Psalm 22:17, Hebrew Text, "Like A Lion". Who's Lion?

[rakovsky]

We can guess that Isaiah 52-53 interpreted the temple sacrifice as Messianic and predictive of the world's Redemption, but we don't know that Moses understood the Temple sacrifices that way himself

who ,except christian evangelists, believe that isaiah 52-53's author thought that yhwh was going to be seen as levitical animal sacrifice

Hello, Terminator!
I highly recommend for you the writings of Daniel Boyarin on the topic of Isaiah 53 that I mentioned a few messages ago in this thread.
(viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1978&start=40#p62173)

and asham definitely means a sacrifice of a god for guilt ?

I don't see the word "Asham" referring to the sacrifice of a god in particular, but rather to the idea of sacrifice in general. In Isaiah 53, the being that undergoes the sacrifice is the Servant, who the passage says is brought like an animal and is "cut off from the land of the living".

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblic ... aiah_5310/
וַאשם can mean guilt or can refer to a guilt offering. It does not refer to making an offering of a person

The underlined part is just someone's viewpoint on Redit about what the sacrifice in the verse refers to.
After the Binding of Isaac in the Torah, Judaism's rules banned human sacrifice, and this means that they did not demand that guilt offerings be made of people.

However, in Isaiah 53, the Servant is killed and is said in the passage to serve as a guilt offering. The only specific being who is said to suffer in the whole chapter is the Servant. So that is who undergoes the guilt offering.

very importantly does not have a connector between אשם and נפשו.[/b]

Please explain.

[theterminator]

I don't see the word "Asham" referring to the sacrifice of a god in particular, but rather to the idea of sacrifice in general. In Isaiah 53, the being that undergoes the sacrifice is the Servant, who the passage says is brought like an animal and is "cut off from the land of the living".

does "cut off from the land of the living " mean slain ?
does "brought like an animal" mean that the person was literally brought for slaying or was easily persecuted?

7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he would not open his mouth; like a lamb to the slaughter he would be brought, and like a ewe that is mute before her shearers, and he would not open his mouth.

i'm assuming he was easily oppressed and the "like a lamb...." is symbolic for this.

The underlined part is just someone's viewpoint on Redit about what the sacrifice in the verse refers to.
After the Binding of Isaac in the Torah, Judaism's rules banned human sacrifice, and this means that they did not demand that guilt offerings be made of people.

However, in Isaiah 53, the Servant is killed and is said in the passage to serve as a guilt offering. The only specific being who is said to suffer in the whole chapter is the Servant. So that is who undergoes the guilt offering.

i don't understand what you said. do you mean that isaiah 53 is viewing the servant/yhwh in the form of human as sacrificed guilt offering ? people say that the person is simply acknowledging his guilt , not that he is an offering .

very importantly does not have a connector between אשם and נפשו.[/b]

Please explain.

i don't speak hebrew .


edit to add


[–]SF2K01Scholar of Late Antique Judaism 3 points 12 days ago
These aren't typical descriptors which are used to say that someone died, but are quite metaphorical and poetic.
Being cut off from the land of the living could be speaking of exile which plays into the theme of being removed from judgement.
Alternatively, you could connect being cut off from the land of the living with the people's plague (which you could say "kills" the land).
He was assigned a grave with the wicked
Better rendition: He gave his grave to the wicked and his deaths to the wealthy.

[rakovsky]

I don't see the word "Asham" referring to the sacrifice of a god in particular, but rather to the idea of sacrifice in general. In Isaiah 53, the being that undergoes the sacrifice is the Servant, who the passage says is brought like an animal and is "cut off from the land of the living".

does "cut off from the land of the living " mean slain ?

Yes. Jeremiah uses the phrase that way.

does "brought like an animal" mean that the person was literally brought for slaying or was easily persecuted?

In the Temple sacrifices, the animals were brought for slaying, not just mistreatment.

i don't understand what you said. do you mean that isaiah 53 is viewing the servant/yhwh in the form of human as sacrificed guilt offering ?

It means that the Servant would go through a sacrifice that atoned for the people's guilt.
In the Torah, Moses asked to suffer as an atonement for the people's guilt, but God denied Moses' request.
So in Isaiah 53, God subjects the Servant to the experience that he did not subject Moses to.

people say that the person is simply acknowledging his guilt , not that he is an offering .

They are talking about verse 10: וַיהוָה חָפֵץ דַּכְּאוֹ, הֶחֱלִי--אִם-תָּשִׂים אָשָׁם נַפְשׁוֹ, יִרְאֶה זֶרַע יַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים; וְחֵפֶץ יְהוָה, בְּיָדוֹ יִצְלָח.

The 1917 JPS Memre translation says:
Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed,

The KJV says:
Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed,

It does not say "when he acknowledges his own guilt". After all, the passage says that he was suffering for others not for his own sins. Verse 9 says no lawless violence or lies were found in him. So Isaiah 53 definitely cannot about the "honest" "law-abiding" Servant acknowledging his own guilt.

You can see a word for word breakdown on verse 10 here: http://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/53-10.htm

[–]SF2K01Scholar of Late Antique Judaism 3 points 12 days ago
These aren't typical descriptors which are used to say that someone died, but are quite metaphorical and poetic.

Being cut off from the land of the living could be speaking of exile which plays into the theme of being removed from judgement.

Check out Jeremiah 11. Being led to slaughter and cut off from the land of the living are ]typical descriptors which are used to say that someone died. Isaiah was using Jeremiah's language here. Jeremiah's enemies wanted to kill Jeremiah, who said:

18 Moreover, the LORD made it known to me and I knew it; Then You showed me their deeds.

19 But I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter; And I did not know that they had devised plots against me, saying, "Let us destroy the tree with its fruit, And let us cut him off from the land of the living, That his name be remembered no more."

So when Isaiah says "cut off fromt he land of the living" and "led to the slaughter", he is definitely using language about killing.

In the centuries after Christianity came around, the topic of the suffering Messiah became a kind of debating point. Many rabbis have preferred to avoid that kind of understanding of the verses, IMO because they see it as a kind of "win" for Christianity.

Besides Talmudic scholar Daniel Boyarin, the Lubavitch rabbis have decided that Isaiah 53 is about a suffering Messiah. They make that claim because the Lubavitchers see the Rebbe Rabbi Schneerson as the Messiah, and he died in the 20th century.

[theterminator]

i don't understand why are you viewing the text in light of temple sacrifices. you wouldn't view jeremiah 11: 19 in light of temple sacrifices so i don't understand why you said , " the animals were brought for slaying"

i don't see where it says that he was suffering for others.

3Despised 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.

But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities

this guy is suffering because of what people are doing to him.

"because he committed no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth."

if he is being persecuted and is accustomed to illness , i don't think he would have any chance to defend or retaliate.
the people who are punishing the servant could be making up lies against him and his response was not deceitful. none of this means the person is sinless.
elizabeth and zackarias were seen as righteous in gods eyes.
job was punished for no reason
job 2:3

It means that the Servant would go through a sacrifice that atoned for the people's guilt.
In the Torah, Moses asked to suffer as an atonement for the people's guilt, but God denied Moses' request.
So in Isaiah 53, God subjects the Servant to the experience that he did not subject Moses to

.

which verse says moses asked to suffer as an atonement for people's guilt? moses as an asham sacrifice?

Check out Jeremiah 11. Being led to slaughter and cut off from the land of the living are ]typical descriptors which are used to say that someone died. Isaiah was using Jeremiah's language here. Jeremiah's enemies wanted to kill Jeremiah, who said:

he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand

the guy will see his kids .so i guess "cut off" does not have to mean death.


edit to add: are all ashams in leviticus bloody?

[rakovsky]

i don't understand why are you viewing the text in light of temple sacrifices. you wouldn't view jeremiah 11: 19 in light of temple sacrifices so i don't understand why you said , " the animals were brought for slaying"

Jeremiah says "like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter". Lamb slaughters can be part of sacrifice, so if Jeremiah had added more sacrificial aspects like Isaiah 53 did, then sure, I would see jeremiah 11 in light of temple sacrifices. Verse 10 in Isaiah 53 where it talks about the Servant being a guilt offering is one such example. The end of Isaiah 52 where the Servant is sprinkled on many nations is another example, since sprinkling was used with the animal's blood in the sacrifices.

i don't see where it says that he was suffering for others.

3Despised 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.

But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities

this guy is suffering because of what people are doing to him.

It's that, combined with "the chastisement of our peace was upon him".

"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."

Bruised for our iniquities means suffering for others.

"because he committed no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth."

if he is being persecuted and is accustomed to illness , i don't think he would have any chance to defend or retaliate.
the people who are punishing the servant could be making up lies against him and his response was not deceitful. none of this means the person is sinless.

When it says "He had done no violence/lawlessness", it means more than just that he did no violence in response.
People were making lies against him and accusations, but the accusations themselves are false.
It says "From judgment He was led."
The whole trial and judgment was of false accusations. He was lied against when in fact he did not do lawlessness.
In a trial, someone is accused of wrongdoing. In this case, Isaiah 53 is saying that the Servant was innocent of the accusations, because he had not done violence or lied.

The other thing is that it compares him to a lamb and says he underwent a guilt offering. The lambs in the guilt offering rituals were considered sinless and were required to be without blemish.

elizabeth and zackarias were seen as righteous in gods eyes.
job was punished for no reason
job 2:3

They were not killed or performed atonement on behalf of others.

which verse says moses asked to suffer as an atonement for people's guilt? moses as an asham sacrifice?

Exodus 32:30
biblehub.com/exodus/32-30.htm
30 The next day Moses said to the people, "You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin."
31Then Moses returned to the LORD, and said, "Alas, this people has committed a great sin, and they have made a god of gold for themselves.
32"But now, if You will, forgive their sin-- and if not, please blot me out from Your book which You have written!"…

he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand

the guy will see his kids .so i guess "cut off" does not have to mean death.

The guy will see his kids because because he was resurrected.

edit to add: are all ashams in leviticus bloody?

I think so.
The ones where a lamb is "led to slaughter" and "cut off from the land of the living" and "poured out unto death" certainly are.

I invite you to see my website rakovskii.livejournal.com where I talk about isaiah 53 in detail.

[rakovsky]

Terminator,

For maybe a year I studied this chapter closely, working on the initial assumption that it was the way that the modern rabbis said it is. After going through all the arguments, then against my own expectations I came to the conclusion that in fact the passage was talking about the Messiah's death and resurrection.

I welcome you to come to my website where I talk about this.

[John2]

Rakovsky wrote:

One way that the Tanakh writers might address this weakness is by claiming that their good prophets were borne out by predictions fulfilled in the prophets' lifetimes. So if Jeremiah or Isaiah said that the Assyrians or Babylonians would conquer them and then rule them for 70 years, then after the predicted Assyrian or Babylonian victory, the audience will think that Jeremiah or Isaiah was a truly inspired prophet. And then they would start counting down the 70 years, waiting for the second prophecy to be filled.

So you are saying that if a prophet got one prediction right then he would get a pass regarding prophecies about the distant future? I've considered that angle too, but I would need to see a specific example of this.

Regarding Jeremiah, my understanding is that no one knows when he died. Perhaps it's unlikely, but It's not impossible that he lived to see the return from captivity (from Egypt, in his case) depending on when the 70 years began (some argue as early as c. 610 BCE) or if the 70 years were literal or symbolic. If he was twenty years old when his ministry began c. 626 BCE he would have been around a hundred years old c. 540 BCE (one of the proposed end dates).

Regarding the exile and return of the Jews who fled to Egypt, Jer. 44:28 speaks of a surviving remnant returning to Judah:

"Those who escape the sword and return to the land of Judah from Egypt will be very few. Then the whole remnant of Judah who came to live in Egypt will know whose word will stand—mine or theirs."

And Jesus' prophecy concerning the End Time in Mk. 13:30 is in keeping with Dt. 18:

"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

You wrote:

And I think that the Christian community did interpret these "signs" correctly, in seeing them as pointing to the concept of a Messianic redeemer who would get killed and resurrect. The "signs" exist throughout the Old Testament.

As Paul puts it, "This, then, is how you ought to regard us: as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed" (1 Cor. 4:1), and that his gospel was "in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith" (Rom. 16:25-26).

But the Dead Sea Scrolls interpret many of these same "signs" somewhat differently (offhand I would say there are at least a dozen or so). As 1QpHab col. 7 puts it:

"God told Habakkuk to write down that which would happen to the final generation, but He did not make known to him when time would come to an end. And as for that which He said, That he who reads may read it speedily, interpreted this concerns the Teacher of Righteousness, to whom God made known all the mysteries of the words of His servants the Prophets."

Two examples that illustrate this are Is. 40:3 and Hab. 2:4. Mk. 1:3-4 interprets Is. 40:3 as a reference to John the Baptist. But 1QS col. 8 interprets it to mean the study of the Torah:

"...they shall separate from the habitation of ungodly men and shall go into the wilderness to prepare the way of Him; as it is written, Prepare in the wilderness the way of... make straight in the desert a path, for our God (Isa. XL, 3). This (path) is the study of the Law which He commanded by the hand of Moses, that they may do according to all that has been revealed from age to age, and as the Prophets have revealed by His Holy Spirit."

And Paul and Hebrews interpret Hab. 2:4 as referring to Paul's Torah-free and pro-gentile gospel (Rom. 1:17, Gal. 3:11, Heb. 10:38), and 1 QpHab col. 8 interprets it as applying only to Torah keeping Jews:

"Interpreted, this concerns all those who observe the Law in the House of Judah, whom God will deliver from the House of judgement because of their suffering and because of their faith in the Teacher of Righteousness."

So who had the "correct" interpretation of these kinds of "mysteries," Pauline Christians or the DSS sect? I think the DSS interpretations at least fit the context of these verses better.

[theterminator]

Code: Select all

They were not killed or performed atonement on behalf of others.
[/quote]

that was not the point . the point was that people in the ot have been punished for doing nothing and they were innocent .in the nt,  elizabeth and zak were seen as righteous in gods eyes. the point was about innocence. according to christians , even if in gods eyes one is righteous one is still a sinner ergo suffering servant is a sinner. 

my understanding of the words  "...like a lamb" seems to me that 
 the people were easily  able to control and take over the person. symbolical for a lamb which is easily taken control of . has nothing to do with temple sacrifices.   

moses is not an asham guilt offering . no where does moses want to be a [b][u]SACRIFICE[/u][/b] for peoples sins. no where does one derive this understanding from the text.

[quote]
It's that, combined with "the chastisement of our peace was upon him".

"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."

Bruised for our iniquities means suffering for others.
[/quote]

quote :
5But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed.	


why does yours have "for" and chabad torah have "because of..." 
who is right? 
if it means "because of " which i assume it does, then this is not a christian willing "sacrifice"

[youtube]0qUKrmwnP40[/youtube]

even the jews who debate messianic jews say asham is not an offering of human.

[rakovsky]

They were not killed or performed atonement on behalf of others.

that was not the point . the point was that people in the ot have been punished for doing nothing and they were innocent .in the nt, elizabeth and zak were seen as righteous in gods eyes. the point was about innocence. according to christians , even if in gods eyes one is righteous one is still a sinner ergo suffering servant is a sinner.

What you said in the passage above sounds right. How does this show whether Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah?
Elizabeth and Zak were seen as righteous, but it never says that they "did not commit lawlessness", were "found with no lies", and were unblemished like a lamb.
There are enough things to distinguish the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 from other righteous Israelites, like the fact that they did not atone for their nation.

my understanding of the words "...like a lamb" seems to me that
the people were easily able to control and take over the person. symbolical for a lamb which is easily taken control of . has nothing to do with temple sacrifices.

Like I said, taken by itself it might not have to do with Temple sacrifices, except that "like the lamb to slaughter" means killing the Lamb is used in the sacrifice, and in the chapters 52-53 there are other references to temple sacrifice like the sprinkling by the Servant of the nations, bringing to mind the sprinkling of the animal's blood on the covenant, and the reference to "guilt offering".

By itself, it isn't clear if it has to do with temple sacrifice or not. The connection comes out when it's in context of the images in the rest of the chapter.

moses is not an asham guilt offering . no where does moses want to be a SACRIFICE for peoples sins. no where does one derive this understanding from the text.

When he asks to be an "atonement" for his people's sins by being blotted out, and in return the people are forgiven, then this proposal by Moses reflects the OT concept of guilt offering or sacrifice, where one being sufferings on another's behalf, bearing the burden of their sin.

It's that, combined with "the chastisement of our peace was upon him".

"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."

Bruised for our iniquities means suffering for others.

5But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed.


why does yours have "for" and chabad torah have "because of..."
who is right?
if it means "because of " which i assume it does,

1. Never "assume" things when they are in dispute.
Do you know what they say what happens when you "assume"?

2. The word in question (me/mi) can mean "for" or "because of."

3. When it explains "with his wound we were healed", it means that the wound occurs on their behalf, as the wound itself heals them. If a person receives or does something that helps another, it means he/she does so on their behalf. If someone does something on their behalf, he does it "for" them.

Actually, either translation "because of" and "for" does not negate the idea that is. 53 is about the Messiah's atonement.
If the nation sins and chooses to sacrifice an animal to cleanse their sins, then effectively the animal suffers because of their sins - if the people had remained sinless, the animal would not have suffered on their behalf.

In Isaiah 53, the Servant did not commit lawlessness or lie, but instead he is wounded because of their sins and his suffering is healing for them. De facto he is suffering on their behalf, for the sins of the nation, and he is healing the nation by that suffering. It reflects a classic Torah concept and understanding of how atonement and "guilt offering" work, which is why the chapter says he undergoes a guilt offering.

[MrMacSon]

In the centuries after Christianity came around, the topic of the suffering Messiah became a kind of debating point. Many rabbis have preferred to avoid that kind of understanding of the [relevant OT] verses, IMO because they see it as a kind of "win" for Christianity.

How much the topic of the suffering messiah was debated in the first few centuries is an interesting point, as are (i) the circumstances in which such debates would have been held, and (ii) whether some of the debates might have not been influenced by the emergence of Christianity.

At what point did Christianity overwhelm Judaism or Judaic theology?