suffering servant

[beowulf]

God belongs to the whole of Humanity .

No, no the other way! But in any case, Christians are remarkably bad at interpreting the Hebrew bible.

I found this on Chaim.org

A reformed ministry to the Jewish people

Officially Recognized by the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America)

http://www.chaim.org/isaiah53.htm

This amazing passage from the Hebrew Prophets was written over 700 years before the birth of Jesus.

An unfortunate way to start, the writer immediately loses any credibility (at least in my view).

They link to a page that goes into Rabbinic opinion - http://www.chaim.org/rabbis.htm

but this gives some cherry-picked quotes that are moreover not very clear -

Isaiah_53 is maybe a better discussion of Jewish views. The wiki gives http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/isaiah_53/

This is kind of like Arnoldo and the two asses in Zecharia, even if the passage is Messianic, with its implication that the Messiah must suffer (like a human scapegoat) it's not like Yoshke or his publicists wouldn't have known about this prophecy.

Hello semiopen and welcome

Yes, it is true that Christians are bad at interpreting the Hebrew Bible, but that is only important to others. Christianity and Judaism are different religions with a common background –as it is Islam- and this creates special problems, but what Judaism says is of no importance and vice versa.

God belongs to the whole of Humanity, is a meaningless statement and it is even an idiotic one when considered in isolation. I deliberately chose this expression as a reply to an objection and when it is thus considered it becomes an affirmation of autonomy.

The objection was: certain revealed truth by the one God of a particular group of people cannot be modified by anyone not belonging to that group.

Assertion: God belongs to the whole of Humanity and his revealed truth is the gift of God to His creation and can be interpreted freely by another group as a different religion.
The whole of humanity are the chosen people created in its image: imago dei

[theterminator]

Kind of, but not categorically. Isaiah 53:9 says, "he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth."

Bear in mind, though, that the Old Testament (and Judaism in general) has no concept of original sin in the first place, and sees lots of people as righteous. Also bear in mind that the servant is Israel as a whole, not an individual person.

hello ken

if we look at these verses , we read,

Yet you have rejected us and abased us, and have not gone out with our armies. You made us turn back from the foe, and our enemies have gotten spoil. You have made us like sheep for slaughter, and have scattered us among the nations. You have sold your people for a trifle, demanding no high price for them. You have made us the taunt of our neighbors, the derision and scorn of those around us. You have made us a byword among the nations, a laughingstock among the peoples. All day long my disgrace is before me, and shame has covered my face at the words of the taunters and revilers, at the sight of the enemy and the avenger. All this has come upon us, yet we have not forgotten you, or been false to your covenant. Our heart has not turned back, nor have our steps departed from your way, yet you have broken us in the haunt of jackals, and covered us with deep darkness. If we had forgotten the name of our God, or spread out our hands to a strange god, would not God discover this? For he knows the secrets of the heart. Because of you we are being killed all day long, and accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Rouse yourself! Why do you sleep, O Lord? Awake, do not cast us off forever! Why do you hide your face? Why do you forget our affliction and oppression? For we sink down to the dust; our bodies cling to the ground. Rise up, come to our help. Redeem us for the sake of your steadfast love. (Ps 44:9-26)

All this has come upon us, yet we have not forgotten you, or been false to your covenant. Our heart has not turned back, nor have our steps departed from your way. . . . If we had forgotten the name of our God, or spread out our hands to a strange god, would not God discover this? For he knows the secrets of the heart. (Ps 44:17-18, 20-21).

By a perversion of justice he was taken away. Who could have imagined his future? . . . They made his grave with the wicked and his tomb with the rich, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth . . . the righteous one, my servant. (Isa 53:8a, 9, 11b)


as you said, the ot sees lots of people as righteous , but this does not mean that the ss /righteous people were free of sin.

[semiopen2]

I guess the Yoshke lovers are slightly less annoying than professor mouse. Still, why not set up a new forum called "Creepy Christian OT Interpretations" or something.

Isaiah is sort of a special case.

Thus said the LORD to Cyrus, His anointed one -- Whose right hand He has grasped, Treading down nations before him, Ungirding the loins of kings, Opening doors before him And letting no gate stay shut: (Isa 45:1 TNK)

Actually the traditional Jewish interpretation of this verse is also pretty lame. Isaiah made a super prophecy of the name of Cyrus in the seventh or eighth century BCE... if only he would have mentioned when to sell Apple.

That's how the Presbyterian supported bozo in Chaim.org got the 700 years.

If somebody is going to accept that shit, they should at least be smart enough to shut up about it. How can one possibly believe anything else they say?

This is Deutero-Isaiah which commonly is said to go from Isaiah 40-55 which includes Isaiah 52-53.

If somebody really wanted to analyze this, why not look at the whole thing, otherwise it's just propaganda.

Personally I have no difficulty with a suffering messiah, it's stupid but not much more stupid than having a messiah to begin with. But why not keep the fucking goat. Anyway, Yoshke made a career from it.

It's just hard to believe that Deutero-Isaiah meant the thing to be read that way.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Don't forget that Deutero-Isaiah specifically calls Cyrus a "Messiah," (Christos in the LXX), so it's doubtful he had any conception of a future liberating Messiah at all. That's what Cyrus was supposed to have been, and that specific title had no unique significance. We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls and other literature that the idea of of singular Messiah was not well established at all even in the 1st Century. Importing Messianism into Isaiah - be it Proto, Deutero or Trito, is anachronistic to their eras of composition.

The specific idea of suffering redeemer of sins is non-existent in the Hebrew Bible.

[Mental flatliner]

hello people

in the verses which talk about the suffering servant , is there any indication that the ss is free from sin?

Yes, I believed that this is implied in Isaiah 1-2 as well as 65-66. Incidentally, Jesus is quoting the last verse in Isaiah whenever he discussed "the worm that never died and the fire that was never quenched".

[theterminator]

the suffering servant in isaiah, according to the jews, is a sinner

Objection #2: Israel is not innocent and the servant is righteous / innocent.

This is the #1 problem that Christians have with the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53. They claim that the servant in Isaiah 53 is innocent and so cannot be Israel because we all agree that Israel was in exile due to her sins. This objection has two parts to it, so let me address each one.

Israel is not innocent: Here they bring many verses like Isaiah 1 among many others. We have, of course, agreed that Israel was not sinless. However I pointed out in part two on the verse 53:10, the use of the Asham indicates that the servant was suffering in atonement for his OWN SINS, and not for others. Obviously the servant was a sinner. Likewise when discussing the Asham, I pointed out that this does not show that the person was sinless or perfect, as that was not a requirement of the animal itself.

The Servant had to be righteous: This is backed up by the words of Isaiah 53:4-6 indicating that the suffering was for the sins of others. But this does not change the facts that 4-6 are the words of the nations, and the view the Christians take on these verses is one that is false. As I showed in article three it is the nations, taking this view, who do not understand God’s purpose in allowing the servant to suffer, as I explained in article two.

Sometimes verse 53:9 is mentioned but that refers to the servant being innocent of the suffering caused by the nations. Israel was to be in exile, but the persecution of the nations was not part of it, as I pointed out in the beginning of the third article.

http://judaismsanswer.com/Isaiah%2053%2 ... ctions.htm

it is not the murder of your god's CREATED flesh which atones but knowledge of god which atones.

My Bible says it was his “KNOWLEDGE” that accounted many as justified”. 53:11. Where is “death”? He poured out his “soul” to death (53:12) doesn’t mean he died.


Matthew 26:38 says, “Then he said unto them, ‘my SOUL is very sorrowful, EVEN TO DEATH; remain here, and watch with me.” This is TAKEN from Isaiah 53:12.

I said 53:11 said it was KNOWLEDGE that made “many to be accounted righteous”, not his death.

He was made to suffer by the Lord, but THERE IS NO CONNECTION between that and redemption. It was KNOWLEDGE (‘gnosis’ or Word) that saved, not atoning sacrifice.

53:10 doesn’t say anything about being “satisfied with his death”. The Hebrew says, right after, that he makes his “soul” an offering for sin.

You’re wrong on all four of these, and Isaiah 52 also. Verse 53:8 says his generation considered him cut off and stricken for the transgressions of “my” people. Nothing about atonement thereby. 9 says he died. So what? 10 says he made hIMSELF — his SOUL — an offering. 11 says his KNOWLEDGE saved, and 12 says he “YET” bore the sins of many, AFTER it says he poured out his soul to death.


But Isaiah 53:11 DOES clearly say that KNOWLEDGE saves (justifies, atones, same thing).

It says his SOUL is the offering, not the death of it,

[rakovsky]

Right. And the book of Isaiah was written by only one of those religions before the other religion ever existed. The authors of Isaiah never heard of Jesus and Deutero-Isaiah had no Messiah in mind when he wrote the Suffering Servant poem. He was talking about Israel. He says so explicitly more than once. 'You aare my servant, Israel." No Messiah is ever mentioned.

If you follow the rest of Isaiah 44 and 49, the Servant appears as a cryptic reference to Messiah because it says it is the Servant's job to bring the tribes of Jacob to him, God. IOW, grammatically, the Servant's identity changes and can't be the tribes of Jacob.

[rakovsky]

Don't forget that Deutero-Isaiah specifically calls Cyrus a "Messiah," (Christos in the LXX), so it's doubtful he had any conception of a future liberating Messiah at all. That's what Cyrus was supposed to have been, and that specific title had no unique significance. We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls and other literature that the idea of of singular Messiah was not well established at all even in the 1st Century. Importing Messianism into Isaiah - be it Proto, Deutero or Trito, is anachronistic to their eras of composition.

Don't you think Isaiah 11 sees the root of David's father Jesse as messianic?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

If you follow the rest of Isaiah 44 and 49, the Servant appears as a cryptic reference to Messiah because it says it is the Servant's job to bring the tribes of Jacob to him

This refers to Diaspora Jews. Jews that had not returned to Judah after the exile. The servant represents those Jews who were loyal as opposed to those who were still scattered.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Don't forget that Deutero-Isaiah specifically calls Cyrus a "Messiah," (Christos in the LXX), so it's doubtful he had any conception of a future liberating Messiah at all. That's what Cyrus was supposed to have been, and that specific title had no unique significance. We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls and other literature that the idea of of singular Messiah was not well established at all even in the 1st Century. Importing Messianism into Isaiah - be it Proto, Deutero or Trito, is anachronistic to their eras of composition.

Don't you think Isaiah 11 sees the root of David's father Jesse as messianic?

In the sense that it refers to the Davidic monarchy, but not in the sense of a singular, specially anointed savior figure. I see it as being about the Davidic throne as a divinely appointed office, not as a specific individual.