see the actual exegesis of the snippet you provided:
This is what the LORD says:
“Maintain justice and do what is right,
for My salvation is coming soon,
and My righteousness will be revealed.
2Blessed is the man who does this,
and the son of man who holds it fast,
who keeps the Sabbath without profaning it
and keeps his hand from doing any evil.”
3Let no foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say,
“The LORD will utterly exclude me from His people.”
And let the eunuch not say,
“I am but a dry tree.”
4For this is what the LORD says:
“To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths,
who choose what pleases Me
and hold fast to My covenant—
5I will give them, in My house and within My walls,
a memorial and a name
better than that of sons and daughters.
I will give them an everlasting name
that will not be cut off.
6 And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD
to minister to Him,
to love the name of the LORD,
and to be His servants— all who keep the Sabbath without profaning it
and who hold fast to My covenant—
7I will bring them to My holy mountain and make them joyful in My house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on My altar,
for My house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations.”

As you well know the Jewish Nation was scattered over the entire Mediterranean. Here God is including the "foreigners who join themselves to the Lord and to be his servants who love the name of the Lord - YHWH - and to be his servant All Who Keep the Sabbath without profaning it......

This is in no way talking about anything but the coming doom of captivity in Babylon during the last days of King Josiah who was foolishly killed by the Egyptian Pharaoh Necho II in 609 BC and the captivity of Judah started in 603 BC. IMHO, Jeremiah was preparing the people for captivity insuring them that they can worship YHWH anywhere by keeping the Covenant and the Sabbath.

In Jesus statement that "Scripture cannot be broken" as he was disputing with the Jews and quoting Psalms 82:6 (A psalm of Asaph.)
1 God stands in the assembly of El; in the midst of the gods he renders judgment. 2 He says, “How long will you make unjust legal decisions and show favoritism to the wicked? (Selah) 3 Defend the cause of the poor and the fatherless! Vindicate the oppressed and suffering! 4 Rescue the poor and needy! Deliver them from the power of the wicked! 5 They neither know nor understand. They stumble around in the dark, while all the foundations of the earth crumble. 6 I thought, ‘You are gods; all of you are sons of the Most High.’ 7 Yet you will die like mortals; you will fall like all the other rulers.” 8 Rise up, O God, and execute judgment on the earth! For you own all the nations.

Though Psalm 82 is in the Ketuvim (Writings) section of the Hebrew Bible and not the Torah, Jesus refers to it as "your Law". This indicates He was using the term "Law" to encompass the entirety of the inspired Old Testament scriptures. In Psalm 82, God addresses flawed, mortal human judges as elohim ("gods") because they were appointed to represent divine justice and speak God's word. Jesus' logic is unassailable: if God’s own infallible word applies the title "gods" to corrupt human rulers, how can the religious leaders call it blasphemy when the One actually consecrated and sent by the Father calls Himself the Son of God?

 

[OMC]

As we have discussed "prophetic texts" are whatever you choose them to be. Let's look at the full context of Isaiah 56 to see the actual exegesis of the snippet you provided:
This is what the LORD says:
“Maintain justice and do what is right,
for My salvation is coming soon,
and My righteousness will be revealed.
2Blessed is the man who does this,
and the son of man who holds it fast,
who keeps the Sabbath without profaning it
and keeps his hand from doing any evil.”
3Let no foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say,
“The LORD will utterly exclude me from His people.”
And let the eunuch not say,
“I am but a dry tree.”
4For this is what the LORD says:
“To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths,
who choose what pleases Me
and hold fast to My covenant—
5I will give them, in My house and within My walls,
a memorial and a name
better than that of sons and daughters.
I will give them an everlasting name
that will not be cut off.
6 And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD
to minister to Him,
to love the name of the LORD,
and to be His servants— all who keep the Sabbath without profaning it
and who hold fast to My covenant—
7I will bring them to My holy mountain and make them joyful in My house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on My altar,
for My house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations.”

As you well know the Jewish Nation was scattered over the entire Mediterranean. Here God is including the "foreigners who join themselves to the Lord and to be his servants who love the name of the Lord - YHWH - and to be his servant All Who Keep the Sabbath without profaning it......

This is in no way talking about anything but the coming doom of captivity in Babylon during the last days of King Josiah who was foolishly killed by the Egyptian Pharaoh Necho II in 609 BC and the captivity of Judah started in 603 BC. IMHO, Jeremiah was preparing the people for captivity insuring them that they can worship YHWH anywhere by keeping the Covenant and the Sabbath.

In Jesus statement that "Scripture cannot be broken" as he was disputing with the Jews and quoting Psalms 82:6 (A psalm of Asaph.)
1 God stands in the assembly of El; in the midst of the gods he renders judgment. 2 He says, “How long will you make unjust legal decisions and show favoritism to the wicked? (Selah) 3 Defend the cause of the poor and the fatherless! Vindicate the oppressed and suffering! 4 Rescue the poor and needy! Deliver them from the power of the wicked! 5 They neither know nor understand. They stumble around in the dark, while all the foundations of the earth crumble. 6 I thought, ‘You are gods; all of you are sons of the Most High.’ 7 Yet you will die like mortals; you will fall like all the other rulers.” 8 Rise up, O God, and execute judgment on the earth! For you own all the nations.

Though Psalm 82 is in the Ketuvim (Writings) section of the Hebrew Bible and not the Torah, Jesus refers to it as "your Law". This indicates He was using the term "Law" to encompass the entirety of the inspired Old Testament scriptures. In Psalm 82, God addresses flawed, mortal human judges as elohim ("gods") because they were appointed to represent divine justice and speak God's word. Jesus' logic is unassailable: if God’s own infallible word applies the title "gods" to corrupt human rulers, how can the religious leaders call it blasphemy when the One actually consecrated and sent by the Father calls Himself the Son of God?

Isaiah 56 is not a Babylon‑captivity survival manual and it is not Jeremiah’s voice — it is Isaiah’s late‑book vision of the eschatological inclusion of eunuchs and Gentiles after God’s salvation arrives (“My salvation is coming soon… My righteousness will be revealed,” Isa 56:1).
That time marker alone shows this is not about 603 BC exile logistics; it is about the future age when God opens His covenant to those previously excluded. The Sabbath in Isaiah 56 is covenant‑sign language inside the old covenant, not a prophecy that Gentiles under the new covenant must keep Mosaic Sabbath — the text ties Sabbath‑keeping to “holding fast My covenant,” meaning the Sinai covenant, not the Gospel.

Your reading also misses the structure: Isaiah 56 is part of the Messianic restoration section (chs. 56–66), not the historical warnings of chs. 1–39. The foreigners and eunuchs are welcomed when salvation arrives, not when Babylon arrives. And the burnt offerings in v. 7 prove this is Sinai‑covenant worship, not new‑covenant practice — Jesus Himself says the time is coming when worship will no longer be tied to temple geography or temple rites (John 4:21–24).

As for Psalm 82, your summary is correct: Jesus uses “your Law” to refer to the whole inspired Scripture, and His argument is airtight — if flawed human judges can be called elohim because they speak God’s judgments, then calling Himself “Son of God” is not blasphemy. But none of this supports the idea that Isaiah 56 is about Gentile Sabbath‑keeping in the new covenant; it supports the idea that Scripture’s categories must be read in covenant context, not flattened across eras.

 

[biblestudent78]

Isaiah 56 is not a Babylon‑captivity survival manual and it is not Jeremiah’s voice — it is Isaiah’s late‑book vision of the eschatological inclusion of eunuchs and Gentiles after God’s salvation arrives (“My salvation is coming soon… My righteousness will be revealed,” Isa 56:1).
That time marker alone shows this is not about 603 BC exile logistics; it is about the future age when God opens His covenant to those previously excluded. The Sabbath in Isaiah 56 is covenant‑sign language inside the old covenant, not a prophecy that Gentiles under the new covenant must keep Mosaic Sabbath — the text ties Sabbath‑keeping to “holding fast My covenant,” meaning the Sinai covenant, not the Gospel.

Your reading also misses the structure: Isaiah 56 is part of the Messianic restoration section (chs. 56–66), not the historical warnings of chs. 1–39. The foreigners and eunuchs are welcomed when salvation arrives, not when Babylon arrives. And the burnt offerings in v. 7 prove this is Sinai‑covenant worship, not new‑covenant practice — Jesus Himself says the time is coming when worship will no longer be tied to temple geography or temple rites (John 4:21–24).

As for Psalm 82, your summary is correct: Jesus uses “your Law” to refer to the whole inspired Scripture, and His argument is airtight — if flawed human judges can be called elohim because they speak God’s judgments, then calling Himself “Son of God” is not blasphemy. But none of this supports the idea that Isaiah 56 is about Gentile Sabbath‑keeping in the new covenant; it supports the idea that Scripture’s categories must be read in covenant context, not flattened across eras.

 

[biblestudent78]

OMC:
Your designation of Isaiah 56-66 as some kind of Messianic restoration polemic is not supported by that text, in my opinion. Isaiah 56 focuses on two major themes: God's inclusion of marginalized outcasts into His covenant, and a severe rebuke of Israel’s corrupt, blind leaders. The corruption of subjugating those in need and a welcome to foreigners (converts). Isaiah 57 teaches that God protects the righteous, condemns spiritual unfaithfulness and empty idols, and offers deep healing and peace to the humble. Isaiah 58 teaches that true worship and fasting require sincere compassion and justice for the needy rather than empty outward religious rituals. Isaiah 59 teaches that human sin creates a barrier between people and God, but God actively intervenes as a warrior and redeemer to save those who repent. Isaiah 60 delivers a powerful prophetic message of hope, restoration, and the ultimate triumph of God's light over global darkness. Nations and kings will be drawn to the brightness of God's light shining through His people. This underscores the missional calling to be a beacon that draws others to God's justice and goodness. Chapter 61 opens with the declaration that God’s Spirit has anointed His servant to bring good news to the poor, heal the brokenhearted, and proclaim freedom to captives. Jesus explicitly applied this passage to His own ministry. The prophecy speaks of rebuilding ancient ruins and restoring places devastated for generations, showing God's power to renew broken communities and lives. Chapter 62 God declares He will not keep silent or rest until Jerusalem's righteousness and salvation shine brightly for the nations to see, showing His active dedication to His promises. God replaces a broken, desolate past with a new identity and a new name—moving from "forsaken" to "My Delight is in Her" and "Married"—symbolizing deep reconciliation and intimacy. Chapter 63 Opens with a striking image of God (or the Messiah) coming from Edom with crimson-stained garments, likened to one treading a winepress. This symbolizes that God executes the "day of vengeance" against unrepentant wickedness and evil entirely by Himself, needing no human help or alliance. Chapter 64 I don't know what you have been taught about mph of God's light over global darkness. Nations and kings will be drawn to the brightness of God's light shining through His people. This underscores the missional calling to be a beacon that draws others to God's justice and goodness. Isaiah 65 a God's ultimate promise to create a new heaven and a new earth. The Faithful Remnant: Even amid judgment for unfaithfulness, God promises mercy and preserves a faithful remnant through whom He will fulfill His plans. Divine Initiative in Grace: God reaches out to those who did not seek Him, showing that His grace extends broadly, including to the nations. The New Creation: The chapter culminates in the prophetic promise that God will create new heavens and a new earth where past suffering, sorrow, and pain are forgotten and replaced by lasting joy, peace, and harmony. Isaiah 66 is that God values true humility and obedience over empty religious rituals. God rejects outward religious ceremonies and sacrifices when they come from people who choose willful sin and rebellion. Hollow rituals do not please God if the heart is far from Him. God rejects outward religious ceremonies and sacrifices when they come from people who choose willful sin and rebellion. Hollow rituals do not please God if the heart is far from Him. God promises to comfort and restore His faithful servants who suffer mockery, while bringing final judgment and reckoning upon unrepentant rebels. : The chapter concludes with a vision of God's glory reaching all nations, drawing people from everywhere to worship Him.

 

[OMC]

Bible Student,
Brother, everything you listed is true — but everything you listed is Messianic restoration.
Isaiah 56–66 is not about surviving Babylon; it is about:
Gentile inclusion
Spirit‑anointed Messiah
global light
new covenant indwelling
divine warrior judgment
new creation
final worship of all nations
Your own summaries prove the point: these chapters describe the future age of salvation, not the political crisis of Josiah’s death or the Babylonian exile.