Isaiah 52-53 ~ Israel or The Messiah?

[Look Up]

I was merely hitting a point I saw. I agree with you that this passage is unique in many ways and that specific tells to either concept are not there. I don't intend to convince anybody as my intentions are to get people to understand that our point of view makes sense. I say that Christianity 's view makes sense once some assumptions are made in the same way ours makes sense when we make our assumptions. As long as we agree that neither side is a bunch of stupid people who can't read, I'm happy to agree to disagree.

I wonder if my western bias does not add to my Christian commitment in focusing hitherto on my disagreements with http://www.thehebrewcafe.com/articles/isaiah_52-54.pdf. There is a flip side. I also believe the article has much to commend it so far as I have been able to digest it. It very largely makes informed and reasoned arguments, is void of speculations based on hypothetical critical models (a happy occurrence in my opinion), is void of certain exegetical fallacies I could name, and takes a believing stance on the prophets and on harmonizing the Tanakh. My exegetical reservations and disagreements with the article within an Isaiah context seem largely based on shades or degrees of plausibility. Of course I lament the "Jesus is not the Messiah" conclusion ... even while I admire the evident faith and skill of the author. I have saved the article to my hard drive.

Other thus-far reflections on your previous question on the Messianic identity (or lack thereof) of the Isaiah 53 "he/my servant" you will find unsatisfying, but may be worth a mention.

First let me begin from an aside. I am struck be the similarity between the article's conclusion from Isaiah 53--the Israelite faithful remnant suffers on behalf of others less worthy--and the NT theme of Jesus' disciples suffering for righteousness sake and for Jesus (cf. Col. 1:24, Matt. 5:10-12). I could argue elsewhere that Luke uses Paul at the end of his Luke-Acts work (where he is imprisoned, on trial, shipwrecked) as representing the suffering of the church in mimicry of the suffering of Jesus (although such suffering differs from Jesus' in that it does not constitute substitutionary atoning sacrifice).

Curiously on this topic, Peter uses Isa. 53 (applied to Jesus) in encouraging his "elect among the diaspora" audience (cf. 1 Pt. 1:1) to faithfulness under unjust suffering (even while affirming Jesus "bore our sins in his own body," 2:24).

One is then reminded of the unjust suffering of the people of G-d, e.g., under Haman, Antiochus IV, the pharaoh of Moses' day, and so on (the author's mention of the Nazi Holocaust does not seem too out of place here despite the chronological gap wrt Isaiah). And here is where I come to David suffering under the "tender mercies" of Saul and the relevant content of various psalms of David. If David suffered for righteousness sake, is the Son of David similar in this respect? Cf. also Paul's use of Ps. 44:22 in Rom. 8:36 or Peter's use of Ps. 16:10 in Acts 2:27 (cf. 13:35).

You will not find the NT answer satisfying (e.g., Ps. 22 use in the Gospels), nor will you find satisfying the NT's view of Jesus' suffering and death being the anti-type to some Mosaic sacrifices "type" (cf. the NT book of Hebrews), but such is another thought that came to me. One is reminded of the consternation of Jesus' disciples at his prediction of pending death on a cross. A suffering Son of David clearly did not play into their view of the Messiah--until after Jesus' resurrection and in subsequent hindsight on the Tanakh.

 

[LoAmmi]

I wonder if my western bias does not add to my Christian commitment in focusing hitherto on my disagreements with http://www.thehebrewcafe.com/articles/isaiah_52-54.pdf. There is a flip side. I also believe the article has much to commend it so far as I have been able to digest it. It very largely makes informed and reasoned arguments, is void of speculations based on hypothetical critical models (a happy occurrence in my opinion), is void of certain exegetical fallacies I could name, and takes a believing stance on the prophets and on harmonizing the Tanakh. My exegetical reservations and disagreements with the article within an Isaiah context seem largely based on shades or degrees of plausibility. Of course I lament the "Jesus is not the Messiah" conclusion ... even while I admire the evident faith and skill of the author. I have saved the article to my hard drive.

I didn't write it, but these are the kinds of arguments you tend to run into when you deal with Jewish debate over these types of things. It's the reason why I bristle when somebody comes along and says the Jews are just stupid/don't read their scriptures. I know they haven't taken an honest look at our material to see we make valid points. Now, you're more than welcome to disagree with them much like I disagree with your points. But unless someone comes along who's making bad points, I won't say they are stupid or lack reading skills.

Other thus-far reflections on your previous question on the Messianic identity (or lack thereof) of the Isaiah 53 "he/my servant" you will find unsatisfying, but may be worth a mention.

First let me begin from an aside. I am struck be the similarity between the article's conclusion from Isaiah 53--the Israelite faithful remnant suffers on behalf of others less worthy--and the NT theme of Jesus' disciples suffering for righteousness sake and for Jesus (cf. Col. 1:24, Matt. 5:10-12). I could argue elsewhere that Luke uses Paul at the end of his Luke-Acts work (where he is imprisoned, on trial, shipwrecked) as representing the suffering of the church in mimicry of the suffering of Jesus (although such suffering differs from Jesus' in that it does not constitute substitutionary atoning sacrifice).

I would say that the idea of the righteous suffering on account of the sins of others is pretty common among the text of the Tanach and the New Testament carries that theme along with it.

Curiously on this topic, Peter uses Isa. 53 (applied to Jesus) in encouraging his "elect among the diaspora" audience (cf. 1 Pt. 1:1) to faithfulness under unjust suffering (even while affirming Jesus "bore our sins in his own body," 2:24).

One is then reminded of the unjust suffering of the people of G-d, e.g., under Haman, Antiochus IV, the pharaoh of Moses' day, and so on (the author's mention of the Nazi Holocaust does not seem too out of place here despite the chronological gap wrt Isaiah). And here is where I come to David suffering under the "tender mercies" of Saul and the relevant content of various psalms of David. If David suffered for righteousness sake, is the Son of David similar in this respect? Cf. also Paul's use of Ps. 44:22 in Rom. 8:36 or Peter's use of Ps. 16:10 in Acts 2:27 (cf. 13:35).

I would say that the Messiah will suffer (just not to death). A huge war is described in the texts of the Prophets where Israel is surrounded on all sides and must fight for its very survival. The Messiah is closely tied to these texts in Jewish thought as this all happens at roughly the same time. How can someone not suffer when you are being attacked on all sides for no good reason? Especially when some of the actions this man takes could be the cause of the war due to people believing him to be an anti-christ? So, yes, I think the use of David in place of the Messiah is not a mistake. As I said though, the idea of a dying/resurrecting deity who has become fully human as well as maintaining that deity is not what I think of when I think of the Messiah. I think, honestly, more of a person like David.

You will not find the NT answer satisfying (e.g., Ps. 22 use in the Gospels), nor will you find satisfying the NT's view of Jesus' suffering and death being the anti-type to some Mosaic sacrifices "type" (cf. the NT book of Hebrews), but such is another thought that came to me. One is reminded of the consternation of Jesus' disciples at his prediction of pending death on a cross. A suffering Son of David clearly did not play into their view of the Messiah--until after Jesus' resurrection and in subsequent hindsight on the Tanakh.

One thing I completely agree on. Christians will tell me that Jews changed their understanding of Isaiah 53 to hide Jesus, but I always ask why his own followers didn't know he was supposed to die if that's the case.

 

[Look Up]

I didn't write it, but these are the kinds of arguments you tend to run into when you deal with Jewish debate over these types of things. It's the reason why I bristle when somebody comes along and says the Jews are just stupid/don't read their scriptures. I know they haven't taken an honest look at our material to see we make valid points. Now, you're more than welcome to disagree with them much like I disagree with your points. But unless someone comes along who's making bad points, I won't say they are stupid or lack reading skills.

If you know of any outstanding post-1947/DSS Jewish exegetical commentaries on Isaiah (I believe there are some, but don't know how good), I'd be interested in hearing author names and recommendations. Protestant commentaries of recent decades on the book seem at best good (John Oswalt, for which I do not have 40-66), but on the whole (and for the limited things I know), I find the book of Isaiah strangely under-served in proportion to the book's (shall we say) canonical stature and what some other biblical books have on them--though in the Isaiah case perhaps the problem is partly disagreements over structure and hence meaning. My preference, after the manner of Umberto Cassuto on the Pentateuch, is for commentaries on the existing book form rather than ones heavily based, to use Isaiah as an example, on isolating source-critical theories about "author trito-Isaiah" or the like. Isaiah as a whole is just too tied together thematically and verbally even crossing the major chs. 39-40 "barrier," and no extant mss evidence suggests otherwise to my knowledge. Or perhaps you think Rashi is still creme-de-la-creme here--if you have an opinion of any substance on the matter? (Apologies for the brief digression, but surely there is some relevance.)

 

[ewq1938]

I do hope you find Peace of mind somewhere along the line,

I assume that avoidance post means you are unable to defend your position nor counter the obvious correctness presented in that post.

 

[ewq1938]

You see what you see. A desire to insert Jesus into the text is only that, desire. Yet, the careful reading of the text excludes him. Let me help you, here. Grave with the wicked, death with the rich- New Testament says the exact opposite. Laid in the grave of a rich man, died with two thieves.

It works the other way around as well. When he died, there were rich people around. And he was buried in the same area as the thieves.

He will justify by his knowledge. Paul said by blood. And as I said before, no children and a short life. Only one of those needs to be right to invalidate the whole claim.

Nice try but neither invalidate anything. Christ knew (had knowledge) that he was the Messiah and like chp 53 states, that he would die and bare the sins of his people, Israel. "he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter" is a reference the blood he shed proving the death would be bloody. Blood was a part of the sin atonement sacrifice.

 

[ewq1938]

One thing I completely agree on. Christians will tell me that Jews changed their understanding of Isaiah 53 to hide Jesus, but I always ask why his own followers didn't know he was supposed to die if that's the case.

Nothing states they didn't know he was to die. They were told many times. I think they didn't understand the resurrection part.

Mar 9:31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.
Mar 9:32 But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.

Here they understand he will die and are very sad:

Mat 17:22 And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men:
Mat 17:23 And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry.

 

[Robban]

I assume that avoidance post means you are unable to defend your position nor counter the obvious correctness presented in that post.

What was there to say at three in the morning?

These sort of threads usually go nowhere fast.

Maybe in you think you have struck gold in and with Isaiah 53.

Here is a partial list according to Maimonides, from the Prophets, concerning Moshiach.
Isaiah 11,12,14,24-27,40,41,49,51-54,60,61-63,66;
Jeremiah 20,31,33;
Ezekiel 34,36-39,43-47;
Hosea 2;
Joel 2-3;
Amos 9;
Obadiah;
Micah 4,5,7;
Nahum 2;
Zephaniah 3;
Zechariah 1,2,8,9,12,14;
Malachi 3.
Also from Writings,
some of them,
Psalms 2,45-48,98-99,117,126;
Daniel 7-8,11-12.
Also from the five books of Moses,
Numbers 24:15-18;
Deuteronomy 30:1-5
there are more but I cannot be bothered to search.

One of the basic tenets of the Jewish faith is belief in the coming of the Moshiach (Messiah)

I don't usually bother with these kind of threads, but then I don't have a problem either.

 

[danny ski]

It works the other way around as well. When he died, there were rich people around. And he was buried in the same area as the thieves.




Nice try but neither invalidate anything. Christ knew (had knowledge) that he was the Messiah and like chp 53 states, that he would die and bare the sins of his people, Israel. "he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter" is a reference the blood he shed proving the death would be bloody. Blood was a part of the sin atonement sacrifice.

You're contradicting the New Testament's description of burial and death. Good bye.

 

[ewq1938]

You're contradicting the New Testament's description of burial and death. Good bye.

Nope, it can merely be viewed in various ways. He died with the rich and the wicked and was buried with the rich and wicked as well. Both are true.

 

[ewq1938]

What was there to say at three in the morning?

These sort of threads usually go nowhere fast.

Maybe in you think you have struck gold in and with Isaiah 53.

Here is a partial list according to Maimonides, from the Prophets, concerning Moshiach.

Awesome but that doesn't deal with the topic of the thread which is Isaiah 52-32 especially who dies to bare the sins of "my people".

 

[Robban]

Awesome but that doesn't deal with the topic of the thread which is Isaiah 52-32 especially who dies to bare the sins of "my people".

I'm not really sure just what you are refering to

 

[Robban]

ewq
,If you look at it in another light,

When the Messiah will be revealed and the ultimate redemption,
when Israel will be restored to Peace and prosperity,

First then when penny drops for the nations,
they will stand in awe, and say, "Who would have believed it"

 

[ewq1938]

I'm not really sure just what you are refering to

Which part?

 

[ewq1938]

ewq
,If you look at it in another light,

When the Messiah will be revealed and the ultimate redemption,
when Israel will be restored to Peace and prosperity,

He has already been revealed and and the ultimate redemption is already in place for all who accept Him as Messiah.

 

[LoAmmi]

Awesome but that doesn't deal with the topic of the thread which is Isaiah 52-32 especially who dies to bare the sins of "my people".

Did you read the linked article in the starting post?

 

[Robban]

He has already been revealed and and the ultimate redemption is already in place for all who accept Him as Messiah.

From the Writings of the Prophets a war will precede the arrival of the Messiah.
(Ezekiel 38-39 and Zechariah 12-14)

Several Torah scholars have suggested that the two World wars may have been the
wars of Gog and Magog,

so in that light the Messiah has not been revealed yet,
plus, there is war all around us,

Hardly Peace and prosperity when Israel will be restored to former glory
and King Moshiach is on the throne in Jerusalem.

 

[ewq1938]

From the Writings of the Prophets a war will precede the arrival of the Messiah.
(Ezekiel 38-39 and Zechariah 12-14)

There's a war after he returns, and a tribulation period before he returns.

 

[ewq1938]

Did you read the linked article in the starting post?

I read the first post etc, but did not click on any links. There are many issues in trying to make Israel the "he" in Chp 53 but I have already presented those issues.

 

[LoAmmi]

I read the first post etc, but did not click on any links. There are many issues in trying to make Israel the "he" in Chp 53 but I have already presented those issues.

Well, since there are no chapters or verses in the original text, one must see how 53 follow 52. I don't see any indication that the speaker of the beginning is supposed to be Israel. Could you show me where that clearly is?

You probably should read the article since it is the start of this discussion.

 

[Robban]

There's a war after he returns, and a tribulation period before he returns.

Well ewq,
there are many opinions on many things,
unfortunately time flies, it is already 03:45,

So will leave you to the next Watch.