someone please help! Did Classical Rabbis Interpret Isaiah 53 to refer to the Messiah?

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Add Reply

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author

Comment

princeofshalom86

someone please help! Did Classical Rabbis Interpret Isaiah 53 to refer to the Messiah?

Lead

[-]

Posts: 3

(09/29/08 21:03:23)

Tags : None

Hello,

I always thought that there was a consensus amongst our scholars that Isaiah 53 refers exclusively to the state of Israel. But the Jews for Jesus website appeals to our scholars and try to show otherwise. [Link deleted. We do not permit links to missionary web-sites. (UY)]

Jewish Messianic Interpretations of Isaiah 53

January 1, 2005

It's commonly maintained that Isaiah 53 was never considered messianic by rabbis and Jewish sages. Sometimes the statement is phrased as, "Judaism teaches" that Isaiah 53 refers to the nation of Israel.

The fact is that Isaiah 53 (more precisely, 52:13 to 53:12) has been interpreted in messianic terms by a wide variety of Jewish commentators over a long period of time. Other interpretations have certainly been offered, including the view first popularized by Rashi in medieval times that the prophet speaks of the nation of Israel. Neverthless the messianic interpretation has a long history in Jewish Bible exegesis, as shown by the quotations below.

[I deleted all but the title and introduction of what you copied and pasted here. First of all, this is an old false set of claims. Second, it violates copyright laws without a proper reference, which I removed per our board rules. (UY)]

Last Edited By: UriYosef 10/01/08 20:04:29. Edited 2 times.

UriYosef

[-]

Posts: 1653

(10/01/08 20:11:18)

Director of Education

princeofshalom86 wrote:
I always thought that there was a consensus amongst our scholars that Isaiah 53 refers exclusively to the state of Israel. But the Jews for Jesus website appeals to our scholars and try to show otherwise.

The best and most comprehensive responses to these false claims and lies are found in the following articles by R'Moshe Shulman:

The Rabbis on Isaiah 53 - Articles dealing with the views of the Rabbis on Isaiah 53.

Distortions by Missionaries about what the Rabbis teach: Part 1

Distortions by Missionaries about what the Rabbis teach: Part 2

UriYosef

Our raison d'être:

WHOSOEVER DESTROYS A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE IMPUTES [GUILT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD DESTROYED A COMPLETE WORLD; AND WHOSOEVER PRESERVES A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE ASCRIBES [MERIT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD PRESERVED A COMPLETE WORLD. (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, 37a)

The fruits of our effort:

The battle against spiritual terrorism is being won, one soul at a time!!!

Sophiee1

[-]

Posts: 11355

(10/02/08 06:31:17)

Moderator

The internet has site after site "quoting" early Jewish sources who recognize that the suffering servant was the messiah. The only problem is that this is not the truth.

The original error began in the 19^th century with a book entitled "The 53^rd Chapter of Isaiah According to Jewish Interpreters." The book was written by a Xian as a "proof" and it contains many, many errors. These errors now rebound all over the internet.

It was the creation of E. B. Pusey a Xian of Oxford. The translations were courtesy of Driver and Neubauer and although the title speaks of Isaiah 53, the misquotes often ignore that chapter, and often Isaiah itself, to glean misquotes and distortions from various sources.

E. B. Pusey was a Xian theologian who lived in the 19^th century. So he wasn't Jewish and his knowledge of "Jewish interpretation" of anything was limited (to be kind). Pusey read Hebrew, German, Aramaic and Arabic - but he was not learned in Judaism.

Read the introduction to the book itself and you will see that Neubauer DID NOT want to include the passages that appear from Martini as they are forgeries. However Pusey insisted that they appear (as he states in his introduction) and so there now appears a text that is claimed to come from the talmud Sanhedrin, which disagrees with all texts of Sanhedrin, and is IN FACT taken from Martini.

This issue of falsification and distortion is a common one. The targum Jonathan is quoted for verse 52:13 but usually not 52:14 or 53:1.

Why because that destroys the premise that the servant in Isaiah is the messiah!

The Zohar (II 212) is quoted in part but NEVER in full where it would contradict what the quoter is trying to prove. The same could be said about the Ramban (who says that the simple meaning of the passage is that it is about Israel) or the Alsheich who mentions the messiah, but says that the messiah he means is King David. etc etc.

This, then, is the source that "proves" we Jews changed the meaning of the servant from the messiah to Israel. Hardly bullet-proof and yet time and again we must refute it.

Some background:

Isaiah clearly identifies the servant as Israel.
An early church father, Origen, in 248 CE, speaks of Jews telling him the servant was Israel and not the messiah.
Pusey's 19^th century book states we Jews changed it from the messiah to Israel with Rashi, circa 12^th century CE yet many of the quotes he uses as "proof" are dated long after Rashi - as late as the 16^th century CE.
The book throws in quotes from midrash aggadah, zohar and targum as if they were pshat (plain meaning) without educating the reader to the mysticism, allegory and story telling inherent in the different formats.
Apologists will quote a sentence where a source speaks of a messiah without stating they have also identified the servant as Israel (or Moses or someone else) and ignoring the messiah in question is moshiach ben Yosef not David. Nowhere do they explain who moshiach ben Yosef IS.
The book quotes Karaites as Jewish sources. Karaites are about as representative of Judaism as Mormons are of mainstream Xianity. Karaites do not follow the oral law. Yet nowhere does the book identify for the reader that Karaites do not follow Jewish teaching.

סופי

And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12

ProfBenTziyyon

[-]

Posts: 1323

(10/03/08 09:12:55)

Sophiee1 wrote:
6. The book quotes Karaites as Jewish sources. Karaites are about as representative of Judaism as Mormons are of mainstream Xianity. Karaites do not follow the oral law. Yet nowhere does the book identify for the reader that Karaites do not follow Jewish teaching.

"Karaites" have no more place talking about "THE messiah" than christians do - and for exactly the same reason. How absurd it is to deny the Oral Torah on the one hand, and at the very same time to make claims based on it!!!

http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל

Ben Masada

[-]

Posts: 18

(11/30/08 20:29:08)

princeofshalom86 wrote:
Hello,

I always thought that there was a consensus amongst our scholars that Isaiah 53 refers exclusively to the state of Israel. But the Jews for Jesus website appeals to our scholars and try to show otherwise. [Link deleted. We do not permit links to missionary web-sites. (UY)]

Jewish Messianic Interpretations of Isaiah 53

January 1, 2005

It's commonly maintained that Isaiah 53 was never considered messianic by rabbis and Jewish sages. Sometimes the statement is phrased as, "Judaism teaches" that Isaiah 53 refers to the nation of Israel.

The fact is that Isaiah 53 (more precisely, 52:13 to 53:12) has been interpreted in messianic terms by a wide variety of Jewish commentators over a long period of time. Other interpretations have certainly been offered, including the view first popularized by Rashi in medieval times that the prophet speaks of the nation of Israel. Neverthless the messianic interpretation has a long history in Jewish Bible exegesis, as shown by the quotations below.

[I deleted all but the title and introduction of what you copied and pasted here. First of all, this is an old false set of claims. Second, it violates copyright laws without a proper reference, which I removed per our board rules. (UY)]

Hi PrinceofShalom,

I am of the opinion, and by the way, firm belief that Isaiah 53 DOES NOT refer to the State of Israel in particular but to the Jewish People as a whole, including converts. When Isaiah
identified the Suffering Servant of chapter 53 with Israel, he meant Israel the People, and not the State. Don't forget the thousands of Gentiles and former Jews as citizens of the State of
Israel.

Ben

Cosmic Traveler

[-]

Posts: 2

(04/01/09 20:33:52)

Indeed, the earliest understanding was Messianic and Rashi tried to change this. Isaiah 53 has difficulties referring to Israel rather than the Suffering Servant:

1) The consensus of ancient opinion.
2) The text is in the singular.
3) Thirdly, the insurmountable difficulty of verse eight for those who interpreted this passage as referring to Israel. It reads:

Isaiah 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

G_d forbid that Israel should ever be "cut off out of the land of the living."
In Jeremiah 31:35-37 G_d promised Israel will exist forever.

Netanel

[-]

Posts: 1666

(04/02/09 06:06:57)

You are absolutely, 100% wrong. Rashi did not change or try to change anything. The context of Isaiah 52-53 along with the particular words and themes which he uses both in 52-53 and throughout other near "chapters" make clear that the servant is Ya'aqov/Yisra'él. All of Israel is explicitly referred to as one man, God's servant whom He has chosen, throughout Isaiah. There is no ambiguity if read in Hebrew, in context. Along with the clear original Hebrew context, Origen in his Contra Celsum makes clear that in his time (2nd-3rd century CE) Jews believed Isaiah 52-53 as referring to the Jewish people. Rashi could not have possibly invented something which an early Christian apologist acknowledged already existed in his time.

FYI, כִּי נִגְזַר מֵאֶרֶץ חַיִּים is speaking of exile from Eretz Yisra'él - not extermination - which many but not all Jews were for large chunks of the past 2,500 years. Some people mistakenly believe that the diaspora began after the Bar Kochba revolt, yet during the first century there were already less Jews in "Judaea" than there were in the diaspora. Far from forbidding this to happen, God said it would happen and delivered on it. Yet today more Jews live in Israel than any single nation. Because of the large American community there are still more Jews in exile than in the Land of the Living (Israel), however, slowly but surely Jews do and will continue to return to their land, Israel.

Furthermore, your translation of verse 8 is completely wrong. The prefix in mippesh'a in מִפֶּשַׁע עַמִּי נֶגַע לָמוֹ is a mem which does not mean "for" as Christian apologists mistakenly believe (because they can neither read nor understand Hebrew). What it means is "from/because of", meaning from or because of the crimes of the speaker's people, not FOR them. The speaker, of course, being the nations mentioned in Isaiah 52 who will see the errors of their treatment of the Jewish people.

Last Edited By: Netanel 04/02/09 06:23:26. Edited 2 times.

Sophiee1

[-]

Posts: 12032

(04/02/09 06:31:32)

Moderator

Cosmic Traveler wrote:
Indeed, the earliest understanding was Messianic and Rashi tried to change this. Isaiah 53 has difficulties referring to Israel rather than the Suffering Servant. . .

As Netanel wrote, you are 100% wrong. This whole idea that the Rabbis changed their interpretation to Israel as the servant in Isaiah 53 from the messiah is disproved by a quote from a very famous Xian indeed. Origen was a famous church father of the 2nd and 3rd centuries (185-254 CE). He is quoted as saying:

Origen Contra Celsus Book 1 Chapter 55

Quote:
Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to which my Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations.

Now if Rashi "changed" the meaning of the servant in the 12th century CE, then why did Origen, an early church father, who lived from 185-254 CE, say the Jews knew the servant was Israel?

Who is fooling whom? The consensus of Jewish opinion is that the plain meaning of Isaiah 53 is that Israel is the suffering servant.

Here are additional sources, all of which pre-date Rashi and state that the servant in Isaiah 53 is Israel:

Brachos 5a
Eliyahu Rabbah (3 citations)
Yalkut Shimoni II 476
Bamidbar Rabbah chapter 13.2
Zohar (numerous places)
Kuzari,
Poems by R. Shlomo Ibn Gavriel

The "sources" that you reference and that are plastered all over Chrstian sites are often mistranslations or outright fake quotes that come from the 19th century. People just never check the "original" sources -- they just keep plastering the same lies from one source to another.

Then there are sages who use midrashim (homily -- or sermons where they simply take a word or phrase and use it to make a moral point) and say that the suffering servant is Moses, or moshiach ben yosef, or someone else. These are NOT meant to be literal. Take the example of Nachmanides (Ramban) who some Chrstians will reference as having said the servant in Isaiah 53 was the messiah.

(For those who don't know, Moshe ben Nachman, is known as Ramban, not to be confused wit Rambam). These Xian sites that claim the rabbis speak of the servant as messiah, not Israel distort completely what is said. Granted they may not be to blame since most are merely parroting a 19th century Xian apologist.

Dont believe me? Here is what they claim Nachmanides (Ramban) says -- and they highlight the sentence about David the messiah while not explaining to anyone what midrash is! Here is the quote I took from one of the Xian sites with these "quotes."

Quote:
Nachmanides (Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman) (13th c.) stated:
The right view respecting this Parashah is to suppose that by the phrase "my servant" the whole of Israel is meant. . . .As a different opinion, however, is adopted by the Midrash, which refers it to the Messiah, it is necessary for us to explain it in conformity with the view there maintained. The prophet says, The Messiah, the son of David of whom the text speaks, will never be conquered or perish by the hands of his enemies. And, in fact the text teaches this clearly. . . .

Now pay particular attention to a part of the quote they ignore. Ramban says a different opinion is adopted by midrash. But they ignore that, dont they? That is not the part bolded in big black letters. Do they not know that midrash is story telling for the purpose of making a moral point and isnt meant to be taken literally? Probably not since they ignore the word!

How do we know that Ramban knew clearly that the servant is Israel? READ what he wrote!

Here is what Ramban said the to King of Spain:

Quote:
I am amazed. The words said in our presence to convince us that the Nazarene is the Messiah, were said by the Nazarene himself when he brought this same message to our ancestors and tried to persuade them.

They refuted him to his face with a perfect and strong rejection despite the fact that it was he who spoke, who knew and could argue his claim that he is divine, in accordance to your opinion, better than you can today. Now, if our ancestors who saw him and knew him did not heed him, how then can we believe and heed the voice of the king, whose only knowledge of the matter stems merely from the hearsay of distant reporters who heard it from people who neither knew him nor were his countrymen as our ancestors knew him and witnessed his life.

. . .

Friar Paul claimed: "Behold the passage in Isaiah, chapter 53, tells of the death of the messiah and ho he was to fall into the hands of his enemies and how he was placed alongside the wicked, as happened to Jsus. Do you believe that this section speaks of the messiah?

I said to him: In terms of the true meaning of the section, it speaks only of the people of Israel, which the prophets regularly call 'Israel My servant' or 'Jacob My servant.'

Friar Paul said: "I shall prove from the words of your sages that it speaks of the messiah."

I said to him: "It is true that the rabbis in the aggadah explain it as referring to the messiah.

Aggudah. Midrashim Aggudah -- what I stated earlier in this post. Story telling for the purpose of making a moral point. It is NOT meant to be taken literally. This is what Ramban tried to explain to the King of Spain and Friar Paul back in the 12th century, and we are still trying to explain it today to those Xians who flood the internet with "rabbinical quotes" that they do not understand.

It is like taking a story about the easter bunny and saying it is proof of Xian theology!

Let's go back to Ramban:

Quote:
However, they never said that he would be killed ,at the hands of his enemies.

For you will find in no book of the Jews, neither in the Talmud nor in the Midrash, that the messiah, the descendant of David, would be killed or would be turned over to his enemies or would be buried among the wicked.

Indeed even the messiah whom you made for yourself was not buried. I shall explain for you this section properly and clearly, if you wish. There is no indication that the messiah would be killed, as happened to your messiah. They, however, did not wish to hear.

Netanel already answered you regarding Isaiah 53:8. Mistranslations again. If you think the servant in Isaiah 53 is Jsus please show me where in Isaiah 53 it says the servant will be killed as Ramban pointed out. Also please show me proof that Jsus had physical offspring (children). That he lived a long physical life (and didn't die in his 30s if he ever lived at all). Show me that he was killed with the rich and buried with the poor. . .

Show me how in any way, shape or form the servant mentioned by Isaiah could have been Jsus. And please do so without proselytizing.

סופי

And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12

Last Edited By: Sophiee1 04/02/09 09:13:20. Edited 1 times.

Netanel

[-]

Posts: 1667

(04/02/09 06:43:18)

Sophiee,

Wikipedia (admittedly not the greatest source) says Origen lived from 185-254, so we are talking earlier than the 4th century.

Sophiee1

[-]

Posts: 12037

(04/02/09 09:14:10)

Moderator

Thanks Netanel, you are correct. I was thinking "Council of Nicea" (325 CE) and not Origen (185-254 CE) -- using my poor memory instead of checking. I corrected the post.

סופי

And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12

Cosmic Traveler

[-]

Posts: 3

(04/02/09 21:19:14)

Sophiee1 wrote:

Cosmic Traveler wrote:
Indeed, the earliest understanding was Messianic and Rashi tried to change this. Isaiah 53 has difficulties referring to Israel rather than the Suffering Servant. . .
S: As Netanel wrote, you are 100% wrong.

CT: Nobody has explained verse 8 to my satisfaction. I am not really wanting an argument, I'm just stating my honest opinion, and I'm trying to be open.

S: Then there are sages who use midrashim.

CT: They didn't write Isaiah, so their poetic license doesn't matter to me that much.

S: (homily -- or sermons where they simply take a word or phrase and use it to make a moral point) and say that the suffering servant is Moses, or moshiach ben yosef, or someone else. These are NOT meant to be literal. Take the example of Nachmanides (Ramban) who some Chrstians will reference as having said the servant in Isaiah 53 was the messiah.

CT: Anything can be rendered meaningless with poetic license. I can claim my own struggles through life were fulfilled by Isaiah 53 with a little creativity of my own. Or I can make a straw man out of someone else's faith and declare myself the winner for "having the correct belief". I am not interested in winning -- I'm honestly interested in a spiritual realionship with the Creator on His terms, not mine.

S: Dont believe me? Here is what they claim Nachmanides (Ramban) says...

CT: Events after the fact do not change Isaiah, unless Ramban is placed on par with the OT prophets.

S: It is like taking a story about the easter bunny and saying it is proof of Xian theology!

CT: That's how poetic license works. I can probably take Isaiah 53 and show whatever I want if I wanted to do that, but why should I? I'm more interested in what it really says, and I don't have all the answers.

S: Netanel already answered you regarding Isaiah 53:8. Mistranslations again.

CT: Where is a correct translation? I haven't seen it you post it. Would you be so kind as to show the entire verse 8 as it is translated? Here it is in Hebrew:

He was taken h3947 לקח laqach

from prison h6115 עצר `otser

and from judgment: h4941 משפט mishpat

and who shall declare h7878 שיח siyach

his generation? h1755 דור dowr

for he was cut off h1504 גזר gazar

out of the land h776 ארץ 'erets

of the living: h2416 חי chay

for the transgression h6588 פשע pesha`

of my people h5971 עם `am

was he stricken. h5061 נגע nega

For "my people" was "he" stricken. I can agree that "Israel" is G_d's people, but then why doesn't the verse say something like "my people Israel were stricken for their own transgressions"? That would certainly clarify the matter.

Why use two nouns, one singular and the other plural? It's kind of like me saying I'm two people instead of one, like "Here I am alone, and I see a stranger in the mirror, but there is no way this could be me." So would you still believe it's just me?

S: If you think the servant in Isaiah 53 is Jsus please show me where in Isaiah 53 it says the servant will be killed as Ramban pointed out.

CT: Well you asked about a person dying in Isaiah 53 so I respond:

Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him [a portion] with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

How did the entire nation of Israel "pour out his soul unto death"? Upon reading the verse, Israel (singular) did not intercede for Israel (plural). The transgressors are plural. Whose sin (plural) did Israel (singular) bear? What transgressors (plural) did Israel (singular) intercede for? What transgressors (plural) was Israel (singular) numbered with?

S: Also please show me proof that Jsus had physical offspring (children).

CT: I see vs 8 mentions "zera" which implies an offspring. The church has billions of members -- I guess that doesn't count in your way of thinking. It seems a lot more gentiles would be interested in being Noahides -- why aren't they? Are there even a million Noahides? Do you think the Lord is only interested in someone that is born a Jew? Show me where the Jewish faith has anything to offer a gentile except the Noahide laws. Why aren't Jews sending out their own missionaries to the gentiles? There just isn't much to offer.

S: That he lived a long physical life (and didn't die in his 30s if he ever lived at all).

CT: Had J not died there would be no church today. You can say he never existed, but you can't say that about the church.

S: Show me that he was killed with the rich and buried with the poor. . .

CT: According to NT scripture, J was buried in a rich man's tomb.

S: Show me how in any way, shape or form the servant mentioned by Isaiah could have been Jsus. And please do so without proselytizing.

CT: The imagery of all the verses in Isaiah 53 matches the crucifixion quite well. Call it coincidence if you wish:

- stripes of the whip and bruises from the beating (vs 3)
- substitutionary atonement (vs 6)
- like a lamb for the slaughter he would not speak in his own defense (vs 7)
- imprisonment and judgment (vs 8)
- substitutionary atonement again (vs 8)
- buried in a rich man's tomb (vs 9)
- substitutionary atonement again (vs 11)
- Roman soldiers parted his clothes (vs 12)
- two malfactors crucified with him (vs 12)
- substitutinary atonement again (vs 12)
- interceded to G_d in heaven on behalf of those that punished him (vs 12)

I know you adamantly disagree, and I am not here to make you upset. You did, however, ask. The thought of an atonement probably makes you angry, but there are billions of people that understand it just as it is defined:

A repair done for the sake of a damaged relationship.

My relationship with the Lord of the universe was broken, and I prayed in earnest if I should go to a Hindu temple, a Jewish synagogue, or to some other religion. The Spirit directed me to a Baptist Church. I asked to do it on His terms, not mine. I said if I didn't find the relationship there, then I would go elsewhere until I found what was needed. I don't know what else to do except obey. Why was this wrong? I asked on His terms not mine.

My relationship was healed through obedience, but I could not do this myself though I tried many times. It is out of my hands and in the hands of someone that can do it better. I'm just being honest, open, and obedient. If the Spirit said go be a Jew, then that's what I would do, but I just don't see much in it for a gentile like myself.

I wish you no ill will. This is a very emotional subject, I understand, and you probably feel offended that I even say anything at all. In all honesty, I am not totally satisfied with what I believe, or anything else I've heard from anyone else's faith. What does the Lord of the universe want me to be like? In terms of a role model for LOVE I haven't found anything better than Jesus. Perhaps you can show me a better role model for love. I'm all ears.

I've spent more than 2 hours assembling this response. I hope you will respect that.

Netanel

[-]

Posts: 1668

(04/02/09 22:47:17)

Cosmic Traveler,

Moderators leave posts directed at a particular moderator for them to release. This is the reason I will allow Sophiee to release it. However, I would like to respond to some of your comments. This is the pertinent section:

CT: Where is a correct translation? I haven't seen it you post it. Would you be so kind as to show the entire verse 8 as it is translated? Here it is in Hebrew:

He was taken h3947 לקח laqach

from prison h6115 עצר `otser

and from judgment: h4941 משפט mishpat

and who shall declare h7878 שיח siyach

his generation? h1755 דור dowr

for he was cut off h1504 גזר gazar

out of the land h776 ארץ 'erets

of the living: h2416 חי chay

for the transgression h6588 פשע pesha`

of my people h5971 עם `am

was he stricken. h5061 נגע nega

For "my people" was "he" stricken. I can agree that "Israel" is G_d's people, but then why doesn't the verse say something like "my people Israel were stricken for their own transgressions"? That would certainly clarify the matter.

Why use two nouns, one singular and the other plural? It's kind of like me saying I'm two people instead of one, like "Here I am alone, and I see a stranger in the mirror, but there is no way this could be me." So would you still believe it's just me?

FYI, what you posted is not the verse in Hebrew. Here is the verse in Hebrew:

מֵעֹצֶר וּמִמִּשְׁפָּט לֻקָּח וְאֶת-דּוֹרוֹ מִי יְשׂוֹחֵחַ: כִּי נִגְזַר מֵאֶרֶץ חַיִּים מִפֶּשַׁע עַמִּי נֶגַע לָמוֹ

This transliterates as, "mé'otzer u'mi-mish'pat luqqah v'et-doro mi y'sohé'ah: ki nigzar mé'eretz hayyim mi-pesh'a 'ami neg'a lamo:"

Pay particular attention to the words - both in Hebrew and Latin characters - which I have highlighted in red, because they are important to helping you understand the error of the translation you have provided. This character is the letter mem, which in these four cases works as a preposition. This preposition does not mean FOR, and even the traditional Christian text makes this clear.

Isaiah 53:8 - KJPV
⁸He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

Do you not find it interesting that the same preposition is used four times in the original Hebrew, and the KJPV conveys the proper meaning in all but one instance in this verse? The fact is, the fourth occasion too means FROM, and this meaning flies right in the face of the Christian mis-interpretation, because it makes crystal clear that the servant suffered FROM the crimes/transgressions of his people (the nation[s] in question), and not FOR them. Yisra'él was on the receiving end of those crimes/transgressions. Yisra'él is made up of many lives, but it is recognized as one people, one person.

Hopefully you now understand this verse better.

As to the singular, let me refresh you on some Y'sha'yahu:

Isaiah 41:8-9

8. But you, Israel My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham, who loved Me,
9. Whom I grasped from the ends of the earth, and from its nobles I called you, and I said to you, "You are My servant"; I chose you and I did not despise you.

Isaiah 44:1-2; 21

1. And now, hearken, Jacob My servant, and Israel whom I have chosen.
2. So said the Lord your Maker, and He Who formed you from the womb shall aid you. Fear not, My servant Jacob, and Jeshurun whom I have chosen.

-
21. Remember these, O Jacob; and Israel, for you are My servant; I formed you that you be a servant to Me, Israel, do not forget Me.

Isaiah 45:4
4. For the sake of My servant Jacob, and Israel My chosen one, and I called to you by your name; I surnamed you, yet you have not known Me.

Isaiah 49:3
3. And He said to me, "You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast."

Not only is Ya'aqov/Yisra'él spoken of as God's servant, but clearly the entire nation is being referred to as if one single person. Do you not see this?

Last Edited By: Netanel 04/02/09 23:03:27. Edited 2 times.

Sophiee1

[-]

Posts: 12039

(04/03/09 06:31:25)

Moderator

Try this translation (from the Artscroll Stone Edition):

Isaiah 52:13 Behold, My servant will succeed; he will be exalted and become high and exceedingly lofty.

14 Just as multitudes were astonished over you (saying) "His appearance is too marred to be a man's, and his visage to be human,

15 so will the many nations exclaim about him, and kings will shut their mouths (in amazement) for they will see that which had never been told to them, and will perceive things they had never heard.

53:1 Who would believe what we have heard! For whom has the arm of HaShem been revealed?

2 Formerly he grew like a sapling or like the root from arid ground; he had neither form nor grandeur; we saw him, but without such visage that we could desire him.

3 He was despised and isolated from men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness. As one from whom we would hide our faces; he was despise and we had no regard for him.

4 But in truth it was our ills that he bore, and our pains that he carried -- but we had regarded him diseased, stricken by G-d and afflicted!

5 He was pained because of our rebellious sins and oppressed through our iniquities; the chastisement upon him was for our benefit, and through his wounds we were healed.

6 We have all strayed like sheep each of us turning his own way and HaShem inflicted upon him the iniquity of us all.

7 He was persecuted and afflicted but did not open his mouth; like a sheep being led to the slaughter or a ewe that is silent before her shearers, he did not open his mouth.

8 Now that he has been released from captivity and judgment who could have imagined such a generation? For he had been removed from the land of the living, an affliction upon them that was my people's sin.

9 He submitted himself to his grave like wicked men; and the wealthy (submitted) to his executions for committing no crime and with no deceit in his mouth.

10 HaShem desired to oppress him and He afflicted him; if his soul would acknowledge guilt he would see offspring and live long days and the desire or HaShem would succeed in his hand.

11. He would see (the purpose) and be satisfied with his soul's distress. With his knowledge My servant will vindicate the Righteous One to multitudes; it is their iniquities that he will carry.

12. Therefore, I will assign him a portion from the multitudes and he will divide the mighty as spoils -- in return for having poured out his soul for death and being counted among the wicked, for he bore the sin of the multitudes, and prayed for the wicked.

The KJV has many errors -- who knows if they were intentional or not. For one thing it is "in his DEATHS" (plural) -- did Jsus die multiple times?

One has to have had literal living and breathing children, not followers.

And so on and so forth. Again, Netanel has done a wonderful job in his post, not the least of which his references to Isaiah clearly identifying Israel as the servant of G-d. There are no chapters in the Hebrew, BTW -- so saying "they aren't in chapter 53" is a misnomer.

סופי

And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12

Cosmic Traveler

[-]

Posts: 4

(04/03/09 06:41:46)

Netanel wrote:
Cosmic Traveler,

Moderators leave posts directed at a particular moderator for them to release. This is the reason I will allow Sophiee to release it. However, I would like to respond to some of your comments. This is the pertinent section:

Why use two nouns, one singular and the other plural? It's kind of like me saying I'm two people instead of one, like "Here I am alone, and I see a stranger in the mirror, but there is no way this could be me." So would you still believe it's just me?

FYI, what you posted is not the verse in Hebrew. Here is the verse in Hebrew:

מֵעֹצֶר וּמִמִּשְׁפָּט לֻקָּח וְאֶת-דּוֹרוֹ מִי יְשׂוֹחֵחַ: כִּי נִגְזַר מֵאֶרֶץ חַיִּים מִפֶּשַׁע עַמִּי נֶגַע לָמוֹ

This transliterates as, "mé'otzer u'mi-mish'pat luqqah v'et-doro mi y'sohé'ah: ki nigzar mé'eretz hayyim mi-pesh'a 'ami neg'a lamo:"

Pay particular attention to the words - both in Hebrew and Latin characters - which I have highlighted in red, because they are important to helping you understand the error of the translation you have provided. This character is the letter mem, which in these four cases works as a preposition. This preposition does not mean FOR, and even the traditional Christian text makes this clear.

Isaiah 53:8 - KJPV
⁸He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

Do you not find it interesting that the same preposition is used four times in the original Hebrew, and the KJPV conveys the proper meaning in all but one instance in this verse? The fact is, the fourth occasion too means FROM, and this meaning flies right in the face of the Christian mis-interpretation, because it makes crystal clear that the servant suffered FROM the crimes/transgressions of his people (the nation[s] in question), and not FOR them. Yisra'él was on the receiving end of those crimes/transgressions. Yisra'él is made up of many lives, but it is recognized as one people, one person.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CT: When "for" is replaced with "from" in this verse, in the way you have presented it -- this doesn't change the meaning of the verse when I re-read it. It seems "my people Israel" would pretty well cover all the bases, and I question why the singular and plural pronouns were confounded in such a way if the meaning you presented was intended. It's kind of like me speaking about myself in the third preson in a conversation. This is not necessary, and rather confusing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hopefully you now understand this verse better.

As to the singular, let me refresh you on some Y'sha'yahu:

Isaiah 41:8-9

8. But you, Israel My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham, who loved Me,

9. Whom I grasped from the ends of the earth, and from its nobles I called you, and I said to you, "You are My servant"; I chose you and I did not despise you.

Isaiah 44:1-2; 21

1. And now, hearken, Jacob My servant, and Israel whom I have chosen.

2. So said the Lord your Maker, and He Who formed you from the womb shall aid you. Fear not, My servant Jacob, and Jeshurun whom I have chosen.

-
21. Remember these, O Jacob; and Israel, for you are My servant; I formed you that you be a servant to Me, Israel, do not forget Me.

Isaiah 45:4
4. For the sake of My servant Jacob, and Israel My chosen one, and I called to you by your name; I surnamed you, yet you have not known Me.

Isaiah 49:3
3. And He said to me, "You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast."

Not only is Ya'aqov/Yisra'él spoken of as God's servant, but clearly the entire nation is being referred to as if one single person. Do you not see this?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CT: I see the point that the people of Israel go by different names, and G_d wants to make it clear whom He is adressing:

Isa 44:5

One shall say, I [am] the LORD'S; and another shall call [himself] by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe [with] his hand unto the LORD, and surname [himself] by the name of Israel.

----------------

When G_d speaks in this fashion He clarifys subject and predecate so He can make it clear whom He is speaking to. Obviously, Isa 44 is directed to the audience specified as any well articulated speaker would do (ref vs 5).

I see no such clarification in Isaiah 53. Neither do I see Jacod or Israel so much as even mentioned. If I coose your explanation of the verses in Isa 53, then I choose a G_d who seems rather careless as He speaks, that does not clarify His audience as He did in Isa 44, and uses confounded singular and plural pronouns when this is totally unecessary, as myself speaking in the 3rd person.

I am not trying to be argumentative -- it just doesn't make sense to me the way this has been presented.

Finally, You tell the world what is wrong with Jesus as Messiah, but you don't present a Messiah that we should follow instead. You need positive re-enforcement, rather than the negative approach. Tell us about the Messiah we should follow instead. Why aren't you evangelizing the world about him as the missionaries do about Jesus?

ProfBenTziyyon

[-]

Posts: 1911

(04/03/09 07:59:45)

Cosmic Traveler wrote:
When G_d speaks in this fashion He clarifys subject and predecate so He can make it clear whom He is speaking to. Obviously, Isa 44 is directed to the audience specified as any well articulated speaker would do (ref vs 5).
I see no such clarification in Isaiah 53. Neither do I see Jacod or Israel so much as even mentioned. If I coose your explanation of the verses in Isa 53, then I choose a G_d who seems rather careless as He speaks, that does not clarify His audience as He did in Isa 44, and uses confounded singular and plural pronouns when this is totally unecessary, as myself speaking in the 3rd person.

God read Y'shayahu 41:8-9; 43:10; 44:1-2; 44:21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3. Read all of them. How many more times does the author (who was a human being by the way, not God) need to explain his metaphor? When Y'shayahu refers to "God's servant" he means Yisrael, the entire nation, considered as an individual rather than as a group! Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Cosmic Traveler wrote:
....you don't present a Messiah that we should follow instead.

Of course not; he has not yet come, duh! I suggest you study two pages of my website: The "King-Messiah" and Isaiah's "Suffering Servant" (Y'shayahu, ch.53) (and I did say STUDY them, not just give them a cursory read-through).

http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל

Netanel

[-]

Posts: 1669

(04/03/09 08:56:49)

Cosmic Traveler

CT: When "for" is replaced with "from" in this verse, in the way you have presented it -- this doesn't change the meaning of the verse when I re-read it. It seems "my people Israel" would pretty well cover all the bases, and I question why the singular and plural pronouns were confounded in such a way if the meaning you presented was intended. It's kind of like me speaking about myself in the third preson in a conversation. This is not necessary, and rather confusing.

Of course properly translating it as "from" instead of the incorrect "for" changes the meaning. How can anybody claim that translating a word correctly as opposed to incorrectly does not change the meaning? It absolutely changes the meaning.

The Christian mis-translation makes the servant (Yéshu) suffer FOR/IN PLACE OF the transgressions of HIS OWN (Jewish) people. The Christian mis-translation has a repentant JEW speaking (on behalf of the Jewish people), and acknowledging his/their wrongdoing again Yéshu.

Meanwhile, in the actual Hebrew written by the hand of the prophet Y'sha'yahu, the servant (Israel) suffers FROM/BECAUSE/AS A RESULT of the crimes of THE NON-JEWISH NATIONS, personified by the "single man" in verse 8 speaking on behalf of his nation(s)/people(s). The prophet Y'sha'yahu lays this scenario out prior to the beginning of "chapter" 53, in the final verses of "chapter" 52. Verse 8 portrays the coming to fruition of the final verses of Y'sha'yahu 52, as the tail end of Isaiah 52 and Isaiah 53 are one narrative which are only superficially divided by the Christian-made "chapters".

Hebrew is a real language, it is not an incomplete language which lacks words for things. We have words that correlate to "for" and this preposition - which appears in this verse alone four times - is not one of them.

Your criticism of the text not explicitly saying "My servant Israel" has no legs to stand on, as He explicitly calls Israel/Jacob His servant throughout Isaiah's writings as no other people or person is. It is not necessary for the prophet to say "Israel" on every occasion, and his manner is not inconsistent with other scripture.

The Torah says, "Hashem appeared to Avram" (Genesis 12:7, 17:1), then "Hashem appeared to him..." (Genesis 18:1). Appeared to who? Avraham. Why does it not explicitly say "Hashem appeared to Avraham"? Perhaps it was enough that God - in His Torah - had already said "Hashem appeared to Avram" on two occasions previously, and exclusively in regard to Avr(ah)am at that (Genesis 12:7; 17:1).

Whatever the reason, it was not necessary for God - put to writing in Genesis by the hand of Moshe - to continuously identify someone whom He has already identified consistently leading up to Genesis 18:1, and likewise in the case of His servant Israel in Isaiah, identified clearly in surrounding "chapters" of - and through - the hand of the prophet Y'sha'yahu.

I also don't see any validitity to your criticism of the singular and plural in Isaiah 53:8. There really is no point here. They are not confounded.

CT: I see the point that the people of Israel go by different names, and G_d wants to make it clear whom He is adressing:

On the contrary, as I showed with the example of Avraham, God does not always identify something which has already been identified and made clear by previous and surrounding context. The Torah only wrote "Hashem appeared to Avr(ah)am" twice over the span of six "chapters" before leaving it to the context to tell you that who He appeared to in chapter 18 was also - as previously - Avraham.

As opposed to eight occasions - immediately leading up to the famed "Isaiah 53" - where Israel/Jacob are explicitly identified between "chapters" 41-49 as His servant whom He has chosen. The themes of Isaiah 52-53 and their application to us, to Israel, are hammered home throughout the "chapters" of Isaiah. Christological bias alone keeps one from seeing the clear context.

If you consider the case against Israel - identified frequently in the surrounding context of Isaiah 53 by Isaiah as the servant - as the servant to be weak, then how much more so is the case for a(/any) messiah rejected and punished by his own (Jewish) people who goes on to suffer FOR their crimes. That narrative doesn't exist in the actual Hebrew.

Finally, You tell the world what is wrong with Jesus as Messiah, but you don't present a Messiah that we should follow instead. You need positive re-enforcement, rather than the negative approach. Tell us about the Messiah we should follow instead. Why aren't you evangelizing the world about him as the missionaries do about Jesus?

If you would like my genuine advice, which I say to you as I say to my Jewish and non-Jewish brothers and sisters, you should follow God, and worry about following the Messiah when the Messiah comes. Because those who follow God and God alone will be right where they need to be whenever the Messiah comes, and his policies will not deviate from Hashem('s).

Last Edited By: Netanel 04/03/09 09:29:14. Edited 2 times.

Sophiee1

[-]

Posts: 12041

(04/03/09 09:57:47)

Moderator

Cosmic Traveler wrote:
I see no such clarification in Isaiah 53. Neither do I see Jacob or Israel so much as even mentioned. If I choose your explanation of the verses in Isa 53, then I choose a G_d who seems rather careless as He speaks

CT, can you supply even one quote in the Book of Isaiah where the prophet says "my servant, the messiah"?

We've pointed out numerous places throughout Isaiah's writings where he clearly identifies the Jews as G-d's servant. If you find it careless that he doesn't repeat it for the 7th or 8th time here, how can you possibly be comfortable with the fact that Isaiah NEVER calls the messiah G-d's servant? Not even ONCE?

Isn't that a bit of a double standard big enough to fly a Boeing 747 through?

Cosmic Traveler wrote:
You tell the world what is wrong with Jsus as Messiah, but you don't present a Messiah that we should follow instead. You need positive re-enforcement, rather than the negative approach. Tell us about the Messiah we should follow instead. Why aren't you evangelizing the world about him as the missionaries do about Jsus?

Perhaps because when we have tried in the past loving Chrstians have murdered us by the millions? In 1492 after a debate between a famous Rabbi and a Chrstian (which the Rabbi "won") the Jews were forced to leave Spain or die. Ever hear of the Holocaust? How about Pogroms? The Spanish Inquisition?

We are more than happy to educate non-Jews about G-d and His covenant with them if the ASK. If they seek us out, we respond (as we do here).

If evangelizing were "all it took" for people to find G-d why aren't you a Muslim? The Muslims are evangelizing quite a bit these days! How about the Je-hovah's Witnesses? They evangelize more than just about anyone! The argument is somewhat silly, don't you think? The truth has nothing to do with whether or not people "pitch it."

The Torah plainly says that there is only One G-d and we are to worship only Him. The messiah will simply be His messenger. If you want to know about the real messiah I suggest you read this thread: Why Jews Know Jsus was a false messiah

BTW, I noticed that you have dropped the whole myth that the Rabbis changed the interpretation of the servant in Isaiah from the messiah to Israel after my last post to you. It is so interesting that when missionaries who come here are presented with irrefutable facts they simply change the topic!

סופי

And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12

Last Edited By: Sophiee1 04/03/09 10:05:51. Edited 1 times.

Sophiee1

[-]

Posts: 12042

(04/03/09 10:11:26)

Moderator

Cosmic Traveler wrote:

I wish you no ill will. This is a very emotional subject, I understand, and you probably feel offended that I even say anything at all. In all honesty, I am not totally satisfied with what I believe, or anything else I've heard from anyone else's faith. What does the L-rd of the universe want me to be like? In terms of a role model for LOVE I haven't found anything better than Jsus. Perhaps you can show me a better role model for love. I'm all ears.

I wish you no ill will, either. Religion is a very emotional subject. I am not offended by what you have written as it is the same thing (nearly word for word) that we have read many times before on this forum. Isaiah 53 seems to be right up there with Daniel 9 for being both misused and a favorite missionary proof text.

You mention that you see Jsus as a role model for love and haven't found anyone better. Well, I suggest you read your Greek Text a bit more closely. While Jsus speaks a lot of love, he shows a great deal of disrespect and hate for people. by Aryeh Kaplan (Z"L)

Many people are fascinated by the person of Jsus. Even when they find it impossible to accept Chrstian theology, they still feel that they can identify with Jsus the person.

They see him as someone who preached love and peace, and whose life embodied the greatest ideals.

When we look at Jsus in such idealized terms, many of the things done in his name seem very strange. How could the Crusaders have pillaged and destroyed entire communities in his name? How could the Inquisition have tortured people to death in the name of a man who taught that the foremost commandment was love your neighbor as yourself? How are such contradictions possible?

It is much less surprising that his followers did not live by Jsus' teachings when we realize that even Jsus himself did not abide by them. Chrstians like to present us with an idealized picture of Jsus the man, but a careful reading of the Gospels dispels this picture very quickly.

Let us look at a few examples.

One of the best known teachings of Jsus is

Quote:
(Luke 6:29), If someone smites you on one cheek, turn the other cheek.

This might have been a beautiful ideal, but Jsus himself did not live up to it. When one of the High Priest's officers struck him, Jsus did not turn the other cheek at all. Instead, the Gospel tells us that his response was

Quote:

(John 13:23), if I spoke amiss, state it in evidence at my trial. If I spoke well, then why did you smite me?

He did not meekly and quietly submit, as he himself is alleged to have preached.

Throughout history, it seems that the only one who ever turned the other cheek was the Jew.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jsus instructed his followers

Quote:
(Matthew 5:43) Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, and do good to those who hate you.

This might have been a fine lesson if Jsus himself lived up to it. But when it came to his own enemies, Jsus declared

Quote:
(Luke 19:27), Take my enemies, who would not have me rule over them, bring them here, and kill them before me.

Jsus might have preached against vindictiveness, but he did not practice as he preached, when he said

Quote:

(John 11:39), I come to the world for judgment. I may give sight to the sightless, but I will blind those who see.

Some of us may have a picture of Jsus preaching love and peace, as when he said

Quote:
(Matthew 5:22), Anyone who nurses anger against his brother must be brought to judgment. . . If he even sneers at him, he will have to answer for it in the fires of hell.

The picture, however, changes very rapidly when Jsus himself is put to the test. We then find him declaring

Quote:

(Matthew 10:34), Think not that I have come to send peace to the world. I come not to send peace, but the sword.

Jsus subjected anyone who dared oppose him to the most awful abuse, curses and threats of dire punishment. When the Jews tried to defend their ancient faith, Jsus answered them by saying,

Quote:
(Matthew 23:33), You snakes, you generation of vipers, how can you escape the damnation of hell?

Jsus did not limit himself to his immediate opponents, such as the Rabbis and teachers. He spoke against all those who dared not believe in him, branding them as outcasts, subject to divine punishment. We thus hear his pronouncement

Quote:
(John 3:36), He who believes in the Son has everlasting life. But he who does not believe in the Son shall not see life, but shall suffer the everlasting wrath of G-d.

He may have preached love, but it was a very restricted love. He thus said

Quote:
(John 3:5), I surely say to you: Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of G-d.

In contrast to this, the Rabbis, whom Jsus hated so much, did not place any such limitations on G-d's love. It was the Rabbis of the Talmud who made the statement

Quote:
(Tosefta, Sanhedrin 13), The righteous of all nations have a share in the World to Come.

They saw G-d's love as available to all people, and not only to Jews.

An even stronger statement can be found in our Midrashic literature, where a rabbi declares

Quote:
(Tana DeBei Eliahu Rabbah 9), I call heaven and earth as witnesses: Any individual, whether gentile or Jew, man or woman, servant or maid, can bring the Divine Presence upon himself in accordance with his deeds.

The Jewish attitude toward non-Jews is most clearly expressed in King Solomon's prayer, where he says

Quote:
(I Kings 8:41-43), When a stranger, who is not of Your people Israel, but comes from a distant land . . . turns in prayer toward this Temple, then listen to his prayers.

Jsus, however, was not so broad minded. When he sent out his twelve disciples, he charged them

Quote:
(Matthew 10:5, 6), Do not take the road to gentile lands, and do not enter any Samaritan city. Go only to the lost sheep of Israel.

The Rabbis who lived in Jsus' time taught

Quote:
(Avos 4:3), Do not despise any man.

They likewise declared

Quote:

(Baba Kama 38a), Even a gentile who studies Torah is equal to a High Priest.

These Rabbis saw G-d's salvation freely available to all men. Contrast this with the terrible sentence proclaimed by Jsus

Quote:
(John 15:6), He who does not abide in me is thrown away like a withered branch. Such withered branches are gathered together, cast into the fire and burned.

This terrible statement was later used by the Catholic Church to justify their practice of burning non-believers at the stake.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jsus preached

Quote:

(Matthew 5:43:44), You have been previously taught to love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you: Love your enemies and bless those who curse you.

Jsus may have said this, but the Gospels are aflame with his own words of hatred toward those who did not accept him. Time after time, he displays the same appetite for revenge as any other mortal.

One of the basic teachings of Judaism is

Quote:
(Leviticus 18:19), You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

This commandment is so important that Rabbi Akiva declared that it was the fundamental principle of the Torah. Even though this is openly stated in the Torah, written over a thousand years before Jsus' birth, many people still think of it as one of Jsus' teachings.

But even in explaining this commandment of love, Jsus was not above displaying his vindictiveness. The Gospel (Luke 19:29), records that he was asked, But who is my neighbor? Jsus replied with one of the best known parables in the Gospels:

A man traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho is attacked by robbers. They plunder and beat him, leaving him half dead by the roadside. A priest comes along and sees the injured man, but he promptly crosses the road to avoid him. A Levite then happens to pass by, and he also crosses the road to avoid him. Finally a Samaritan comes by and is touched by pity. He binds the stranger's wounds, carries him to a secure spot, and tenderly cares for him. Thus, the Samaritan becomes the perfect example of the good neighbor.

At first glance, this looks like a most beautiful story. But when we look beneath the surface, we see Jsus' vindictiveness only too clearly.

Let us carefully note the three persons who saw the unfortunate victim. They are a priest (Cohen), a Levite and a Samaritan. Anyone familiar with the three classes of Jews called to the Torah, knows that they are Cohen (priest), Levite and Israelite. We would therefore expect that after the Cohen and Levite passed up the victim, the story would tell us that the third person was an Israelite, an ordinary Jew.

Instead, however, Jsus substitutes a Samaritan, a member of a tribe who had been enemies with the Jews for almost five hundred years. This Samaritan then becomes the example of moral love. The Priests and Levites, who were the religious leaders of the Jews, were thus downgraded, while the hated Samaritan was praised. What Jsus is implying is that every Jew, even a religious leader, is incapable of even a simple act of mercy.

Even in his parable about love, Jsus was not above demonstrating his spite toward the Jewish leaders who rejected him. Good Samaritan is a byword among Chrstians to this very day. Many churches even bear the name, Church of the Good Samaritan. But Jsus' vindictiveness assured that there would never be a church with the name, Church of the Good Israelite.

Jsus was even able to be vindictive against a tree. When he found himself hungry, he was not able to restrain his too human emotions. The Gospel thus records

Quote:

(Matthew 2 1:18, 19), In the morning, on his way to the city, Jsus felt hungry. Seeing a fig tree near the road, he went up to it, but found nothing on it but leaves. He said to the tree, `may you never bear fruit anymore.' The tree then withered and died.

The Gospel of Mark (11:13) makes it plain that it was not even the season for figs.

Did this innocent tree deserve such cruel punishment? It was not even the season for figs, and the tree was merely fulfilling its nature. If Jsus merely wanted to show his miraculous powers, as the gospel seems to indicate, why did he not command the tree to bring forth fruit?

Indeed, the Talmud (Taanis 24a) brings a very similar incident, but with a very different ending. Rabbi Yosi's son once wanted to provide his father's field hands with food. All he could find was a fig tree, but it was not the season, and the tree was bare. He cried out,

Quote:
Fig tree, fig tree, send forth your fruit so that my father's workers may eat.

The Talmud tells us that the tree produced fruit before its time and the men were able to fill themselves.

If Jsus were truly capable of miracles, he could have done the same. Instead, he chose to display his vindictiveness.
A primary teaching of Judaism is expressed by the Psalmist many generations before Jsus. He declared

Quote:
(Psalm 145:9), G-d is good to all, and his love extends over all His works. No distinction is made between Jew and gentile.

Contrast this with the following event in Jsus' career

Quote:
(Mark 7:25-27): A woman whose daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit heard of Jsus, and came in, falling at his feet. She was a Gentile, a Phoenician from Syria. She begged Jsus to drive out the spirit from her daughter. Jsus replied, `Let the children be satisfied first. It is not right to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs.

From the context, it is obvious that the children mentioned by Jsus refer to the Jews, while the dogs were the gentiles. These dogs must be satisfied with scraps from the table.

Now compare this narrow view with a teaching of the much maligned Pharisees (i.e. rabbis). They declare in the Talmud

Quote:
(Gittin 61a), We are obliged to feed the gentile poor in exactly the same manner as we feed the Jewish poor.

We can bring many such contrasts between Jewish and Chrstian ethics. In every case, the margin seems to be on the side of Judaism. Jsus may have taught many beautiful ideals, but unfortunately, he never seemed to be able to live up to them himself.

Apparently, it was difficult even for Chrst to be a Chrstian.

Footnote:
The Real Messiah, Aryeh Kaplan, 1997, Olivestone, New York, NY

סופי

And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12

ProfBenTziyyon

[-]

Posts: 1914

(04/03/09 10:53:13)

Sophiee1 wrote:
CT, can you supply even one quote in the Book of Isaiah where the prophet says "my servant, the messiah"?

Of course he can't because, as I have mentioned before, the noun הַמָּשִׁיחַ "THE messiah", with the definite article "the", DOES NOT OCCUR IN THE T'NACH AT ALL − and Y'shayahu only uses the word מָשִׁיחַ "A messiah" once, in 45:1 (where it refers explicitly to Koresh).

http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל

Netanel

[-]

Posts: 1670

(04/03/09 11:08:05)

Cosmic Traveler,

Now that Sophiee has released your response to her I would like to respond to a few more of your comments. Much of your first few answers to Sophiee regard a satisfactory explanation of Isaiah 53, particularly verse 8. My previous posts lay out the content of verse 8 fully so that there should be no confusion about what each word means, and what they mean together.

How did the entire nation of Israel "pour out his soul unto death"? Upon reading the verse, Israel (singular) did not intercede for Israel (plural). The transgressors are plural. Whose sin (plural) did Israel (singular) bear? What transgressors (plural) did Israel (singular) intercede for? What transgressors (plural) was Israel (singular) numbered with?

I have demonstrated how the traditional Christian translation/interpretation of verse 8 is based on the mis-translation of a preposition that occurs four times, and is otherwise translated correctly three of those times. Only the fourth time, where it is imperative for the Christian translator to perpetuate the belief that this servant is afflicted/damaged FOR the crimes of the speaker's people - rather than FROM/AS A RESULT OF the crimes of the speaker's people - is it mis-translated in a way which completely alters the true meaning of the preposition.

Regarding verse 12, your first sentence sets off a red flag right off the bat. You are not only mis-interpreting who the servant is, but you are mis-interpreting who the transgressors in question are. That is why it is important to read the entire thing in context from the beginning.

Isaiah 52:1-53:3
1. Awaken, awaken, put on your strength, O Zion; put on the garments of your beauty, Jerusalem the Holy City, for no longer shall the uncircumcised or the unclean continue to enter you.
2. Shake yourselves from the dust, arise, sit down, O Jerusalem; free yourself of the bands of your neck, O captive daughter of Zion.
3. For so said the Lord, "You were sold for nought, and you shall not be redeemed for money."
4. For so said the Lord God, "My people first went down to Egypt to sojourn there, but Assyria oppressed them for nothing."
5. "And now, what have I here," says the Lord, "that My people has been taken for nothing. His rulers boast," says the Lord, "and constantly all day My name is blasphemed.
6. Therefore, My people shall know My name; therefore, on that day, for I am He Who speaks, here I am."
7. How beautiful are the feet of the herald on the mountains, announcing peace, heralding good tidings, announcing salvation, saying to Zion, "Your God has manifested His kingdom."
8. The voice of your watchmen- they raised a voice, together they shall sing, for eye to eye they shall see when the Lord returns to Zion.
9. Burst out in song, sing together, O ruins of Jerusalem, for the Lord has consoled his people; He has redeemed Jerusalem.
10. The Lord has revealed His holy arm before the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.
11. Turn away, turn away, get out of there, touch no unclean one; get out of its midst, purify yourselves, you who bear the Lord's vessels.
12. For not with haste shall you go forth and not in a flurry of flight shall you go, for the Lord goes before you, and your rear guard is the God of Israel.
-
13. Behold My servant shall prosper; he shall be exalted and lifted up, and he shall be very high.
14. As many wondered about you, "How marred his appearance is from that of a man, and his features from that of people!"
15. So shall he cast down many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him, for, what had not been told them they saw, and [at] what they had not heard they gazed.
1. Who would have believed our report, and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed?
2. And he came up like a sapling before it, and like a root from dry ground, he had neither form nor comeliness; and we saw him that he had no appearance. Now shall we desire him?
3. Despised and rejected by men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness, and as one who hides his face from us, despised and we held him of no account.

This is a continuous account, and the content of Isaiah 52 can't be divided from the content of Isaiah 53. Isaiah 52 describes a situation where Israel suffered criminally at the hands of the Assyrians, whose leaders boast and blaspheme Hashem. It then speaks of the redemption of His people, Israel. The language of 52:10 and Isaiah 53:1 could not be clearer. 52:10 speaks of Hashem revealing His "arm" before the eyes of all the nations (non-Jews). 52:13-15 describes the nations and kings being astonished at witnessing the redemption and exaltedness of a people they subjugated and committed criminal acts against, vieweing and treating as animals, because they viewed them as abandoned and rejected by God. While Isaiah 52 DESCRIBES it as an event to come, Isaiah 53 goes so far as to describe in particulars that astonishment on the part of the nations.

Who would have believed our report? To whom was the arm of Hashem revealed? Isaiah 52 makes clear it is before the eyes of all the NATIONS (non-Jews). It is the non-Jews who are astonished at what they have learned at the tail end of Isaiah 52, and it is the non-Jews who are the speaker in Isaiah 53:1 and throughout.

Now, back to verse 12:

How did the entire nation of Israel "pour out his soul unto death"? Upon reading the verse, Israel (singular) did not intercede for Israel (plural). The transgressors are plural. Whose sin (plural) did Israel (singular) bear? What transgressors (plural) did Israel (singular) intercede for? What transgressors (plural) was Israel (singular) numbered with?

Israel suffered as a result of the sins which were committed against them by the nations - nearly if not every single nation - which they lived amongst, to this day even. The Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Parthians, Muslims, Crusaders, and the too-numerous-to-enumerate countries and empires which we have lived in which always inevitably took the route of Egypt as it says, "And a new king arose over Mitzrayim who did not know Yoséf" (Exodus 1:8).

And yet, we were always loyal to our host nations, and we always prayed for the well-being of these nations even while they were murdering and burning our holy texts in large numbers. These nations went through great periods of wealth and riches, and well-being, and all the while they mistreated us, who were their loyal citizens who worked for their benefit, and for the increase of their kingdoms. Despite this we were murdered frivolously as if we were criminals, and for what? For the crime of being Jews in Christian nations, and for continuing to exist and practice Torah observance despite our supposed crimes against the Christian god.

CT: I see vs 8 mentions "zera" which implies an offspring. The church has billions of members -- I guess that doesn't count in your way of thinking. It seems a lot more gentiles would be interested in being Noahides -- why aren't they? Are there even a million Noahides? Do you think the Lord is only interested in someone that is born a Jew? Show me where the Jewish faith has anything to offer a gentile except the Noahide laws. Why aren't Jews sending out their own missionaries to the gentiles? There just isn't much to offer.

By church, of course, you mean churches, and of course none of these are actual zer'a. Who are Yéshu's descendants? Who are Peter's descendants? Or Paul's? It seems none of these men had families who followed in their Christian footsteps. Our Patriarchs were fruitful and multiplied in a way which is recognized by all Jews and Christians, while nobody can trace themselves as descendants in an unbroken line to any of the early Christians of the GT.

As far as Noahides, it is very simple for a member of a group that has supressed Jews and "Judaizers" viciously and with genocidal fervor for over 1,500 years to ask where all the Noahides are. Only recently are Jews able to speak openly without fear of death in matters of religion.

And no, God is not only interested in Jews, so why would He possibly require all people to be Jews? That was never part of the deal. The Torah does not command us to convert a single person. This does not mean that conversion is forbidden or discouraged (the reasons it is today stem from historical persecution, not lack of desire for converts), but we do not actively pursue and proselytize. Someone who wants to become a Jew must go through a significant process to see whether it is even for them, and if so they eventually become a full Jew. It is the proselyte that comes to and must accept Torah and its ways and observances, not Torah which must go to and accept the proselyte in his ways and observances.

You need only ask someone who underwent a halachic conversion and is now an observant Jew what it has to offer to a non-Jew. And you need only ask someone who has renounced their former idolatrous ways to become an observant Ben Noah what it has to offer.

CT: Had J not died there would be no church today. You can say he never existed, but you can't say that about the church.

I am not one who thinks a Yéshu this character is based on never lived, but both you and I know that central figures of a religion need not have existed for that religion to exist. We Jews have encountered and rejected more nations and their false gods based on people/gods that never actually existed than we can count. There is a large disconnect between the times, settings, and peoples written about in the GT, and the reality of an entirely gentile Christianity which existed only a few short centuries later, and the Roman Empire - who thrived on worshipping gods that never existed - would not have require a truly historical figure to perpetuate Christianity as they did.

S: Show me that he was killed with the rich and buried with the poor. . .

CT: According to NT scripture, J was buried in a rich man's tomb.

Which is precisely the opposite of what Isaiah said. There is nothing in Isaiah 53:9 about being buried in a rich man's tomb. Just the opposite.

My relationship with the Lord of the universe was broken, and I prayed in earnest if I should go to a Hindu temple, a Jewish synagogue, or to some other religion. The Spirit directed me to a Baptist Church. I asked to do it on His terms, not mine. I said if I didn't find the relationship there, then I would go elsewhere until I found what was needed. I don't know what else to do except obey. Why was this wrong? I asked on His terms not mine.

My relationship was healed through obedience, but I could not do this myself though I tried many times. It is out of my hands and in the hands of someone that can do it better. I'm just being honest, open, and obedient. If the Spirit said go be a Jew, then that's what I would do, but I just don't see much in it for a gentile like myself.

Being a Jew is not for everyone, and it is not something which can be decided on and completed in a split second decision. I would advise you to study with a Rabbi during which time many misconceptions you may have will have a chance to be addressed and worked out. When there are rampant misconceptions about David being a young kid when he slayed Gol'yat when he was actually in his late 20s, or Yitzhaq only being a kid during his binding when he was actually a grown man, then how much more so misconceptions about things like salvation, sin, etc!

You are, of course, under no obligation to take my advice, but I offer it based on what you have told me in this thread. If you truly wish to learn more about God and His Torah, and what that entails for the Jew or for the non-Jew, it is well within your grasp to do so. If you are content to remain where you are then that is that.

Last Edited By: Netanel 04/03/09 11:14:31. Edited 1 times.

Cosmic Traveler

[-]

Posts: 5

(04/03/09 20:51:40)

ProfBenTziyyon wrote:

Cosmic Traveler wrote:
When G_d speaks in this fashion He clarifys subject and predecate so He can make it clear whom He is speaking to. Obviously, Isa 44 is directed to the audience specified as any well articulated speaker would do (ref vs 5).
I see no such clarification in Isaiah 53. Neither do I see Jacod or Israel so much as even mentioned. If I coose your explanation of the verses in Isa 53, then I choose a G_d who seems rather careless as He speaks, that does not clarify His audience as He did in Isa 44, and uses confounded singular and plural pronouns when this is totally unecessary, as myself speaking in the 3rd person.

God read Y'shayahu 41:8-9; 43:10; 44:1-2; 44:21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3. Read all of them. How many more times does the author (who was a human being by the way, not God) need to explain his metaphor? When Y'shayahu refers to "God's servant" he means Yisrael, the entire nation, considered as an individual rather than as a group! Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

CT: Because in the big picture the nation of Israel isn't the only servant around, and one prophesy isn't limited to only one fulfilment. As you say, this is a metaphorical passage. Metaphorical passages lend themselves to symbolic fulfilment in the bigger picture because of the imagery they use. In the picture presented, the passage could fulfil both the history of the people Israel, the crucifixion, events prior to Isaiah (like the Egyptian captivity that is also mentioned in the passages) and perhaps even other events that are yet to come. We could both be wrong, and perhaps someone else could have the best interpretation after we're both dead.. Maybe a Muslim could tell both of us how silly we are, and if this were an atheist forum, we'd both be pooh-poohed out of here.

What really matters is the way this passage speaks to your own heart. Does it add to your faith in Him? Does it make you appreciate what He has done? Do you trust Him more as a result? Does it repair your relationship with the Maker as the passage promises it will? It does when I read it. I hope it heals your relationship as well. G_d is in the business of repairing broken vessels even as Isaiah 53 promises.

Cosmic Traveler wrote:
....you don't present a Messiah that we should follow instead.

Of course not; he has not yet come, duh!

CT: I look forward to the Messiah coming, and it would be re-assuring if you did as well. It seems you would be touting a better Messiah, but I never hear that from the Jewish people. They can only tell us what is wrong with the one that many of us have.

Given their treatment since the 1st century, maybe "Messiah" has become a negative word among Jews. I truly mean no offense, but your people are just trying to survive. There is a Savior coming for Israel. I believe this. I meet Jews that don't believe this. I think they would just rather forget because of the misguided deeds of people using the facade of religion, calling themselves "Christian" and doing terrible things that no-one can justify.

Had I been there, I would have feared for my life as well, as many early Christians lived in the Roman catacombs for centuries to escape persecution. They lived in a graveyard to survive. As I hear it today, more missionaries are dying in the field than ever before. These missionaries weren't burning people at the stake. In Afghanistan, for example, a Korean Presbyterian group was there to provide medical assistance, and the pastor was taken captive and executed by the Talaban.

So I ask, are you and your associates comfortable when you go against these missionaries? Surely you have spoken to missionaries about this. They are risking their lives daily. What if you are wrong? There are 15,000 religions in the world and every one of them thinks they have it right. Test them to the spirit of love. There is no bitterness in love. I say this, not as a judgment, but as a warning for your benefit.

I believe the Spirit of God is Love, and I try to be a good messenger of it. If I can not say something in love, I have no business saying it at all.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

someone please help! Did Classical Rabbis Interpret Isaiah 53 to refer to the Messiah?

someone please help! Did Classical Rabbis Interpret Isaiah 53 to refer to the Messiah?

Jewish Messianic Interpretations of Isaiah 53

Jewish Messianic Interpretations of Isaiah 53

Quick Reply